Two Emails and the Nature of Belief in God

[Glass*Soul]

You made me laugh Do you know what makes people get so contentious about their beliefs?

I have some ideas.

What do you think it is?

 

[hedrick]

I'm really responding to the whole thread, even though I picked one to reply to. I do see the similarity between the two emails and Christianity as a whole. All I can say is that I think the Bible is more honest about things, if read as a whole, with attention to what is really being said. Job, for example, is a protest against exactly this kind of glib confidence. Paul is quite honest about the complexities of being Christian, noting among other things that the one prayer he has made for personal relief was turned down.

Why place the trees there? I've often wondered that, considering how potentially upsetting a situation this set up, and it only recently occurred to me that it was because God intended to stroll in this garden in the cool of the evening and having them there for his use would be pleasant and convenient. The God of Genesis is very anthropomorphized, so this makes sense to the story.

The implication within the story is that it was intended as a test. I don't happen to take those stories as literal truth, and I think the idea of God putting something out specifically to trip people up is inappropriate. However, God does seem to have created a world that gives us enough rope to make pretty significant mistakes. The usual assumption is that without a world that has real problems and reasonable predictable consequences it would be hard for people to develop. I think the real situation is a bit more complex than being tempted by a fruit tree, but that temptation can still serve as a symbol for the real temptations that we feel.

As to the specific temptations: the reason knowledge of good and evil is an issue that what they were looking for was an understanding of good and evil independent of God. A common assumption on the tree of life is that removing access to it was actually an act of mercy. Now that they've fallen, their only hope of finally achieving perfection is in the afterlife. Living forever on earth wouldn't be a good thing, but it's unlikely that they had the perspective to realize that.

I think I've had a tendency to always read into the creation story the assumption that mankind is the apex of creation, when it may be the Garden. God's main purpose in all this creating was possibly the making of a Garden for himself and mankind was added for the express purpose of having a proper Gardener who could do the job. Adam needed a living soul so he could do the job.

Maybe. But I tend to read it that God was giving us a realm we could be responsible for so we could develop. God was quite capable of maintaining the garden on his own.

Does this act by mankind in and of itself curse creation? No. God must take the step of cursing creation. The curse is a deliberate, Divine, punishing act. I'm afraid the Genesis story of the Fall does not get God off the hook in the old Problem of Evil debate.

I don't think this story gets God off the hook, nor that it is intended to. But God's curse needn't be something he arbitrarily imposed as a punishment. Rather, he is formally announcing what the consequences are of mankind not being capable of carrying out their full role as gardeners.

"Sin nature", if we just look at Genesis, is the combination of being Self-conscious (able to know we are naked) and mortal. We're going to die and we know it and that is a painful, painful thing. I also think this is a very old story of the societal upheaval involved in mankind moving from a hunter-gatherer society to a far more labor-intensive, sweat of the brow, farming society and the huge imbalances of power that arose in the city states that farming made possible. I think there is still something in us that senses we are better made for the former than we are for the latter, but there is no turning back and that is also painful to sense.

You may be right in the origin. But I think you want to look at how the final editors intended the story to be used. I would say that the recognition that we are fallen is a basic foundation for understanding how God works with us, even if we didn't get into this situation quite that way.

To be God's children even though we aren't naturally perfect is, I think, a higher and more important goal than being naturally perfect.

 

[food4thought]

Well, thank you. I appreciate your good wishes.

The problem is that those who think they are speaking the truth may not have a clue, but may disregard any outcries of pain just the same as being a sign that they are hitting pay dirt and that the recipient is being silly to protest and needs to be further chastised.

At least that has been my experience.

It is painfully clear to me that you have been wronged. From this discussion and discussions with others that I have had it is also clear that there are many who take calling out others sins (both real and imagined) as a mission in life... there is a time that intervention in another's life is good, but if someone is not willing to accept what is said there is no good purpose in continually hammering on them. It is the Holy Spirit's purpose to bring conviction and repentance, not some holier than though human's. Being confronted with the truth once or twice is enough... if the heart is ready to deal with it, it will be dealt with at that point; if not, persistence in anything but prayer is counterproductive. I am truly sorry if relentless pestering has been your experience. I would be interested in hearing your story if you feel confortable sharing it, just PM me or post it here... share as much or as little as you want.

I have learned over the years, for the most part, how to stay out of the way of those who want to correct me, but these emails are sneaking past my defenses in one area of my life in which I cannot control the situation.

Avoidance is a tactic I am far too familliar with from my own life... All I can say is that these things have a way of breaking through our defenses and forcing us to confront them, until we resolve them. I speak only from my experience, which is no doubt different than your own, but God desires us to come to Him... God desires us to have relationship with Him above all else, and believe me when I tell you that relationship with Him is truly in our best interest both in this life (my experience) and the next (my faith).

God allows us to make decisions, and He uses the good, the bad, and the ugly to bring about the good of those who will trust Him. The emails you have mentioned sound like a mix of all three. Perhaps you have experienced quite a bit of the bad and the ugly in your past, but God can use these experiences to bring about the image of Jesus in you if you will receive Him.

 

[Glass*Soul]

The implication within the story is that it was intended as a test. I don't happen to take those stories as literal truth, and I think the idea of God putting something out specifically to trip people up is inappropriate. However, God does seem to have created a world that gives us enough rope to make pretty significant mistakes. The usual assumption is that without a world that has real problems and reasonable predictable consequences it would be hard for people to develop. I think the real situation is a bit more complex than being tempted by a fruit tree, but that temptation can still serve as a symbol for the real temptations that we feel.

Where in the story do you actually find the above implied? How is it implied?

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.



