Two Emails and the Nature of Belief in God

[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, 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:

1. Are both of these scenarios descriptive of what one can expect from the Christian God?
2. 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?
3. 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]

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:

1. Are both of these scenarios descriptive of what one can expect from the Christian God?
2. 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?
3. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

1. Are both of these scenarios descriptive of what one can expect from the Christian God?
2. 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?
3. 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Glass*Soul]

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

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...

Uh huh.

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

Selah.

But I am an atheist and my friend is not.

 

[aiki]

But I am an atheist and my friend is not.

I'm not sure what your point is...

Selah.

 

[oi_antz]

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.

Oh no, what will happen when the lid eventually comes off that can of worms?

 

[Glass*Soul]

Oh no, what will happen when the lid eventually comes off that can of worms?

Meh. It's not important to the question. Let's just leave it at knowing I'm not going to debate it with the person who sent the emails, but I want to discuss it, so I'm here.

 

[Glass*Soul]

I'm not sure what your point is...

Selah.

My friend is the socially acceptable Christian.

You and I may agree that the emails are a load of that well-known stuff that makes the garden grow, while my friend has found them at least minimally acceptable to pass on. Yet it doesn't seem to matter what one believes about God as long as one believes something. It's almost as if there's this unspoken agreement to believe in believing for the sheer sake of belief, or some such. (Household appliances not withstanding.) I've committed the faux pas of caring what I believed about God and it ultimately made an atheist out of me...an atheist who is afraid to debate an insulting email lest I suffer the consequences of being an outcast. Oi.

What do you do when it all begins to sound like chain letters? The Gideon's Fleece God. The Job's Whirlwind God. The Crystalline Entity God of Revelation. "You are being tested! Tell 10 people in the next 10 minutes!" What do you do when your entire community hinges on belonging to the club of those who believe, even if it's just in Toaster God? Toaster God will do, if you can stomach him.

I'm frustrated.

 

[Nails74]

Yet it doesn't seem to matter what one believes about God as long as one believes something. It's almost as if there's this unspoken agreement to believe in believing for the sheer sake of belief, or some such. (Household appliances not withstanding.) I've committed the faux pas of caring what I believed about God and it ultimately made an atheist out of me...an atheist who is afraid to debate an insulting email lest I suffer the consequences of being an outcast. Oi.

And so you do believe something about God, and you seem to care about it. Take your stand and challenge your friend to be consistent. If he is going to claim to follow the God of the Bible, hold him to it.

 

[BobRyan]

The first email sounds bogus.

As for the second - are you actually a Christian? I don't think the second email would apply to non-Christians except to remind them that gas - and rocks cannot do the things listed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Glass*Soul]

And so you do believe something about God, and you seem to care about it. Take your stand and challenge your friend to be consistent. If he is going to claim to follow the God of the Bible, hold him to it.

Nope. I do not believe in God. I once believed in God. When I did, I cared whether my ideas about God were reasonable or not. I concluded that none of them were. I still believe there are ideas about God that are better or worse than others, for a variety of reasons, none of those reasons being because they correspond in any way to anything beyond the human experience.

I guess what gets me, the more I think about it, is that the emails I've been receiving (there have been others) all seem to extol the virtues of belief vs non-belief, sometimes mentioning atheism in negative terms, and then hand me ideas about God, steaming on a platter, that would be really, really silly even if there was a God. "I *derp* believe God is going to repair two of my appliances tonight if I send this email to 10 people in the next 10 minutes, but at least I'm not *shudder* an atheist!"

 

[Glass*Soul]

The first email sounds bogus.

As for the second - are you actually a Christian? I don't think the second email would apply to non-Christians except to remind them that gas - and rocks cannot do the things listed.

in Christ,

Bob

I have been told that I am and that I am not. Those who tell me that I am not seem to have more power to hurt my feelings, so I've stopped making any claims thereunto.

(And of course the emails are bogus. However, I did receive them all the same.)

 

[Glass*Soul]

You know, the more I talk this out, the more I realize that the main problem with the emails is that they are harassing toward atheists (some of the earlier ones being more threatening in tone), but the person who is sending them to me assumes that I am one of the pack and OK with them. I, on the other hand, realize that I am a part of the group being targeted but do not want to bring the harassment down on myself in full force, in whatever form it may take should I reveal that little factoid. I allow these emails to go unquestioned because I do not want to become one of the victims...even though I already am even if only secretly. It's pretty classic. No wonder I'm angry and frustrated by them.