Two Emails and the Nature of Belief in God

Glass*Soul · #1 3rd July 2012, 01:21 AM

I recently received two forwarded emails from the same Christian friend two days apart. Granted, he didn't compose them himself. He simply forwarded them. However, apparently they both resonated with his beliefs well enough for him to further them along. The problem is, they seem to be making precisely opposite claims about God.

My questions are:

Are both of these scenarios descriptive of what one can expect from the Christian God?
If I were to believe either one or the other of these scenarios as likely regarding God, would either belief qualify equally as my believing in the Christian God?
Is it OK to believe one or both of these things about God?

In the first email, I am prompted to believe very specifically that God will fix two things that I have been struggling to fix and that would be expensive to replace. Furthermore, he will do this tonight. It is made clear in the email that my very belief in God is being tested and that I must demonstrate that belief by forwarding the email to 10 friends in 10 minutes. If I do this, the needed repairs will be performed by God.

It reminds me of a sort of Cargo Cult belief.

In the second email, I am prompted, when asking something of God, to accept as answers common natural occurrences. For instance, if I ask God to speak to me, I should be prepared to accept hearing the song of a meadowlark as a granting of that prayer. If I ask to be shown a miracle, I should accept the birth of a baby as a granting of that prayer. It gives several more examples, then the email sums up its message as, "Don't miss out on a blessing because it isn't packaged the way that you expect." God is in the simple, little things, "...even in our electronic age."

So, to sum up the emails, my belief in God is being tested. I must perform the proper actions so as to prompt him to repair two expensive, malfunctioning (presumably electronic) devices over night, while understanding that (even in our electronic age) God will likely respond by causing a butterfly to visit my garden tomorrow afternoon (just like butterflies of various sorts do every day).

My friend does not know I'm an atheist.

oi_antz · #2 3rd July 2012, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul

I recently received two forwarded emails from the same Christian friend two days apart. Granted, he didn't compose them himself. He simply forwarded them. However, they apparently they both resonated with his beliefs well enough for him to further them along. The problem is, they seem to be making precisely opposite claims about God.

My questions are:

Are both of these scenarios descriptive of what one can expect from the Christian God?

If I were to believe either one or the other of these scenarios as likely regarding God, would either belief qualify equally as my believing in the Christian God?

Is it OK to believe one or both of these things about God?

In the first email, I am prompted to believe very specifically that God will fix two things that I have been struggling to fix and that would be expensive to replace. Furthermore, he will do this tonight. It is made clear in the email that my very belief in God is being tested and that I must demonstrate that belief by forwarding the email to 10 friends in 10 minutes. If I do this, the needed repairs will be performed by God.

It reminds me of a sort of Cargo Cult belief.

In the second email, I am prompted, when asking something of God, to accept as answers common natural occurrences. For instance, if I ask God to speak to me, I should be prepared to accept hearing the song of a meadowlark as a granting of that prayer. If I ask to be shown a miracle, I should accept the birth of a baby as a granting of that prayer. It gives several more examples, then the email sums up its message as, "Don't miss out on a blessing because it isn't packaged the way that you expect." God is in the simple, little things, "...even in our electronic age."

So, to sum up the emails, my belief in God is being tested. I must perform the proper actions so as to prompt him to repair two expensive, malfunctioning (presumably electronic) devices over night, while understanding that (even in our electronic age) God will likely respond by causing a butterfly to visit my garden tomorrow afternoon (just like butterflies of various sorts do every day).

My friend does not know I'm an atheist.

Sounds like chain letters, do you know what they are? Maybe your Christian friend thought there was a nice moral to the story and didn't expect that you would take it so personally. What do you think? Is your friend that cute to fall for chain letters?

Glass*Soul · #3 3rd July 2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by oi_antz

Sounds like chain letters, do you know what they are? Maybe your Christian friend thought there was a nice moral to the story and didn't expect that you would take it so personally. What do you think? Is your friend that cute to fall for chain letters?

Yes. I know that they're chain letters. Are you suggesting my friend forwarded them merely to superstitiously avoid an unfavorable outcome? That's possible.