[sniping vs 10-14 pertaining to the rivers of Eden]


The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

There's a command here, and a warning regarding the tree, but no wording that expresses the idea of a test. It isn't implied, I don't think. It is something that can be projected into the story, but one does not have to do so for the narrative to make sense on its own terms.

I don't think this story gets God off the hook, nor that it is intended to. But God's curse needn't be something he arbitrarily imposed as a punishment. Rather, he is formally announcing what the consequences are of mankind not being capable of carrying out their full role as gardeners.

I don't know...


Twice, the curses have God making "I" statements.

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.

I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.

It could be a mixture of God initiated punishments and an enumeration of natural consequences, but it isn't wholly the latter.


(Just noticed that Matthew 7 that we've touched on in this topic mentions thorns and thistles vs. fruit as does the Genesis 3 material. Interesting recurrence of a theme. If we apply it, it puts an interesting spin on the concept of judge not lest you be judged, in that the process of judging requires one to make use of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Is Jesus implying that we can let go of that in some fashion? )

 

[oi_antz]

I have some ideas.

What do you think it is?

I haven't figured it out, but looking upon my personal experience I can see there was a moment when a light went on. It was when I was attending lectures at University by one tutor in particular. Her point of view was just so refreshing, not like anything I'd encountered before! So I think it is a cultural thing. My mother is a little bit ignorant toward other faiths, yet I am not that bad. So it definitely seems to not be a genetic trait so much as it is cultural. I believe the media industry has a lot to answer for wrt the maturity of culture. That tutor I was so impressed by was lecturing us communication skills and media studies. She also lectured womans studies (but I never got to hear those lectures). It was great! I wish everyone would learn to scrutinize media

 

[oi_antz]

Why place the trees there? I've often wondered that, considering how potentially upsetting a situation this set up, and it only recently occurred to me that it was because God intended to stroll in this garden in the cool of the evening and having them there for his use would be pleasant and convenient. The God of Genesis is very anthropomorphized, so this makes sense to the story.

It is interesting to hear your thoughts on this story, especially knowing that you identify yourself an atheist, yet willing to think openly about the story from a theological perspective.

I have a bit of trouble with what you say in this paragraph. In Isaiah God announces that He alone can see the future. If God put the trees in the garden knowing that mankind would fall, yet doing so for His own purpose, that would make Him selfish. I have found Him to be selfless rather than selfish. It just seems to contradict His nature. So I think there has to be another reason why He did that.

In the garden He originally designed, there was an abundance of choice because every choice was good except one. That one bad choice would infect the human soul that it would then need to weigh up good and evil in every decision it makes. There is still a question to be answered: if God was capable of banishing Adam and Eve from the garden and protecting it by cherub with a flaming sword, then why did He not protect the tree of knowledge of good and evil with that cherub in the first place? The only logical answer that makes sense to me is that God knowingly placed the tree there with the intention for Adam and Eve to fall. That raises a question: what was the reason for doing that? I'm interested to know what you think about this.

I'm also interested to know why, since you are not afraid to think theologically, do you identify yourself as atheist?

 

[Glass*Soul]

It is interesting to hear your thoughts on this story, especially knowing that you identify yourself an atheist, yet willing to think openly about the story from a theological perspective.

I have a bit of trouble with what you say in this paragraph. In Isaiah God announces that He alone can see the future. If God put the trees in the garden knowing that mankind would fall, yet doing so for His own purpose, that would make Him selfish. I have found Him to be selfless rather than selfish. It just seems to contradict His nature. So I think there has to be another reason why He did that.

In the garden He originally designed, there was an abundance of choice because every choice was good except one. That one bad choice would infect the human soul that it would then need to weigh up good and evil in every decision it makes. There is still a question to be answered: if God was capable of banishing Adam and Eve from the garden and protecting it by cherub with a flaming sword, then why did He not protect the tree of knowledge of good and evil with that cherub in the first place? The only logical answer that makes sense to me is that God knowingly placed the tree there with the intention for Adam and Eve to fall. That raises a question: what was the reason for doing that? I'm interested to know what you think about this.

I'm also interested to know why, since you are not afraid to think theologically, do you identify yourself as atheist?

I'll start with the last question first.

Theology is a way of exploring the human experience. When we do theology we are writing or telling stories about ourselves with a depth that we don't normally visit in our more mundane modes of thought. This process of encountering otherwise unknown depths can give theology a numinous quality. There can be good theology that is nourishing and there can be bad theology that is as thorny as all get out (and a lot of just plain pop theology that cheapens the whole experience and inoculates us against the really bad stuff and the actually useful stuff alike).

As to why I still do theology, it's like dream interpretation or the Tarot. I don't believe either one tells the future or gives messages from the beyond, but I sometimes find it useful when my thinking feels stuck to record a few dreams or pull a few cards and ruminate over the rich symbols. The Bible is what I know, so I use it.

As for Genesis and Isaiah...

There are two creations stories in Genesis. The scholars that put Genesis together preserved both of these ancient stories without editing them so that they would agree perfectly with one another. It's an approach that shows a certain respect for the source material and also reveals that these scholars were not treating the stories as if they were journalistic accounts. They are, as stories, mere vessels carrying larger concepts. The truth is not in the details, but in the stories themselves. The truth is in the story.

Because these stories are so ancient, they are not informed by Isaiah. Isaiah may be informed by them, but not vice versa. There may have been other ancient materials that rubbed shoulders with the creation stories of Genesis that would throw light on them if we had them, but we don't. I think it is best with these stories to simply allow them to throw light on themselves by, when possible, approaching them with a blank slate of expectation.

