| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > An Honest Christian |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 12:45 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > An Honest Christian? Posted by: SOIL Dec 3 2003, 08:41 AM A few minutes ago - I started a post in a thread in another discussion with these words: I want to apologize in advance - if I am not welcome to post anything in this thread. Please let me know. After making that post - I got to thinking that perhaps I should just start a thread here (maybe that would be the more 'decent' thing for me to do). In that post I included this link: http://www.rumorsofanotherworld.com/questionsandanswers.cfm Since I have been thinking about not visiting this site anymore - I have been wondering what it is that I have really wanted to say to folks here. I have shared many of the doubts that you guys and gals have articulated. I still am happily a Christian though. The writings of Philip Yancey have helped me - and I suggest them to you. Here are a couple of Q and A's that I enjoyed reading for the first time this morning: Below I have copied from the link above: QUOTE Q: As someone who's struggled with faith, how would you describe your own spiritual journey? Yancey: The early part of my life I experienced the "works" of the Christian faith. Some very rigid, angry, legalistic people presented to me a view of God, which was really that of an abusive parent, more than anything else. So, I went through a period of reacting against everything I was taught and even throwing my faith completely away at one point. Then I came back to faith mainly by encountering a world that was quite different than I had been taught about; a world of beauty and goodness. As I experienced that, I realized, maybe God had been misrepresented to me. So, I went back, warily circling around the faith. Earlier in my writing career I dealt with perennial problems, Where is God When it Hurts?, Disappointment with God, those questions of faith. Then, only fairly recently have I felt free to explore the central issues of faith with books like What's So Amazing About Grace and The Jesus I Never Knew. The new book (Rumors of Another World) is a bit different because I'm really reaching out to people who are where I was, circling warily around faith. Q: After spending time "warily circling around faith," what made you eventually believe? Yancey: I admit that I am at times a reluctant Christian, plagued by doubts and "in recovery" from bad church encounters. I've explored these experiences in other books, and so I determined not to mine my past yet again in this one. I'm fully aware of all the reasons not to believe. So then, why do I believe? In my own days of skepticism, I wanted a dramatic interruption from above. I wanted proof of an unseen reality, one that could somehow be verified. However in my days of faith, such supernatural irruptions seem far less important, because I find the materialistic explanations of life inadequate to explain reality. I've learned to attend to fainter contacts between the seen and unseen worlds. I sense in romantic love something insufficiently explained by mere biochemical attraction. I sense in beauty and in nature marks of a genius creator for which the natural response is worship. I sense in desire, including sexual desire, marks of a holy yearning for connection. I sense in pain and suffering a terrible disruption that omnipotent love surely cannot abide forever. I sense in compassion, generosity, justice, and forgiveness a quality of grace that speaks to me of another world, especially when I visit places, like Russia, marred by their absence. I sense in Jesus a person who lived those qualities so consistently that the world could not tolerate him and had to silence and dispose of him. I could go on and on. In short, I believe not so much because the invisible world impinges on this one but because the visible world hints, in the ways that move me most, at a lack of completion. Dennis Posted by: moorezw Dec 3 2003, 08:54 AM Dennis- From what you've written, and from I've read of Philip Yancey, you both seem to have a very similar interpretation of Christianity. Both of you have admitted to having difficulties with other interpretations (you, with the historical attitude of the Church toward sexuality, him, with the view of God as an abusive parent), and are attempting to 're-interpret' Christianity as something which you can feel good about. Play up the positive, and drown out the negative, if you will. The problem with this is that you either have to draw a very obvious, very ugly line through the Bible, or you have to be ridiculously creative in the way you re-interpret the Bible. Like it or not, most of the criticisms leveled against Christianity are based on Biblical doctrine- scriptures recorded for anyone to read, and (relatively) unchangeable. You've demonstrated clearly that you've been able to make your peace with criticisms against the Bible, and you've found a re-interpretation of Christianity that suits you perfectly. That's all well and good, but for those of us who are unable or unwilling to read the Bible with rose-colored glasses, your interpretation is glaringly inconsistent, not only with the Bible itself, but with the countless other interpretations that Christians all over the world have made for themselves. Posted by: SOIL Dec 3 2003, 09:51 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 3 2003, 08:54 AM) ... That's all well and good, but for those of us who are unable or unwilling to read the Bible with rose-colored glasses, your interpretation is glaringly inconsistent, not only with the Bible itself, but with the countless other interpretations that Christians all over the world have made for themselves. Zach, I think I pretty much understand where you are coming from - and I will probably reply more - after taking time to think over more thoroughly what you have said. I will mention something now though. Recently, I made a comment in my Sunday School class - which I think may fit somewhere regarding some of what you have said. I will try to quote myself from memory here: "The fact that God has used sinful non-perfect people to do His work here on earth (rather than just doing it all Himself) - really 'irks' me." Here's some background about why I would say that kind of thing: If I had my way given the way I have been thinking recently - I would have had Jesus himself write most of the New Testament - certainly He could dictate to a scribe as the apostle Paul apparently did - many of his letters to the early Churches. If Jesus would have been the one God used to write the 'infallible' words or scripture - then I wouldn't have to worry so much about 'divine inspiration' and just how pure those concepts have come down through the ages to me today. Or - hey, better yet - why didn't God send Jesus into today's world - where he could maybe run a website - and teach in ways that people all over the world could read his words verbatim. Well - I share this type of non-traditional evangelical thinking - mainly just to say that I have to deal with what is - rather than what I want it to be. God - for a reason that He alone completely understands - has chosen to use sinful (error-prone) people to communicate the 'gospel' among ourselves. I suspect maybe His reasonings may have something to do with the significance of man -- and/or free will - though I also believe in many aspects of predestination. Parenthetically - It is interesting that once earlier in my life when I prayed to God and asked Him to protect my wife and daughters from violent sexually oriented crimes - (which