The interesting point, to me at least, is that the moral of the story in the two emails, chain letters or not, are quite opposite. If my friend believed that they both contained a useful moral regarding what one might believe about God, how does he jibe the two? Or does he? Does believing in God not require that one successfully jibe any disparate details that may arise? Is it fine to insist that one believe that God necessarily repairs appliances upon request while simultaneously insisting that one believe that God may appear whimsically as a warm shaft of sunlight while one's prayed-for appliances remain inoperable?

If my friend merely forwarded them out of superstition without caring what they said about God, is that OK? Does Christian belief allow that one depict God in any way that convenience (or superstition) might dictate?

As for taking it personally, I can't help but notice this stuff. I'm hard-wired to notice.

I always notice the perimeters. These two depictions of God don't overlap. How can I believe in a God that satisfies both descriptions? When my friend encourages me to believe in God, what the muddle-wuddle is he talking about?

Nails74 · #4 3rd July 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul

If my friend merely forwarded them out of superstition without caring what they said about God, is that OK? Does Christian belief allow that one depict God in any way that convenience (or superstition) might dictate?

That would be idolatry...making a god in your own image. God's existence is not subjective...He is who He is apart from our thoughts about Him.

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [John 14:6]

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul

As for taking it personally, I can't help but notice this stuff. I'm hard-wired to notice. I always notice the perimeters. These two depictions of God don't overlap. How can I believe in a God that satisfies both descriptions? When my friend encourages me to believe in God, what the muddle-wuddle is he talking about?

The God of the Bible is not the one referred to in those emails. Perhaps you could just ask your friend what his point was.

knee-v · #5 3rd July 2012, 12:22 PM

Regardless of what many new sects have tried to proclaim, the "Christian God" is not a God who is concerned with giving us a bunch of neat stuff or of making sure that we are comfortable and secure, or making sure that we "get a blessing", so to speak. He is a God who seeks out the human heart that we might know Him, even if the process of us finding Him is uncomfortable. Christ - God in the flesh - Himself taught us that if we are not willing to forsake everything in this life to find Him, then we are not worthy of Him. God cares about man and God finding each other at all costs. God wants us to learn to repent that we might know Him, and He will give us the grace to do that if we seek it out. Seeking God for gain or for neat experiences is foreign to historic Christianity. Your friend's emails are a load of bull.

oi_antz · #6 3rd July 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Glass*Soul

Yes. I know that they're chain letters. Are you suggesting my friend forwarded them merely to superstitiously avoid an unfavorable outcome? That's possible.

The interesting point, to me at least, is that the moral of the story in the two emails, chain letters or not, are quite opposite. If my friend believed that they both contained a useful moral regarding what one might believe about God, how does he jibe the two? Or does he? Does believing in God not require that one successfully jibe any disparate details that may arise? Is it fine to insist that one believe that God necessarily repairs appliances upon request while simultaneously insisting that one believe that God may appear whimsically as a warm shaft of sunlight while one's prayed-for appliances remain inoperable?

If my friend merely forwarded them out of superstition without caring what they said about God, is that OK? Does Christian belief allow that one depict God in any way that convenience (or superstition) might dictate?

As for taking it personally, I can't help but notice this stuff. I'm hard-wired to notice. I always notice the perimeters. These two depictions of God don't overlap. How can I believe in a God that satisfies both descriptions? When my friend encourages me to believe in God, what the muddle-wuddle is he talking about?

I don't know, maybe you should ask him.

aiki · #7 3rd July 2012, 04:32 PM

In the first email, I am prompted to believe very specifically that God will fix two things that I have been struggling to fix and that would be expensive to replace. Furthermore, he will do this tonight. It is made clear in the email that my very belief in God is being tested and that I must demonstrate that belief by forwarding the email to 10 friends in 10 minutes. If I do this, the needed repairs will be performed by God.

This is silly. Obviously so. Give it the attention it deserves (which is none at all).

In the second email, I am prompted, when asking something of God, to accept as answers common natural occurrences. For instance, if I ask God to speak to me, I should be prepared to accept hearing the song of a meadowlark as a granting of that prayer.

Very amusing!

One wonders if God speaks through the grunt of a pig, or the belch of a cow, too, or if it is only the lovely meadowlark through whom we might hear God speaking? I wonder also what God might be saying in such instances...