So, you have a God in these stories who makes himself a garden that he comes to stroll through in the cool of the evening. He likes to stroll. He wants it to be cool when he does. There are some sort of Divine Companions that he talks things over with. This isn't the sophisticated, psychologically and philosophically worked-on God of Isaiah or Jeremiah or Jesus Christ. Did he know what was going to happen regarding his trees and his gardener? The God of Isaiah would have, but I don't get the impression that the God of Genesis 2 and 3 did. The serpent found the chink in his plans and exploited it. God's shock and anger do not come across to me as feigned. He asks questions because he's really looking for answers.

IMHO, this doesn't take anything away from God as God if one is a theist, or from the scriptures if one respects them (which I do). It simply acknowledges that our best stories about God, our best theology, has changed and evolved over time. These stories have been, in that process of change and evolution, true as to our human experience as expressed in theological terms, their very rawness and wealth of contradictions bearing witness to that truth. Something impossibly smooth would be far more suspect as having been manufactured in a manipulative fashion. These do feel to me like our true stories.

I think the creation story of Genesis 2 and 3 are most useful to us if we let them remain as innocent and simple as they were from the beginning. Acknowledge that they come from a henotheistic society, whose best model for God was their local potentate writ large, but whose feeling of unease and uncanniness at life and death and Self-consciousness and the Problem of Evil was identical to ours, their fellow human beings. If we take this simple story and attempt to bolt it seamlessly onto Greek thought with its perfectly merciless absolutes, it gets rather monstrous actually. You end up with potentially very, very harmful theology of the most thorny, thorn-catching and strangling sort.

In Genesis 2 and 3, we got robbed, but God got robbed too. The rift was partly the Serpent's fault, partly our fault, but partly His fault. He cursed his creation in anger and we all lost something. When the dust settled, we all ached. It's taking us all time to figure out how to fix this. We're all working on it. Jesus Christ took a very big leap in that direction. A quantum leap, as the story describes it. There is hope.

*Gets off podium*

Sorry that's so long.

 

[oi_antz]

I'll start with the last question first.

Theology is a way of exploring the human experience. When we do theology we are writing or telling stories about ourselves with a depth that we don't normally visit in our more mundane modes of thought.

Interesting concept, but who is God in this picture? Some sort of delusion?

This process of encountering otherwise unknown depths can give theology a numinous quality. There can be good theology that is nourishing and there can be bad theology that is as thorny as all get out (and a lot of just plain pop theology that cheapens the whole experience and inoculates us against the really bad stuff and the actually useful stuff alike).

As to why I still do theology, it's like dream interpretation or the Tarot. I don't believe either one tells the future or gives messages from the beyond, but I sometimes find it useful when my thinking feels stuck to record a few dreams or pull a few cards and ruminate over the rich symbols. The Bible is what I know, so I use it.

Don't you acknowledge a spiritual component to these activities?

As for Genesis and Isaiah...

There are two creations stories in Genesis. The scholars that put Genesis together preserved both of these ancient stories without editing them so that they would agree perfectly with one another. It's an approach that shows a certain respect for the source material and also reveals that these scholars were not treating the stories as if they were journalistic accounts. They are, as stories, mere vessels carrying larger concepts. The truth is not in the details, but in the stories themselves. The truth is in the story.

Because these stories are so ancient, they are not informed by Isaiah. Isaiah may be informed by them, but not vice versa. There may have been other ancient materials that rubbed shoulders with the creation stories of Genesis that would throw light on them if we had them, but we don't. I think it is best with these stories to simply allow them to throw light on themselves by, when possible, approaching them with a blank slate of expectation.

So, you have a God in these stories who makes himself a garden that he comes to stroll through in the cool of the evening. He likes to stroll. He wants it to be cool when he does. There are some sort of Divine Companions that he talks things over with. This isn't the sophisticated, psychologically and philosophically worked-on God of Isaiah or Jeremiah or Jesus Christ. Did he know what was going to happen regarding his trees and his gardener? The God of Isaiah would have, but I don't get the impression that the God of Genesis 2 and 3 did. The serpent found the chink in his plans and exploited it. God's shock and anger do not come across to me as feigned. He asks questions because he's really looking for answers.

So you don't believe that Adam knew God, or Isaiah either?

IMHO, this doesn't take anything away from God as God if one is a theist, or from the scriptures if one respects them (which I do). It simply acknowledges that our best stories about God, our best theology, has changed and evolved over time. These stories have been, in that process of change and evolution, true as to our human experience as expressed in theological terms, their very rawness and wealth of contradictions bearing witness to that truth. Something impossibly smooth would be far more suspect as having been manufactured in a manipulative fashion. These do feel to me like our true stories.

But you've taken God in this picture and made Him fake. I don't disagree with what you say, our theology has evolved, but don't you think God intended it that way?

I think the creation story of Genesis 2 and 3 are most useful to us if we let them remain as innocent and simple as they were from the beginning. Acknowledge that they come from a henotheistic society, whose best model for God was their local potentate writ large, but whose feeling of unease and uncanniness at life and death and Self-consciousness and the Problem of Evil was identical to ours, their fellow human beings. If we take this simple story and attempt to bolt it seamlessly onto Greek thought with its perfectly merciless absolutes, it gets rather monstrous actually. You end up with potentially very, very harmful theology of the most thorny, thorn-catching and strangling sort.

In Genesis 2 and 3, we got robbed, but God got robbed too. The rift was partly the Serpent's fault, partly our fault, but partly His fault. He cursed his creation in anger and we all lost something. When the dust settled, we all ached. It's taking us all time to figure out how to fix this. We're all working on it. Jesus Christ took a very big leap in that direction. A quantum leap, as the story describes it. There is hope.