I had been reading about in the local papers) - God seemed to be saying to me that He would answer my prayers by using me. It was after that experience - that I started "fighting" the pornography which was at that time distributed in our community primarily through convenience stores. Not long after that, (in part due to my talking with various people), something like 64 stores in my area stopped selling all adult-oriented men's magazines. I think when I was praying - I was mainly just thinking that God should do the protection completely by some supernatural power - without the use of some faulty hypocrite like myself. Do I know for certain that God was really involved in that whole time of my life ? I guess it depends at least in some ways on something that Philip Yancey mentioned: QUOTE As I've pondered this, I've realized, the great divide separating belief and unbelief reduces down to one simple question: Is the visible world around us all there is? (Back to the main points though) - One of the reasons I still cling to the BIBLE as Truth - is because it does seem to be so contradictory. For instance, GOD is portrayed BOTH as JUST and MERCIFUL -- and I can see both of those in this real world in which I live. If I could fully understand everything in the Bible - well then probably I wouldn't figure that God had anything to do with it being written. Also - the Bible seems to me to be brutally honest - even about how people's interpretations can be so different and so wrong. Consider for instance how Paul spoke about the traditional jewish interpretations of the role of 'the law'. My mind is very limited. Maybe I will say more when I have thought more. ... just thinking out loud... Dennis Posted by: pitchu Dec 3 2003, 10:11 AM QUOTE (SOIL @ Dec 3 2003, 08:41 AM) ... I find the materialistic explanations of life inadequate to explain reality. I've learned to attend to fainter contacts between the seen and unseen worlds. I sense in romantic love something insufficiently explained by mere biochemical attraction. I sense in beauty and in nature marks of a genius creator for which the natural response is worship. I sense in desire, including sexual desire, marks of a holy yearning for connection. Dennis, Yancey is as free as anyone to set up false alternatives to justify his choice for faith, but surely you see that he's dismissing any perception of life which isn't god-based as "materialistic" -- a word fraught with cold, petty, negative connotations. With one sweep of this word, he's wiping out the possibility that the beauty and connectedness to be found in reality aren't available to non-believers. Atheists don't bask in glorious sunsets? Agnostics don't revel in the fulfillment of sex? -- the heady promise of romantic love? This "sense" he has that's so special to him, that affirms his god-belief, is the "sense" non-believers have that life, reality, is, gloriously, E N O U G H. It's a richly fulfilling cognition. Posted by: nightbreeze Dec 3 2003, 11:11 AM So what? Yancey still believes in hell, right? Posted by: moorezw Dec 3 2003, 11:12 AM Dennis- I'm glad that you realize that the reality of Christianity could have been made a lot easier with only minor effort by the Christian god, assuming he exists. While at heart you realize that the Christian god seems to do things "for a reason that He alone completely understands," I don't think you quite grasp what a theological cop-out that is. It also seems that you would rather deny your humanity than take credit for your own accomplishments. I fail to see the hand of any deity in the story you told about fighting pornography in your neighborhood. What I saw was a lot of things that you did, not a deity. YOU were upset about sex crimes in your neighborhood. YOU prayed about it. YOU decided that God wanted you to fight pornography. YOU and your efforts got the stores to drop the magazines. All too often, people give credit to a deity who really doesn't deserve it. When I was a child, at every meal I gave thanks to God for the food on our table. From my perspective, it made perfect sense: Food would appear seemingly out of nowhere, the refrigerator would always stay full, and certainly someone had to be putting it there. Now that I'm an adult, I know all too well who's responsible for putting the food on the table. I prepare the food, I go shopping and buy the food, I go to work to make money to buy the food, I went to school to get the job to make money to buy the food... etc. I do a hell of a lot of work to get the things that I have, and to accomplish the things I want to accomplish. Now that I'm not a Christian, I don't have to engage in false humility and give credit to someone that didn't lift a single finger to give me what I have. Posted by: Libertus Dec 3 2003, 12:04 PM QUOTE All too often, people give credit to a deity who really doesn't deserve it. When I was a child, at every meal I gave thanks to God for the food on our table. From my perspective, it made perfect sense: Food would appear seemingly out of nowhere, the refrigerator would always stay full, and certainly someone had to be putting it there. Now that I'm an adult, I know all too well who's responsible for putting the food on the table. I prepare the food, I go shopping and buy the food, I go to work to make money to buy the food, I went to school to get the job to make money to buy the food... etc. I do a hell of a lot of work to get the things that I have, and to accomplish the things I want to accomplish. Now that I'm not a Christian, I don't have to engage in false humility and give credit to someone that didn't lift a single finger to give me what I have. Here here! I know that when I was a xtian, I was really bad (or good depending on your perspective) about this. It's amazing how you can so piously give credit to a god for everything you work for. It sounds an awful lot like kids thanking Santa for the presents that their parents work their @$$es off to pay for. It's nice to be able to accept my paycheck without having to thank biblegod for all he did to get it for me. Plus, I don't have to throw 10%+ of it away. Xpen Posted by: Isis Dec 3 2003, 12:06 PM QUOTE Now that I'm an adult, I know all too well who's responsible for putting the food on the table. I prepare the food, I go shopping and buy the food, I go to work to make money to buy the food, I went to school to get the job to make money to buy the food... etc. I do a hell of a lot of work to get the things that I have, and to accomplish the things I want to accomplish. Now that I'm not a Christian, I don't have to engage in false humility and give credit to someone that didn't lift a single finger to give me what I have. I completely agree with that. I cannot stand when people do not give credit where is do. I remember talking with my sister about varies topics and the subject of doctors came up. She said that god help our uncle when he was in the hospital. I then replied what about the doctors why don't you give them the credit. I get but god worked through their hands. I then replied why don't you start seeing a faith-healer instead of a doctor then. I got no reponse on that one. I can never understand that mentality. It is so selfish and simple-minded. First of all, xtains claim that god gives them free will then that god controls them! Further how selfish is this idea anyway (I know I am going off topic..sorry). god loves me so he is going to help me by working through the firefighters to save my life. That was the attitude of many xtains I knew during 9/11. Some xtains I knew had a canceled business meeting on the top floor of the WT. god saved them they claim, but what about those