If I ask to be shown a miracle, I should accept the birth of a baby as a granting of that prayer. It gives several more examples, then the email sums up its message as, "Don't miss out on a blessing because it isn't packaged the way that you expect." God is in the simple, little things, "...even in our electronic age."

Uh huh.

My questions are:

Are both of these scenarios descriptive of what one can expect from the Christian God?

If I were to believe either one or the other of these scenarios as likely regarding God, would either belief qualify equally as my believing in the Christian God?

Is it OK to believe one or both of these things about God?

Question #1: No.
Question #2: Not really, no.
Question #3: No.

Selah.

Glass*Soul · #8 3rd July 2012, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Nails74

That would be idolatry...making a god in your own image. God's existence is not subjective...He is who He is apart from our thoughts about Him.

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. [John 14:6]

Circumstances are such that I cannot approach my friend about the emails with honesty, so I'm declining to reply to them at all. However, I can't help but think about them and wonder. So, I don't know how much my friend thought about them, whether he sent them on to me because they both resonated with his beliefs or for some other reason (more on this below). Either possibility gives me pause.

The God of the Bible is not the one referred to in those emails. Perhaps you could just ask your friend what his point was.

I find myself, as I mull these emails over, thinking of the two as depicting Toaster-God and Butterfly-God, which might tend to sound blasphemous, I suppose, if one wished to take it that way.

I don't think I should believe in either, at any rate. Whenever I try to imagine a God I might believe in, my ideas, such as they are, tend to drop off of some indefinable edge into utter ineffability. I never end up with anything that one might believe in or not believe in. Belief vs non-belief require at least the inkling of an object. Toaster-God and Butterfly God have the advantage that they can be believed in or not believed in. They're objects (in a grammatical or logical sense) about which one can ruminate.

People around here tend to regard an atheist as they might a wild bear. One dose not expect to sight one, and in the unlikely even that one does, it would be advisable to approach only with great caution as it is presumably highly dangerous and probably smells bad. I suspect that this may be some of what is behind the emails...a sort of aggressive reassuring of oneself that there are no atheists in these parts and that if there are they are going to know that had better not show themselves. As the one email said, "You are being tested." IOW, send the email on so we will all know that you are not...dangerous and smelly. Doesn't matter if it's Toaster-God or Butterfly-God that you believe in. It just needs to be some God of some stripe or else.

I could be entirely wrong on that count, but I'm suspicious enough to keep my mouth shut.

Glass*Soul · #9 3rd July 2012, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by knee-v

Regardless of what many new sects have tried to proclaim, the "Christian God" is not a God who is concerned with giving us a bunch of neat stuff or of making sure that we are comfortable and secure, or making sure that we "get a blessing", so to speak. He is a God who seeks out the human heart that we might know Him, even if the process of us finding Him is uncomfortable. Christ - God in the flesh - Himself taught us that if we are not willing to forsake everything in this life to find Him, then we are not worthy of Him. God cares about man and God finding each other at all costs. God wants us to learn to repent that we might know Him, and He will give us the grace to do that if we seek it out. Seeking God for gain or for neat experiences is foreign to historic Christianity. Your friend's emails are a load of bull.

Yeah, the emails are unequivocal bull, but the fact that my friend sent them is thought provoking.

Is believing in no God more problematic than believing in Toaster-God (who somehow feels aesthetically less pleasing than Butterfly-God, if I were forced at gunpiont to chose now Whom I will follow)?

If find myself thinking that one cannot hope to find "God as God," whatever that phrase means. At best one might find the aspect of oneself that Looks For God and get to know it more intimately. That actually strikes me as an acceptable outcome. I have this weird inkling that this is more or less what John 3 is about. "But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." You go looking for God and end up finding the Son of Man part of yourself who has done what he's done "in the sight of God." That's revelation enough for a lifetime.

But that's a different topic.

Glass*Soul · #10 3rd July 2012, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by oi_antz

I don't know, maybe you should ask him.

I would anticipate a bad outcome of the way-more-trouble-than-it's-worth sort. Just gonna leave the ol' lid on that particular can of worms. If I want to articulate my thoughts on the emails, its better to do it here, I think.