*Gets off podium*

Sorry that's so long.

No don't be sorry, it's very refreshing! You have a good attitude and your thoughts are very balanced. The only thing I see that may be a problem with your understanding, is you don't seem to think people's experiences with God are real spiritual experiences. The consequence of this, you can't experience God for yourself. Is that what you believe? If so, why?

 

[Glass*Soul]

Interesting concept, but who is God in this picture? Some sort of delusion?

If you're using the term delusion to mean a belief that is unconnected to the facts and resistant to reason, then, yes, there are people who use the story that way. They treat it as if it were journalistic reporting of the highest order and ignore any evidence whatsoever to the contrary. That’s not how this story was meant to be used. It's a myth. It stands outside of the facts in order to tell us something true.


A myth is most useful when told in an initiatory fashion because it expresses something that is true about the human experience that would otherwise be virtually ineffable. Genesis 2 and 3 capture our angst as Self-conscious beings who know they are going to die along with our inchoate longing in the face of the Problem of Evil. We tell this story over and over again because it successfully puts us in the middle of it, together, in a way that leaves us saying to one another, "Yes! It's like that!" We’re not alone in it anymore and that is good.

Don't you acknowledge a spiritual component to these activities?

It depends upon what you mean by spiritual. As I said, they have a numinous quality. I tend to think that numinosity (not a real word I don't think. LOL ), is the feeling result, the goose-bump raising shiver, of encountering our own depths. Suddenly sensing something that has been very near to you, so near that it actually is you, is pretty profound and can be scary and feel quite Other.

So you don't believe that Adam knew God, or Isaiah either?

I don't believe Adam was a single discrete individual. He is Mankind.


Isaiah apparently knew something that produced some pretty profound literature. I don't believe in God, so of course I don't think he knew God as God. I'm interested in knowing what he knew whether he called it God or not.

But you've taken God in this picture and made Him fake. I don't disagree with what you say, our theology has evolved, but don't you think God intended it that way?

If I went to the Louvre I could see the real Mona Lisa. It wouldn't be a real woman though. It wouldn't even really be three dimensional. It’s paint on wood and only gives the appearance of being a three dimensional woman. Heck, we're not even sure it’s a painting of an actual real woman. Some people think it is a self-portrait of da Vinci in the guise of a woman. That doesn't cause me to think of it as a fake. It’s as real a work of art as can be. What it often feels like when people talk to me about God is that they’re holding up a metaphysical Mona Lisa and expecting me to behave as if I could take her hand and talk to her. That would, to use your word, feel fake to me. Luckily, that’s not the only approach we can take to the Mona Lisa, so we don’t have to throw it away.


Our God concepts have evolved due to a number of pressures over time. God intending it is not one of them, IMHO, because I do not believe in God. Once I realized this and didn’t have that pressure prompting me to jury-rig a single coherent God out of all of the works in the Bible, I found myself looking at Genesis 2 and 3 and seeing that it truly does not depict modern monotheistic thought. Saying so kind of gets people’s dander up though.

No don't be sorry, it's very refreshing! You have a good attitude and your thoughts are very balanced. The only thing I see that may be a problem with your understanding, is you don't seem to think people's experiences with God are real spiritual experiences. The consequence of this, you can't experience God for yourself. Is that what you believe? If so, why?

Something can be true (useful and inwardly coherent) whether or not it is realized as a fact in this world. A subjective experience, for instance can be true. A symbol can be true. Even a mathematical theorem can be true by this definition while not being realized in this world. I, personally, given my beliefs, cannot have an experience of God as an objective being unless I entertain a delusional state, which I do not care to do. (Not saying anyone else would have to enter a delusional state. Not trying to insult anyone. Just saying that because of my beliefs I would have to.) I might change my mind, but that says nothing further as to the objectivity of God, only as to the state of my mind.

I’m OK with that. What I’m not OK with is being told that I deserve to be shot because of it or that it necessarily makes me morally inferior to someone who believes that God will repair his toaster overnight if he forwards an email. I know it’s silly. I don’t know why I let the emails make me angry, but they did. It has helped to talk it out here.

 

[oi_antz]

If you're using the term delusion to mean a belief that is unconnected to the facts and resistant to reason, then, yes, there are people who use the story that way. They treat it as if it were journalistic reporting of the highest order and ignore any evidence whatsoever to the contrary. That’s not how this story was meant to be used. It's a myth. It stands outside of the facts in order to tell us something true.


A myth is most useful when told in an initiatory fashion because it expresses something that is true about the human experience that would otherwise be virtually ineffable. Genesis 2 and 3 capture our angst as Self-conscious beings who know they are going to die along with our inchoate longing in the face of the Problem of Evil. We tell this story over and over again because it successfully puts us in the middle of it, together, in a way that leaves us saying to one another, "Yes! It's like that!" We’re not alone in it anymore and that is good.




It depends upon what you mean by spiritual. As I said, they have a numinous quality. I tend to think that numinosity (not a real word I don't think. LOL ), is the feeling result, the goose-bump raising shiver, of encountering our own depths. Suddenly sensing something that has been very near to you, so near that it actually is you, is pretty profound and can be scary and feel quite Other.



I don't believe Adam was a single discrete individual. He is Mankind.


Isaiah apparently knew something that produced some pretty profound literature. I don't believe in God, so of course I don't think he knew God as God. I'm interested in knowing what he knew whether he called it God or not.