thousands that perished. Were those lives worth nothing to their god?! That question gets the replies: 1)shit happens..or 2)thats part of free will. 1)shit happens- then your god is not all powerful and is not worthy of any ones worship 2)that's part of freewill- freewill my ass. Then why were you saved because if it was freewill sky-daddy should have no favorites. You think your better than everyone else, more worthy of life, because you choose the 'right' religion. I am know there was muslims praying to allah that got killed just going to work. Are they less worthy of life than you. I think not. Posted by: _SOIL Dec 3 2003, 01:02 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 3 2003, 11:12 AM) ... It also seems that you would rather deny your humanity than take credit for your own accomplishments. I fail to see the hand of any deity in the story you told about fighting pornography in your neighborhood. What I saw was a lot of things that you did, not a deity. ... Zach, I brought up that story as an example of how I think that sometimes God chooses to use sinful people (consider the apostle Paul - who refereed to himself as "the chief of sinners") - to do things in a realm that is sometimes 'beyond' the confines that can be defined by 'material-based reductionists' (I don't mean to offend you pitchu, by using that term - but I can only reply to one person at a time!). I personally believed (and I know this requires a belief that involves faith - that there was something spiritual involved in the several occurrences of sexual crimes in my neighborhood - and I sensed that God was communicating to me that the presence of the magazines such as Penthouse were contributing to the problem. (Note: in one of the magazines that I showed to the CEO of the convenience store chain - there was a big spread on "sexual torture in South American prisons" which contained graphic descriptions.) IMHO when an already sexually aroused unstable male gets another jolt of adrenaline from reading about graphic torture - that is a cocktail which will NOT likely lead to genuine self-sacrificing love for one's fellow woMAN.) Now, as concerning this: "I fail to see the hand of any deity in the story you told ..." It was years later when I learned that a couple of other Christians had also felt they were being "led" by God to speak with the same company - and they did speak with them - though I didn't know it at the time. I also could feel (in several ways that I don't have the time to go into just now) that there was a lot of battle going on - in what I will refer to simply as "the spiritual realm" during that time in my life. I think you might think there was more than just my personal involvement going on - especially if you would have heard what was said to me by the vice officer who took me on a tour of the various sexual oriented business one night as I was preparing before a TV appearance where Bob Guccione was filmed talking with me - in a nightline style of show - he from the HBO studio - and I (and my friend the constitutional attorney) in a Tulsa studio. I am not here trying to convince you that God really was involved in that time of my life -- though I personally do believe that is very highly likely. However I guess I am saying sometimes if you look at life from the underlying assumptions which are presented in scripture - and you do really believe that there is both a natural and a supernatural world both effecting our daily lives -- you can still use logic and reasoning - and see how things can fit together - even within that framework. I quoted this after telling my (much abbreviated) story: QUOTE As I've pondered this, I've realized, the great divide separating belief and unbelief reduces down to one simple question: Is the visible world around us all there is? The following quote takes a while to get to the point - but I think it also applies : Below I have copied from pages 57 and 58 at the close of the chapter entitled "Paying Attention" in the book: "rumors OF ANOTHER WORLD" by Philip Yancey: QUOTE "There is nothing unclean of itself", said the apostle Paul; and again, "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." To him, a sacramental view of life had everything to do with direction. Nature, people, eating, work, worship - everything in daily life points up the chain of a reordered world toward God. To ignore sexual, personal, social, professional, even political concerns would diminish the reality of God's presence in the world. When Paul touched on each area, he placed it in the order ordained by its Creator. The reducer looks down for his or her instructions: Edward Wilson standing over an anthill with his magnifying glass scouting clues to human behavior. From that perspective, we use other people in order to enhance ourselves, because only the fittest survive. We follow the instinct of lust to perpetuate our genes. We exploit nature for our own use. We act altruistically with calculation, as a strategy. A seeker of the sacred looks up, tracing the rays of sun back to their source. For Dante, the power of adolescent sexuality awakened in him awe and fear, and he looked to God, not his own body, for guidance on how to respond. For John Muir, nature expressed the brilliance of a master Artist, to whom he responded with gratitude and worship. For Mother Teresa, the dying beggars in the streets of Calcutta shrouded holy light, and though it helped the least fit to survive, she served them as if she were serving Christ himself. The Celtic saint Columba learned to experience God's presence everywhere: "At times plucking crabs from the rocks; at times fishing; at times giving food to the poor; at times in a solitary cell." Biology is destiny, concludes the one who looks down. The prospects are bleak, for according to psychologists our impulses include a natural urge to murder our fathers and mothers, at least an occasional tendency to laziness and idleness, a penchant for cruelty and vulgarity. Eternity is destiny, concludes the one who looks up. Our genes may indeed contain predispositions toward bestial instincts, but we hear a call to rise above them. You could stare at an anthill a long time before coming up with this list of qualities: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Yet Paul holds these up as proof of the presence of God in a person's life, the "fruit of the Spirit." Where God lives, those qualities flourish. All of life involves a clash between impulse and inhibition, between our fallen nature and the image of God. A sacred view of life calls for simple trust that the One who created the human creature has our ultimate good in mind. Dennis Posted by: Lanakila Dec 3 2003, 01:40 PM Religious experience and feelings of being led by God are what inspires Osama Bin Laden in his actions. That is the problem they are subjective. I felt led by God and protected by God for years. Now I know it was just wishful thinking. If Christianity is true it needs alot more than just the feelings of its followers that they are being led by God, or the Holy Spirit. It needs evidence that is severly lacking. Posted by: moorezw Dec 3 2003, 02:24 PM Dennis- QUOTE As I've pondered this, I've realized, the great divide separating belief and unbelief reduces down to one simple question: Is the visible world around us all there is? You're getting back to your central idea of sacred vs. profane. The implication of this quote is that the visible world (that which is observable through physical means, profane), exists in counterpoint to the invisible world (that which is observable through metaphysical means, sacred). It's a strong dichotomy, and resistant to any