If I went to the Louvre I could see the real Mona Lisa. It wouldn't be a real woman though. It wouldn't even really be three dimensional. It’s paint on wood and only gives the appearance of being a three dimensional woman. Heck, we're not even sure it’s a painting of an actual real woman. Some people think it is a self-portrait of da Vinci in the guise of a woman. That doesn't cause me to think of it as a fake. It’s as real a work of art as can be. What it often feels like when people talk to me about God is that they’re holding up a metaphysical Mona Lisa and expecting me to behave as if I could take her hand and talk to her. That would, to use your word, feel fake to me. Luckily, that’s not the only approach we can take to the Mona Lisa, so we don’t have to throw it away.


Our God concepts have evolved due to a number of pressures over time. God intending it is not one of them, IMHO, because I do not believe in God. Once I realized this and didn’t have that pressure prompting me to jury-rig a single coherent God out of all of the works in the Bible, I found myself looking at Genesis 2 and 3 and seeing that it truly does not depict modern monotheistic thought. Saying so kind of gets people’s dander up though.

Something can be true (useful and inwardly coherent) whether or not it is realized as a fact in this world. A subjective experience, for instance can be true. A symbol can be true. Even a mathematical theorem can be true by this definition while not being realized in this world. I, personally, given my beliefs, cannot have an experience of God as an objective being unless I entertain a delusional state, which I do not care to do. (Not saying anyone else would have to enter a delusional state. Not trying to insult anyone. Just saying that because of my beliefs I would have to.) I might change my mind, but that says nothing further as to the objectivity of God, only as to the state of my mind.

I’m OK with that. What I’m not OK with is being told that I deserve to be shot because of it or that it necessarily makes me morally inferior to someone who believes that God will repair his toaster overnight if he forwards an email. I know it’s silly. I don’t know why I let the emails make me angry, but they did. It has helped to talk it out here.

It has benefited me to hear your thoughts too. It is clear that God has not knocked you blind off your horse, and due to that I don't feel that I could really condemn you for believing God experiences to be fake. God says "I will have pity on whom I choose". I'm certainly curious to pick your brain a bit further. What do you make of this statement:

Matthew 3:16
After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him.

Was Jesus lying or delusional? Do you read this testimony as untrue?

 

[Glass*Soul]

It has benefited me to hear your thoughts too. It is clear that God has not knocked you blind off your horse, and due to that I don't feel that I could really condemn you for believing God experiences to be fake. God says "I will have pity on whom I choose".

I've never heard that turn of phrase before: "...knocked you blind off your horse." Is it a reference to Saul on the road to Damascus? LOL I'm not sure if you think God has had pity on me or on the poor soul who has gotten knocked off his horse.

I'm certainly curious to pick your brain a bit further. What do you make of this statement:

Matthew 3:16
After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him.

Was Jesus lying or delusional? Do you read this testimony as untrue?

In short, I don't know what happened.

Some possibilities that come to mind:

1. Jesus had the experience that is described here and exactly as described, but there is no God so how do we explain it? Does that make him delusional? I suppose it depends upon how one is using the word. It does not, as an isolated incident, indicate that he was mentally ill. Sometimes a perfectly sane person will have a peak emotional experience that produces a spontaneous real-seeming vision. Jesus went from his baptism into 40 days of fasting in the desert, after which he, quite understandably, had additonal visions. What would be more telling, as to his mental health, would be how he behaved after these visions. Did he come away from them seeming cracked? Something in him broken? Then I would be suspicious that he had suffered some sort of mental breakdown. Did he, on the other hand, come away from them seeming more sane and centered? Then I would be suspicious that he was a mentally strong individual who was capable of having and healthily incorporating both spontaneous and fast-induced visions.

2. Jesus had a profound experience at his baptism which he could only describe in metaphorical terms, as if the heaven's had opened etc, etc.

3. Jesus never talked about his experience at his baptism, but those who witnessed the event interpreted what they saw in the terms that we find in this story. Interestingly, in the story of Saul on the road to Damascus, we actually get two versions: what the people with Saul experienced and what Saul experienced. They differ. If, as in this scenario regarding Jesus, we did not have Saul's own words but only those of the eye witnesses, we would have a very different perception of the event than we do.

4. Jesus baptism was ordinary but his followers needed to remember it as extraordinary. It is possible that nothing extraordinary happened at the time of Jesus' baptism, that it was an important event to him and perhaps a turning point but no more, but that a folk tale or fanciful addition that expressed something important as to how his followers felt about him simply got attached to the event over time. This happens to the stories of the lives of heroes.

5. It is a literary trope. The writer of Mark added the supernatural details to this story in order to make an important point. Matthew and Luke simply carried it forward.

6. There really is one God, who corresponds to the God of the Jews, who appeared to Jesus in the form of a dove and spoke to him at his baptism.

7. Something supernatural interacted with Jesus at his baptism but it does not correspond with the God of the Jews. He and his followers only understood what was happening in the dimmest of terms and their stories barely hint at the truth.

* * * *

Obviously I don't find each of these to be equally likely.

I don't believe in God, but the stories in the Bible are my stories, the ones I grew up with and that have shaped me. How do I handle them now? What do I, personally, do with the story of Jesus' baptism at this point?

We all have mixed motives. Sometimes profoundly mixed. When I read the story of Jesus' baptism, I see someone who finally understands the full scope and importance of the ministry he has been contemplating and needs, in light of this, to face as fully as possibly the character flaws that may trip him up in attempting something so audacious and potentially powerful.

That seems to me to be a healthy approach. It's too, too easy to blunder ahead after the peak, heavens-are-opening-up experience. The angel (or dove) on my shoulder is telling to to do this-and-such, but I need to really, truly understand what the devil on my other shoulder is telling me too. He's telling me something, we can be sure of that, and it's probably subtly mixed up with the first experience. If we care to consult with Eve she would probably give us an earful on the question . If I don't, then I can get into a horrible snarl just at the point I feel I am ready to do some good. I think we can all point to grand undertakings that have gone belly up due to some dark motive working secretly at the core of it. Think Jim Bakker or Jerry Sandusky.