attempt of physical validation. For example, let's say that a hypothetical astronomer developed a technique whereby he could physically observe heaven through a telescope. He could measure its dimensions, its distance from Earth, even its physical features. According to the sacred/profane dichotomy, this hypothetical could never be true, because either the technique could never exist in the first place, or the instant that heaven was physically observed, it would cease to be heaven. While that's an interesting philosophical conundrum, I think the relationship between sacred and profane is much more interesting from a human perspective. To wit: why do humans create a sacred/profane dichotomy in the first place? The answer, I believe, lies in our humanity. The Yancey excerpt illustrates this well: as humans, we realize our relationship to nature and other living things, but we also perceive that we are different. Recognition of this difference compels us to seek answers, and ultimately to create our own if we find none. The invention of the sacred was necessary for the evolution of human society. Humans prefer to "look up", as Yancey notes, to take our example from something that we perceive as being more powerful, mysterious, or magical than ourselves; something sacred. In doing so, that which is not sacred is inevitibly categorized as profane. Typically regarded with derision, the realm of the profane can be broad or narrow, depending on the views of a particular society. In Christianity, all things existing in this world are profane, and only heaven and its inhabitants, including the deity, are sacred. Aspirations towards sacredness in this world are regarded as commendable, but ultimately soured by the profane world which surrounds. Contrastingly, animist religions, as practiced by aboriginal Americans, expands the sacred to the point where the profane is virtually nonexistant. The entire world and everything found in it is sacred, and only by disrupting the harmony of nature can one espouse the profane. Ultimately, rationality and objectivism uncover the falseness of that dichotomy, but they cannot destroy the human need for it. It is for this reason that you seek to fill your life with the sacred; your sexuality, your accomplishments, and any other aspect of your life are improved by your aspiration to the sacred, at least as perceived by yourself. Posted by: SOIL Dec 3 2003, 02:51 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 3 2003, 02:24 PM) ... In doing so, that which is not sacred is inevitibly categorized as profane. Typically regarded with derision, the realm of the profane can be broad or narrow, depending on the views of a particular society. In Christianity, all things existing in this world are profane, and only heaven and its inhabitants, including the deity, are sacred. Aspirations towards sacredness in this world are regarded as commendable, but ultimately soured by the profane world which surrounds. ... Zach, I am not certain that I fully understand everything that you are saying - but I think I am following it pretty well. I think you are talking more about what I call one of the gnostic ways of viewing scripture - where the physical is basically "bad" (you say profane) and the spiritual is good (sacred). However I don't think that Philip Yancey is taking that position in his book - rather I think he is rejecting that position. For instance, below is another quote ... (also Pitchu - I think this may relate some about the use of the word "materialism") from "Rumors of another World" by Philip Yancey - page 36 - in the chapter: rumors QUOTE I began to listen to my own longings as rumors of another world, a bright clue to the nature of the Creator. Somehow I had fallen for the deception of judging the natural world as unspiritual and God as antipleasure. But God invented matter, after all, including all the sensors in the body through which I feel pleasure. Nature and supernature are not two separate worlds, but different expressions of the same reality. Then building on this concept of that God uses matter in the process of pointing me toward the other realities of the spiritual world (or perhaps 'sacred world' if you wish) : from pages 37 into 38 of above mentioned book: QUOTE The poet Herbert himself foresaw a day when God "shalt recover all thy goods in kinde / How wert disseized by usurping lust," when redeemed creation will reclaim beauty, art, nature, and culture for its original intent. Until then, we must content ourselves with a process of decoding. Like rescuers who sift through pieces of stained glass shattered by a bomb, we trace dispersed clues to their original source and significance. My natural desires, I now see, are pointers to the supernatural, not obstacles. In a world fallen far from its original design, God wants us to receive them as gifts and not possessions, tokens of love and not loves in themselves. I have learned to pray, following Augustine, not that my desires be quenched or taken away, rather than my scattered longings be gathered together in their Source, who alone can order them. When the email invitation came, uninvited, to tune in to a webcam pointed toward a naked eighteen-year-old named Brandi, I recognized it immediately as a symptom of this disordered, reductionistic world. My computer offered pixels of nude flesh from a digital camera, not a living person. God has more, far more, in mind for my scattered longings than disembodied deception. Dennis Posted by: SOIL Dec 3 2003, 03:10 PM QUOTE (pitchu @ Dec 3 2003, 10:11 AM) QUOTE (SOIL @ Dec 3 2003, 08:41 AM) ... I find the materialistic explanations of life inadequate to explain reality. I've learned to attend to fainter contacts between the seen and unseen worlds. I sense in romantic love something insufficiently explained by mere biochemical attraction. I sense in beauty and in nature marks of a genius creator for which the natural response is worship. I sense in desire, including sexual desire, marks of a holy yearning for connection. Dennis, Yancey is as free as anyone to set up false alternatives to justify his choice for faith, but surely you see that he's dismissing any perception of life which isn't god-based as "materialistic" -- a word fraught with cold, petty, negative connotations. With one sweep of this word, he's wiping out the possibility that the beauty and connectedness to be found in reality aren't available to non-believers. Atheists don't bask in glorious sunsets? Agnostics don't revel in the fulfillment of sex? -- the heady promise of romantic love? This "sense" he has that's so special to him, that affirms his god-belief, is the "sense" non-believers have that life, reality, is, gloriously, E N O U G H. It's a richly fulfilling cognition. Hi Pitchu, (btw, I don't remember if I ever learned your real name - and/or if you would want or allow me to refer to you that way). I'm not sure if I can adequately clarify what Philip Yancey was "really" trying to say when he uses the word "materialistic". However - I will take a stab at it anyway. I think maybe he is leaning more toward the concept of "explaining reality" using only definitions that stay with what is 'material', rather than talking about whether a person who rejects anything supernatural can experience such joys as : "Atheists don't bask in glorious sunsets? Agnostics don't revel in the fulfillment of sex? -- the heady promise of romantic love?. I think perhaps he is saying that the Atheist and/or Agnostic positions - (if in fact they are really 'materialistic' in the way that he uses the word) - cannot explain why they enjoy the experiences of sunsets, sex, and romantic love - as well as the position of the Judeo/Christian worldview. ... just thinking out loud here ... (and like I say - I may not be representing Philips views all that accurately -- plus I may not have understood what you were saying very well either!). Dennis Posted by: SOIL Dec 3 2003, 03:33 PM QUOTE (Lanakila @ Dec 3 2003, 01:40 PM) Religious experience and feelings of being led by God are what inspires Osama Bin Laden in his actions. That is the problem they are subjective. I felt led by God and protected by God for years. Now I know it was just wishful thinking. If Christianity is true it needs alot more than just the feelings of its followers that they are being led by God, or the Holy Spirit. It needs evidence that is severly lacking. Hi Lanakila, (sorry - but I don't know your real name) I agree that Christianity needs "evidence" - and I am suggesting that the type of evidence that is presented in the books written by Philip Yancey (and in some of the quotes I am putting in these posts) is the stuff that is better suited to speaking with others about. However, in my own life - I also have experiences and/or feelings which are helpful to me personally. (Remembering though that I believe some degree of FAITH is always going to be necessary - I just think there are good reasons to place my FAITH in the Christian worldview - I believe that everyone must have some FAITH in something). As far as comparing with "Osama Bin Laden" - well I guess I can't spare the time just now to get deeply into that subject - (though I do think it is 'fair' for you to bring it up). I will say though that I think the teachings in the New Testament - (for instance, about how we should love our enemies), cause me to avoid the idea of doing any killing in the name of "God's will". Though - I have not avoided dealing with the also 'fair' statements from people here about how God did bring about 'killing' in the Old Testament - and even in one New Testament instance. However in the case of Annanias and Saphira - it was God himself that caused their deaths - as compared with the instance where Peter cut off the ear of the servant when the soldiers came to 'arrest' Jesus - in that case Jesus put the guy's ear back on. Dennis Posted by: likeafish Dec 3 2003, 03:41 PM Soil, Though these prosaic statements by Yancy may sound like rational arguments, they are nothing more than statements of faith piled upon your own statements of faith. I am often drawn to things I read just because they sound good. But that doesn't make them more true because they have more style. There is much that is missing in what he asserts: "Biology is destiny, concludes the one who looks down." Well there's a perjorative if I ever heard one. I look up and marvel at the stars, but I don't assign everything to the god of the bible. I also look over, to my fellow human beings to see how they're doing, and I'm concerned for justice or when obligations aren't met or when I see cruelty or distress. I don't need god to show me that. The assertion that "biology is destiny" is pulled out of the air. Though science is willing to admit that human consciousness isn't in the bag, as it were, it is certainly obvious that we make choices. DNA might have something to say about the day I die, but I get to decide a good bit about the steps I take between now and then. Sartre would disagree with Yancy's conclusion. Not that he knows everything, but my contention, much like Sartre's and others is that life, the actual living that we do, is choice. "The prospects are bleak, for according to psychologists our impulses include a natural urge to murder our fathers and mothers, at least an occasional tendency to laziness and idleness, a penchant for cruelty and vulgarity." More perjoratives, this time leveled against the psychologists who tell us we are just a bundle of animal impulses. What cliched and silly reduction of psychological theory and practice. Swipes at Freud, who he probably doesn't understand--it's "murder dad and marry mom" is what I think he means--this is pure propaganda, and it is also garbage. He might want to take a walk around the block with Victor Frankl or Rollo May or Jung or even Erich Fromm. Amazing how he can disregard what he doesn't value or understand with one swipe of the pen. "Eternity is destiny, concludes the one who looks up." So, where did free will go? Shall we all get shunts in our necks so we don't look down? If we did so, we might see our bodies, our Earth, our neighbors, our abilities, our potential. I suppose those are all bad ideas. "Our genes may indeed contain predispositions toward bestial instincts," Bestial instincts? What, like fucking, playing with shit like a monkey, murder? (Oh, but god did that last one a lot in the bible so it can't be that!). What is he referring to? He implies a great deal but says very little. Yes, humans do horrible things, usually inspired by fanatical ideals, religion being one big one, and NOT pornography, sorry to say. (For more on this, look into serial killers and see what gets them going most often--the bible). The fact is our genes may also have the natural tendency towards community, caring, forgiveness, reconciliation, LOVE, and that too according to psychologists, zoologists, neuroscientists, et al. has been observed, tested, etc. "but we hear a call to rise above them. You could stare at an anthill a long time before coming up with this list of qualities: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Yet Paul holds these up as proof of the presence of God in a person's life, the "fruit of the Spirit." Where God lives, those qualities flourish." No, where humans exist together these qualities arise, sometimes they thrive, sometimes they are in greater abundance than other times. Would you like to show me a time in history when God, according to Paul's criteria, was more in evidence than any other. I didn't think so. Maybe in Tibet before the Chinese invaded in the 1950s. But then they don't believe in Jesus. And what's all this about staring at an anthill? I might stare at one and learn to marvel at natural processes, or learn something about ecosystems, and thereby come to a greater appreciation and LOVE for my world. Oh, but that would be to look down. Musn't do that. Nothing to be gained from that. "All of life involves a clash between impulse and inhibition, between our fallen nature and the image of God. A sacred view of life calls for simple trust that the One who created the human creature has our ultimate good in mind." A clash between what? How about competing notions of good, or degrees of inspiration and intuition and intelligence and involvement? But I'm not surprised that this guy would frame things in such a black and white terms, where the choice is really none at all. The last sentence here just sounds to me like nothing more than doxology--pure faith claim--my view over all others. How's this: A sacred view of life regards all that one encounters as sacred. Or A sacred view of life involves the recognition of the sacredness of life (nah, that's too redundant) How about just "All of life is sacred. Holy Crap!" Sorry, I couldn't resist. I know you take this very seriously. But what this writer you admire so much is doing is classic dualistic thinking that serparates the mind (spirit) from the body and thus denigrates the physical world as being nothing more than a place of things foul and disgusting (a pile of shit essentially), full of "laziness and vulgarity" to quote Yancy. The consequence of this worldview, as I see it, is evident in a world we have trashed and treated as expendable, warring factions claiming to follow the "true" god, sexual bodies we