I don't care if it really happened or not. Grand vision first. Then 40 days fasting in the wilderness second. Then go ahead. Don't skip step two. That much is true.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Was Jesus lying or delusional? Do you read this testimony as untrue?

I don't know if you or anyone else is still following this topic, but I do have a follow-up question.

I recognize that you are offering up the old Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument here. I answered your question in the way I did in order to to show that, even just off the top of my head and with limited time, I could offer seven additional possibilities I might entertain.

My question is: Why would you want to approach an avowed non-theist, who has expressed a positive interest in Jesus, by attempting to whittle the possible ways of looking at him down to only two and those two being unattractive? Two of the issues that have sprung up in this topic are theism and what to do with Jesus. Yes? If someone is a non-theist who cannot be convinced Jesus is the Son of God, is the goal of Christians to convince that person to walk away and leave Jesus alone? If so, why?

A number of years ago on this website, there was a time when the use of a Christian Icon was detached from the Nicene creed, or any creed for that matter, and persons like me were allowed to discuss theology. I changed my icon from the Atheist one to the generic black cross at that time and made my user-title "non-theistic follower of Christ". In retrospect, I was very naive about this. I had actually expected that the Christians on this board would be pleased to see that someone they had debated for years was making a move back toward Christianity. Quite the opposite was true. After a good deal of struggle, and a year off from posting on the internet, I returned and put the atheist icon back.

To some extent this sudden spate of emails recalls that time and the sheer futility of arguing my case.

 

[food4thought]

If someone is a non-theist who cannot be convinced Jesus is the Son of God, is the goal of Christians to convince that person to walk away and leave Jesus alone? If so, why?

Funny, I just had a discussion similar to this regarding Hindu's who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior yet still retain remnants of a Pantheistic image of God overall... is such a person not saved? Even though, because one of the ways to acheive release from the cycle of kharma and rebirth is total devotion to one of Hinduism's several million gods, that believer might be a more devoted Christian than about 99% of other Christians?

The answer is: I DON'T KNOW. I leave that in God's hands to judge. The question really is, do they/you believe in the sinless life, substitutionary death, and justifying resurrection of Jesus? If you truly believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead, and confess that He is your rightful Lord, the Bible says you will be saved (Romans 10:8-13).

I personally don't think we can just ignore the rest of Scripture on this topic, yet the passage in Romans IS THERE, and it does say what it says. Again, I leave this to God to judge... but I would have a much easier time accepting you as a possible fellow believer if I knew what you actually do believe, you know

 

[oi_antz]

I don't know if you or anyone else is still following this topic, but I do have a follow-up question.

I recognize that you are offering up the old Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument here. I answered your question in the way I did in order to to show that, even just off the top of my head and with limited time, I could offer seven additional possibilities I might entertain.

My question is: Why would you want to approach an avowed non-theist, who has expressed a positive interest in Jesus, by attempting to whittle the possible ways of looking at him down to only two and those two being unattractive? Two of the issues that have sprung up in this topic are theism and what to do with Jesus. Yes? If someone is a non-theist who cannot be convinced Jesus is the Son of God, is the goal of Christians to convince that person to walk away and leave Jesus alone? If so, why?

A number of years ago on this website, there was a time when the use of a Christian Icon was detached from the Nicene creed, or any creed for that matter, and persons like me were allowed to discuss theology. I changed my icon from the Atheist one to the generic black cross at that time and made my user-title "non-theistic follower of Christ". In retrospect, I was very naive about this. I had actually expected that the Christians on this board would be pleased to see that someone they had debated for years was making a move back toward Christianity. Quite the opposite was true. After a good deal of struggle, and a year off from posting on the internet, I returned and put the atheist icon back.

To some extent this sudden spate of emails recalls that time and the sheer futility of arguing my case.

Hi GS, I'm sorry that I didn't reply to your previous post, please don't take it personally I have just been too busy to even check emails these last two days. Anyhow, I want to just reassure you that I don't look down on you due to your having not accepted God's voice. I recognize that many Christians would. To simply state my reason for this attitude, I really cannot be sure whether you are against Jesus or not. So I have no cause to actually form that opinion of you. Remember what Jesus said in Luke 9:50; "Whoever is not against you is for you". I don't see that you are against Jesus, but I do worry a little about whose voice you listen to when you read. That's not my role to judge though, if you belong to Jesus then you will know His voice.

Is the goal of Christians to convince that person to walk away and leave Jesus alone? If so, why?

Not every Christian behaves the same way. We are individuals, and almost every time I speak to someone I have to reiterate that. It seems non-Christians get their exposure to Christianity through media, which puts a negative spin on it (typical of the puppet masters they choose to be). So I would say that any genuine Christian would not want you to walk away from the faith, but would encourage you to do what you do: consider what the messages in the bible mean to you on a personal level. This is important because God is personal, He speaks to the heart. When we read the bible we establish that spiritual connection to God and choose either to listen to Him or the serpent.

 

[oi_antz]

I've never heard that turn of phrase before: "...knocked you blind off your horse." Is it a reference to Saul on the road to Damascus? LOL I'm not sure if you think God has had pity on me or on the poor soul who has gotten knocked off his horse.

Yes that is correct. When God wants to speak to you, it is true. It is inescapable, He is naturally going to have the last word.

In short, I don't know what happened.

But it is written what happened, why don't you believe it?

Some possibilities that come to mind:

1. Jesus had the experience that is described here and exactly as described, but there is no God so how do we explain it?