fear, repression of difference, and heaps of neurosis caused by focusing on the imagined workings of a god that we can't see or interact with (well, we might imagine that we do), expending great energy to keep this fantasy alive in the propagation of religion worldwide, and forcing conformity upon others, even to the point of violence, not out of some ethos of love, but in order to preserve the illusion. Security in sameness. Lanakila got it right. Osama Bin Laden. Not much else needs to be said. This is what "looking up" gets you. I say you've got to look up, down, right, left, sideways, inward, outward, over, under, above, below, beside, between, before, after, now, and a few other places to get a sense of the "sacred" if what we mean by that is what is worthy of our veneration, respect, preservation, admiration, etc. As for worship, if I must, I think I will worship the idea of the human person, free, conscious, open to everything, and the universe that this same free consciousness embraces, celebrates, enjoys, and lives in fully. But that's just me. Steve Posted by: starstuff Dec 3 2003, 04:26 PM WOW Steve, that last post was a work of art! As for me, I don't think I appreciated life so much as when I dumped the confusing an illogical concept of the supernatural soul and began to think of life as a natural phenomena. I am a natural phenomena. I never looked at the world with so much wonder and awe before I became convinced of evolution. The natural world is a wonderful, though sometimes scary, thing! And I am a part of it. In short, I see a lot more wonder in thinking of the big bang and the motions of the planets and supernovas and the way the atoms we are made of were made inside dying stars than in trying to pretend that god is calling the stars to come out at night. What is so bleak and dreary about "materialism" anyway? As if we would all degenerate into horrible cruel beasts without the skydaddy to guide us. We need each other to survive -- and human civilization can't exist if we all just start killing and abusing each other. It didn't take a god to create morality . . but I'm rambling. I'm sure you get the idea . . . Posted by: Lanakila Dec 3 2003, 04:53 PM QUOTE As far as comparing with "Osama Bin Laden" - well I guess I can't spare the time just now to get deeply into that subject - (though I do think it is 'fair' for you to bring it up). I don't give out my personal name online till I know people well, and then only via pm. I have a multitude of reasons for this. You can call me Lana. Lanakila means victory in Hawaiian and has been my online identity for years. This is a common argument against experience based religion Soil. I am sorry you don't have time to go into it or think its unfair, but I heard it over and over when I debated atheists at CF. It bothered me as well, but made me think too. That is why I said it, not to offend to to make you realize how religious experience is common to most religions. Phillip Yanceys arguments aren't any more substantial than those of Habermas, Geisler, or McDowell. They all basically use experience, and circular reasoning to prove that the Bible is God's word, and that Jesus is God. I used to go into deeper apologetics than this, by using the Leadership University site. My hubby has even disproved William Lane Craig's argument against Christian Exclusivism. Although he hasn't sent his disproval article to him yet. Posted by: likeafish Dec 3 2003, 05:34 PM Starstuff, I had EXACTLY the feeling you describe recently with the approach of Mars. I suddenly remembered a youthful interest in astronomy, was chasing aroung looking through telescopes, having a blast! But more than this, I had this sensation within of connection because of the facts, facts like millions and billions and trillions of miles and light years, and yet the light was hitting my eyes, these evolved eyes, the ones the creationists want to base their specious arguments for god on, and hence separate me further from it all over again. It was this funny feeling of "knowing" the sky instead of believing in some idea of separation from it. It didn't feel distant, ironically, because I had some knowledge of how far away, like Mars and the star clusters, these things were. They were real, and like you said, I was a part of it, and aware! Maybe that makes sense or maybe not, but it was a truely new and beautiful feeling. And thanks for the compliment! Lana, You look really familiar. I perused some of those Xtian sites in the past, but often found them boring. But I seem to recall you writing on Aquinas and making arguments from aseity. That was interesting. Sound like you? There was also equations!!! And now you are here. Well, I would like to say "Welcome!" to you and your husband. I've been away for a couple months or so. I too am private to an extent, though I am honest about my life stories, and I consider many here very good friends. Should a family member log in here and look over my posts they'd guess it was me eventually. But I'm a bit of a closet Xer when it comes to family. I come from a long line of Lutheran pastors. I should have been the next one. My dad is very sick now (losing his mind) and my mom is clinging to her faith with all she's got. So i keep my ideas to my chest. I did my time in ministry, went to seminary, have a degree in NT and Systematics, but eventually bailed on the whole thing for a number of reasons. Now, it's just "Why don't you go to church anymore?" "Oh, well, ya know, I'm busy. I work a lot." That usually covers it, and I live a distance away so, for now, I just let it go. And, oh yeah, I'm an artist, writer, and occaisional film maker. I look forward to hearing more of your story. Steve PS I also meant to mention the beautiful description of your name. What wonderful thing to have! It's a beautiful name. Posted by: moorezw Dec 3 2003, 05:46 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Dec 3 2003, 05:51 PM) I think you are talking more about what I call one of the gnostic ways of viewing scripture - where the physical is basically "bad" (you say profane) and the spiritual is good (sacred). However I don't think that Philip Yancey is taking that position in his book - rather I think he is rejecting that position. Dennis- The dichotomy between sacred and profane has been recognized throughout the course of humanity, not just by the Gnostics. What Yancey (and, I assume, you) is describing is a world in which the sacred can influence the profane, and even change it somewhat. He has very neatly divided the entirety of human experience into two groups; one sacred and one profane. All 'good' attributes like love, kindness, charity are considered sacred, while all 'bad' attributes like lust, malice, and greed are considered profane. Yancey proposes that the sacred attributes of humanity derive from God, while the profane attributes of humanity derive from an absence of God. Through a desire to seek the sacred, profane urges can be modified and altered to reflect their sacred counterparts. Thus, when Yancey is filled with lust for pornographic spam, reflecting on his concept of the sacred can bring his focus on feelings of sacred love. The problem with this view is twofold: 1) all 'bad' attributes of humanity are regarded as subhuman, and 2) all 'good' attributes of humanity are regarded as superhuman, or divine. By espousing this, you deny your humanity twice, both when you lust, and also when you love. For when you lust, you regard it as a 'bestial' impulse, and something to be despised, and when you love, you regard it as a 'divine' aspiration, something which, in its truest sense, is forever beyond your grasp. What I hope for is that some day you may see that all attributes of humanity are just that- human, and nothing more or less. When that day comes, you will lose the shame you feel from lusting, and embrace the sheer humanity of loving. Posted by: likeafish Dec 3 2003, 06:10 PM "The problem with this view is twofold: 1) all 'bad' attributes of humanity are regarded as subhuman, and 2) all 'good' attributes of humanity are regarded as superhuman, or divine. By espousing this, you deny your humanity twice, both when you lust, and also when you love. For when you lust, you regard it as a 'bestial' impulse, and something to be despised, and when you love, you regard it as a 'divine' aspiration, something which, in its truest sense, is forever beyond your grasp." YES!!! I like that. Bravo! Perfect. Double negation. Superb point moorezw!!! One of these days I'll have to learn how to use that dang quote function. Steve . . .much applause is heard in the background. . . Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 3 2003, 07:03 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 3 2003, 02:12 PM) It also seems that you would rather deny your humanity than take credit for your own accomplishments. I fail to see the hand of any deity in the story you told about fighting pornography in your neighborhood. After I de-converted, I went on to bigger and better things ... including a very prosperous career as an engineer. I still recall working my @ss off to get where I'm at. Nothing was given to me. And, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. But, my point is that HAD I remained a devout Christian, all of my successes and accomplishments would have been attributed to God as blessings in my life ... or God's way of returning prosperity to me for tithing ... or some such. Superimposing super-natural explanations on top of our own accomplishments is not only self-degrading, it's pointless. Good and bad things happen to religious and non-religious people alike. Invoking "God's will" to explain all outcomes is to explain nothing. Posted by: Libertus Dec 3 2003, 07:32 PM QUOTE Superimposing super-natural explanations on top of our own accomplishments is not only self-degrading, it's pointless. Good and bad things happen to religious and non-religious people alike. Invoking "God's will" to explain all outcomes is to explain nothing. Aggie Didn't you read that he makes the sun shine on the unjust as well as the just? him being nice to you is just him trying to show you that even though you're an evil, good-for-nothing heathen deserving of eternal torture, he still loves you and is willing to take care of you. Awwwww! Sorry, I have to stop now. Just trying to play Biblegods Advocate for a sec, but it didn't work. Xpen Posted by: chefranden Dec 3 2003, 07:54 PM I feel privileged to be among such deep thinkers. QUOTE (Soil) "The fact that God has used sinful non-perfect people to do His work here on earth (rather than just doing it all Himself) - really 'irks' me." Soil, You’ve almost made it out of the barrel! This is entirely the problem and exactly the reason why an all knowing, all powerful, all good entity cannot/doesnot exist. Why did Yhwh reject Saul? Because he wasn’t good enough at conducting a genocide? His replacement was nothing more then a prototype terrorist/warlord. Poor Uzzah gets slain for trying to save the Ark from taking a tumble, while his Lord David gets a by for his behavior and God even slays a child instead of David for the murder of Urriah the Hittite. You can’t undo that stuff saying, QUOTE (Soil) God - for a reason that He alone completely understands - has chosen to use sinful (error-prone) people to communicate the 'gospel' among ourselves. Error-prone is a bit of an understatement wouldn’t you say! David was a fucking criminal! Sorry, but lets call spades when that is the suit laid down. I’m told that I should be more Christ like, which means more god like, which means, more Yhwh like, which means God is my moral example, which means evil is ok as long as it achieves my ends. Excuuuuuuuuuuuse me, but this is bullshit plan and simple. I have compassion, in spite of my cussing, for your struggle to preserve the faith in the face of this crap. If you intend to be honest, the faith will go. Your alternative is to hide your head in double speak sands like Yancy does. Posted by: SOIL Dec 4 2003, 06:19 AM QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 3 2003, 05:46 PM) ... What Yancey (and, I assume, you) is describing is a world in which the sacred can influence the profane, and even change it somewhat. He has very neatly divided the entirety of human experience into two groups; one sacred and one profane. All 'good' attributes like love, kindness, charity are considered sacred, while all 'bad' attributes like lust, malice, and greed are considered profane. Yancey proposes that the sacred attributes of humanity derive from God, while the profane attributes of humanity derive from an absence of God. ... Zach and Steve (probably others also), I don't think you folks have fully understood a few key sentences from the book which I included in quote boxes earlier. Since I have read these sentences in the context of surrounding material - I think I probably understand them differently than you do. Sorry I don't have more time now - but in this post I will try to at least highlight the things which I think you have not addressed - (and at this point I will stay limited to just what I had put in quote boxes earlier). from "Rumors of another World" by Philip Yancey - page 36 - in the chapter: rumors QUOTE I began to listen to my own longings as rumors of another world, a bright clue to the nature of the Creator. Somehow I had fallen for the deception of judging the natural world as unspiritual and God as antipleasure. But God invented matter, after all, including all the sensors in the body through which I feel pleasure. Nature and supernature are not two separate worlds, but different expressions of the same reality. below highlights are mine: "But God invented matter, after all, including all the sensors in the body through which I feel pleasure. Nature and supernature are not two separate worlds, but different expressions of the same reality. ... from pages 37 into 38 of above mentioned book: QUOTE The poet Herbert himself foresaw a day when God "shalt recover all thy goods in kinde / How wert disseized by usurping lust," when redeemed creation will reclaim beauty, art, nature, and culture for its original intent. Until then, we must content ourselves with a process of decoding. Like rescuers who sift through pieces of stained glass shattered by a bomb, we trace dispersed clues to their original source and significance. My natural desires, I now see, are pointers to the supernatural, not obstacles. In a world fallen far from its original design, God wants us to receive them as gifts and not possessions, tokens of love and not loves in themselves. I have learned to pray, following Augustine, not that my desires be quenched or taken away, rather that my scattered longings be gathered together in their Source, who alone can order them. When the email invitation came, uninvited, to tune in to a webcam pointed toward a naked eighteen-year-old named Brandi, I recognized it immediately as a symptom of this disordered, reductionistic world. My computer offered pixels of nude flesh from a digital camera, not a living person. God has more, far more, in mind for my scattered longings than disembodied deception. below highlights are mine: My natural desires, I now see, are pointers to the supernatural, not obstacles. In a world fallen far from its original design, God