Excuse me for not asking sooner, but what exactly gives you enough confidence to say "there is no God"?

Does that make him delusional? I suppose it depends upon how one is using the word. It does not, as an isolated incident, indicate that he was mentally ill. Sometimes a perfectly sane person will have a peak emotional experience that produces a spontaneous real-seeming vision. Jesus went from his baptism into 40 days of fasting in the desert, after which he, quite understandably, had additonal visions. What would be more telling, as to his mental health, would be how he behaved after these visions. Did he come away from them seeming cracked? Something in him broken? Then I would be suspicious that he had suffered some sort of mental breakdown. Did he, on the other hand, come away from them seeming more sane and centered? Then I would be suspicious that he was a mentally strong individual who was capable of having and healthily incorporating both spontaneous and fast-induced visions.

What is your judgment?

2. Jesus had a profound experience at his baptism which he could only describe in metaphorical terms, as if the heaven's had opened etc, etc.

Hmmm, well I know that I have experienced The Holy Spirit descending like a dove. Spirituality is an interesting realm, not too different from the physical, but certainly able to be discerned as such.

3. Jesus never talked about his experience at his baptism, but those who witnessed the event interpreted what they saw in the terms that we find in this story. Interestingly, in the story of Saul on the road to Damascus, we actually get two versions: what the people with Saul experienced and what Saul experienced. They differ. If, as in this scenario regarding Jesus, we did not have Saul's own words but only those of the eye witnesses, we would have a very different perception of the event than we do.

In fact if we scrutinize what is said in BibleGateway - Quick search: spirit dove all the gospels, it really isn't clear who exactly God spoke to. John the baptist witnessed it, so did Jesus, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that others saw it. Luke doesn't make that clear, but considering that Jesus tried to keep His identity secret, I would not expect that God would have spilled the beans to everyone present.

4. Jesus baptism was ordinary but his followers needed to remember it as extraordinary. It is possible that nothing extraordinary happened at the time of Jesus' baptism, that it was an important event to him and perhaps a turning point but no more, but that a folk tale or fanciful addition that expressed something important as to how his followers felt about him simply got attached to the event over time. This happens to the stories of the lives of heroes.

Fair enough, I suppose.

5. It is a literary trope. The writer of Mark added the supernatural details to this story in order to make an important point. Matthew and Luke simply carried it forward.

Too presumptuous for me.

6. There really is one God, who corresponds to the God of the Jews, who appeared to Jesus in the form of a dove and spoke to him at his baptism.

So what if there was? What consequence does that have to your beliefs?

7. Something supernatural interacted with Jesus at his baptism but it does not correspond with the God of the Jews. He and his followers only understood what was happening in the dimmest of terms and their stories barely hint at the truth.
* * * *

Dear God have mercy on us

Obviously I don't find each of these to be equally likely.

I don't believe in God, but the stories in the Bible are my stories, the ones I grew up with and that have shaped me. How do I handle them now? What do I, personally, do with the story of Jesus' baptism at this point?

I'm more interested to know what you do with your own baptism.

We all have mixed motives. Sometimes profoundly mixed. When I read the story of Jesus' baptism, I see someone who finally understands the full scope and importance of the ministry he has been contemplating and needs, in light of this, to face as fully as possibly the character flaws that may trip him up in attempting something so audacious and potentially powerful.

That seems to me to be a healthy approach. It's too, too easy to blunder ahead after the peak, heavens-are-opening-up experience. The angel (or dove) on my shoulder is telling to to do this-and-such, but I need to really, truly understand what the devil on my other shoulder is telling me too. He's telling me something, we can be sure of that, and it's probably subtly mixed up with the first experience. If we care to consult with Eve she would probably give us an earful on the question . If I don't, then I can get into a horrible snarl just at the point I feel I am ready to do some good. I think we can all point to grand undertakings that have gone belly up due to some dark motive working secretly at the core of it. Think Jim Bakker or Jerry Sandusky.

Careful there, it was through not trusting God that death became a problem. There is of course, the opportunity to have life never ending, why would you want to forsake that promise on the grounds of "I need to really, truly understand what the devil on my other shoulder is telling me too". He lied to Adam and Eve, he murdered them and wants to murder you too. That person deserves no trust.

I don't care if it really happened or not. Grand vision first. Then 40 days fasting in the wilderness second. Then go ahead. Don't skip step two. That much is true.

What benefit does it have to dismiss His testimony?

 

[thesunisout]

What scripture says about your unbelief is pretty straight forward:

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

So, what it is saying is that God has made it clear to you, one way or the other, that He is there, only you have suppressed the truth. It is saying that you have no excuse for being an atheist.

What God appreciates and can work with is someone who is interested in the truth, beyond their preconceived notions of reality. He is looking for someone who can admit that everything they know could in fact be wrong. Someone who is sincerely looking for the truth, who, being confronted by their own subjective biases, would have to admit this as a possibility. On the other side of this possibility is Jesus Christ, knocking on the door of your heart. The question is, will you open the door and let Him in?

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Funny, I just had a discussion similar to this regarding Hindu's who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior yet still retain remnants of a Pantheistic image of God overall... is such a person not saved? Even though, because one of the ways to acheive release from the cycle of kharma and rebirth is total devotion to one of Hinduism's several million gods, that believer might be a more devoted Christian than about 99% of other Christians?

The answer is: I DON'T KNOW. I leave that in God's hands to judge. The question really is, do they/you believe in the sinless life, substitutionary death, and justifying resurrection of Jesus? If you truly believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead, and confess that He is your rightful Lord, the Bible says you will be saved (Romans 10:8-13).