wants us to receive them as gifts and not possessions, tokens of love and not loves in themselves. I have learned to pray, following Augustine, not that my desires be quenched or taken away, rather that my scattered longings be gathered together in their Source, who alone can order them. ... I have much more I want to say - but alas - I need to do some of the work for which I need to get paid for! Dennis P.S. (there were many interesting things said - by several people - and as always I appreciate the responses) I certainly don't share all the opinions - but I am happy to see that people are willing to devote energy to think deeply about important things. Posted by: SOIL Dec 4 2003, 06:28 AM QUOTE (Lanakila @ Dec 3 2003, 04:53 PM) QUOTE As far as comparing with "Osama Bin Laden" - well I guess I can't spare the time just now to get deeply into that subject - (though I do think it is 'fair' for you to bring it up). .... .... This is a common argument against experience based religion Soil. I am sorry you don't have time to go into it or think its unfair, ... ... Hi Lana, I think you misread what I was saying (at one point anyway) - actually I said, I think your comment was "fair" - not 'unfair'. (Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable commenting about those other guys way of debating - since I haven't read much of what they have written.) Dennis Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 4 2003, 06:36 AM QUOTE (xpen @ Dec 3 2003, 10:32 PM) Didn't you read that he makes the sun shine on the unjust as well as the just? him being nice to you is just him trying to show you that even though you're an evil, good-for-nothing heathen deserving of eternal torture, he still loves you and is willing to take care of you. So that's where the yearning to worship the Sun comes from. Thanx. I've seen the Light! Posted by: moorezw Dec 4 2003, 06:47 AM Dennis- Interpreting 'nature' and 'supernature' as "different expressions of the same reality" just seems to blur the distinction between profane and sacred. Contradictorily, I might add, because if they are one and the same, then why bother referring to them by different names? The very term 'supernature' explicitly describes "that which is above nature". The relationship you are describing is one that is mutually exclusive. If you able to distinguish between the profane and sacred, or 'nature' and 'supernature', then they both cannot be the same thing. Likewise, if there is no distinction between sacred and profane, then all of reality must be either sacred or profane, not both. From your comments, I would guess that you would answer the former. You wish to interpret reality as an extension of the Christian god, and thus conclude that everything has its ultimate source in him. Unfortunately, this brings up the problem that you've addressed before, of 'bestial' or 'bad' impulses and emotions that you seek to transform into the divine. In a world where everything is an expression of the Christian god, how can anything be seen as profane? Yancey just seems to be muddying the water. Rather than showing a clear contrast between the sacred and profane, he draws a broad line connecting every profane expression with the sacred. Even though one might become engaged in a profane act or emotion, by following some theological formula one can arrive at the sacred. In this way, nothing profane should be considered 'bad', as long as the corresponding sacred aspect is aspired to. In my opinion, this approach is just one more exercise of mental gymnastics undertaken by Christians to rationalize their 'sinful nature'. As I said before, by following this method you deny your humanity twice. Posted by: Guest Dec 4 2003, 01:00 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 4 2003, 06:47 AM) In a world where everything is an expression of the Christian god, how can anything be seen as profane? Enter Satan. The great corruptor of all that is good and Godly. From the Christian perspective, all of Creation was indeed Sacred up until the moment we chose to corrupt it by obeying the Devil instead of God. Since I consider the concept of the Biblical Satan utterly incompatible with the Biblical God and just generally untenable, a key factor in my own apostasis was that Christ's sacrifice requires the existence of Satan. For me it all just crumbled from there. Dennis, I am unfamiliar with Yancey's work, but the excerpts you posted remind of some of the liberal, feelgood Christian books that I read during the final throes of my dying faith, in which the fallen angel isn't granted so much as a mention. I find this approach somewhat delusional, because it ignores the very source of the Sacred/Profane dichotemy. It's all about God's love. Rose tinted glasses, as Zach put it. In contrast to this and although I dispise their smug, intolerant worldview, I appreciate the unflinching willingness with which Biblical fundamentalists accept the significance of even the most distasteful aspects of Scripture. They, at least, are attempting an unbiased interpretation. Posted by: Redshift Dec 4 2003, 01:04 PM That was me. Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 4 2003, 01:33 PM QUOTE (Guest @ Dec 4 2003, 04:00 PM) From the Christian perspective, all of Creation was indeed Sacred up until the moment we chose to corrupt it by obeying the Devil instead of God. What's this "we" stuff. Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Posted by: SOIL Dec 4 2003, 01:46 PM QUOTE (Guest @ Dec 4 2003, 01:00 PM) QUOTE (moorezw @ Dec 4 2003, 06:47 AM) In a world where everything is an expression of the Christian god, how can anything be seen as profane? Enter Satan. The great corruptor of all that is good and Godly. ... Dennis, I am unfamiliar with Yancey's work, but the excerpts you posted remind of some of the liberal, feelgood Christian books that I read during the final throes of my dying faith, in which the fallen angel isn't granted so much as a mention. ... Hi Joe, No, I know the type of liberal writers you are talking about - but Yancey would not be put in that category. I don't have the quote right here - but I think I read where Billy Grahm said something to the effect that Yancey is one of the contemporary writers who he most respects. If I find the quote I'll let you know. (I remember that Billy Grahm was a friend with Charles Templeton in the early days of their lives - and I think I read somewhere about the discussions they used to get into). ( So far, I have only read about 4 chapters out of this most recent book that Yancey wrote - I really need to make the time to finish it! Especially now that I started this thread - LOL ) I did read ALL of one of the books Yancey wrote however - Disappointment with God and that is why I know that Yancey very much believes in a real Satan. That book speaks a lot about the book of JOB (it's the best that I personally have read about Job). I mentioned that book on another thread - because in it Yancey talked about a friend of his who had written a book on Job - and then later - burned his Bible - and I guess you could say: became an "EX-Christian". -- Like I mentioned in the other thread - there is no record in the book that the other guy ever decided to return to faith, even after talking with Yancey again -- ( I admire Yancey's "honesty"). Mind you - I am not saying that I don't think a person can return to faith after going through a time of turning away. Hey, if that were true - then I could not be a Christian today. Though I do think there can come a time when a person just simply will not come back to faith in God -- but I think it is up to God and that person -- I guess I hold firmly t |