I personally don't think we can just ignore the rest of Scripture on this topic, yet the passage in Romans IS THERE, and it does say what it says. Again, I leave this to God to judge... but I would have a much easier time accepting you as a possible fellow believer if I knew what you actually do believe, you know

What does it mean to you to accept someone as a possible fellow believer? Are there certain privileges that you are willing to grant if someone meets certain criteria but withhold if they do not? I guess that's what I don't understand.

What would you want or need to know about what I believe? What happens if my answers don't satisfy?

 

[food4thought]

What does it mean to you to accept someone as a possible fellow believer?

Really, it is not what i think, but what God thinks that matters, and I just try as much as I can to align my beliefs and thoughts up with His as they are revealed to us (primarily in the Bible). To me, though...

Are there certain privileges that you are willing to grant if someone meets certain criteria but withhold if they do not? I guess that's what I don't understand.

Well, most importantly, if you are a believer we would have the opportunity to spend eternity in heaven together As for what I would grant... I really had to stop and think a bit on that. I'd like to think I am not less polite to nonbelievers, but that may not be true. I guess the main thing would be the potential for entering the "inner circle" of my close friendships, the people that I share my intimate concerns and joys with... for reasons you may or may not really understand, these people are almost universally believers (with the exception of my cousin, who is like a brother to me despite his unbelief). Really, as an internet acquaintance, I would hope that my demeanor toards you wouldn't change all that much... the content of our communications would likely change some, as I would know more what we had in common.

What would you want or need to know about what I believe? What happens if my answers don't satisfy?

I just want to know what parts of Christianity you agree with, and what parts you reject, and why... this would lead to a much more interesting and fruitful conversation IMO... we could talk about what we agree on without wondering whether we're on the same page, and those areas we disagree on, I would have a more accurate understanding of the WHY behind these things, and perhaps I might be able to learn something from you, and perhaps you might be able to learn something from me... any questions you have regarding what I believe and why, please feel free to ask away... all I ask is that you reciprocate at least in part (to whatever level you feel comfortable with).

answers, as long as they are true, satisfy... but of course you mean "what if I can't accept you as a possible believer?" Well, that would mean that the way we comminicate wouldn't change much, but again we could talk over our differing thoughts on those topics... and again, we might learn something from each other.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I think the creation story of Genesis 2 and 3 are most useful to us if we let them remain as innocent and simple as they were from the beginning. Acknowledge that they come from a henotheistic society

In Genesis 2 and 3, we got robbed, but God got robbed too. The rift was partly the Serpent's fault, partly our fault, but partly His fault. He cursed his creation in anger and we all lost something. When the dust settled, we all ached. It's taking us all time to figure out how to fix this. We're all working on it. Jesus Christ took a very big leap in that direction. A quantum leap, as the story describes it. There is hope.

Excellent post. I just snipped out this brief bit, for emphasis.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Hi GS, I'm sorry that I didn't reply to your previous post, please don't take it personally I have just been too busy to even check emails these last two days.

Please don't apologize. I didn't mean it that way. I am also taking my time about replying. I just know that sometimes topics come to a natural ending point. I'm famous for not realizing this and posting on and on and on after everyone else has moved to other discussions. LOL

Anyhow, I want to just reassure you that I don't look down on you due to your having not accepted God's voice. I recognize that many Christians would. To simply state my reason for this attitude, I really cannot be sure whether you are against Jesus or not. So I have no cause to actually form that opinion of you. Remember what Jesus said in Luke 9:50; "Whoever is not against you is for you". I don't see that you are against Jesus, but I do worry a little about whose voice you listen to when you read. That's not my role to judge though, if you belong to Jesus then you will know His voice.

That's a good question. Whose voice do I listen to?

When I read the gospels, on the most basic level, I'm encountering the writer's voices. The writers in turn have created Jesus' "voice" in a form that I can listen to at a remove. How successful were they in creating this voice so that it connects meaningfully to his Voice (his message as he understood it)? That's actually one of the things I'm trying to suss out as I listen.

Then there's all the other stuff I bring to the table. I also listen to my own experience and judgement, my understanding of history, various cultural influences, a backlog of teachings (the most entrenched of which may not be the best), etc. I could probably make a pretty long list. Some of these things I am listening to I am aware of and some I am not. What's more these are going to jockey in and out of the primary positions depending upon what brought me to the story on any particular occasion. The "voice" I hear is going to be a little different each time, unique to the occasion and unique to my experience.

We all bring things to the table when we try to listen. No one arrives with a totally clean slate. What I don't want to do is arrive with a slate that's been filled out by someone else so that instead of listening I'm ticking off bullet points, which is exactly what I was doing early on when I approached the Bible. How successful have I been in cleaning that slate a little so I can listen? I don't truly know.

Does something emerge from my attempts to listen that is Jesus' Voice? That's the question. All I can do is sit with that question. I'll never be able to answer it, I don't think.

Not every Christian behaves the same way. We are individuals, and almost every time I speak to someone I have to reiterate that. It seems non-Christians get their exposure to Christianity through media, which puts a negative spin on it (typical of the puppet masters they choose to be). So I would say that any genuine Christian would not want you to walk away from the faith, but would encourage you to do what you do: consider what the messages in the bible mean to you on a personal level. This is important because God is personal, He speaks to the heart. When we read the bible we establish that spiritual connection to God and choose either to listen to Him or the serpent.

Yes. I appreciate that Christians behave differently from one another. It's just that when I encounter than old Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument I find myself wanting to get at the root of the actual point of it. It's as if I'm being urged to respond, "You're right. I don't believe he was God, so I have to regard him as crazy or evil and I'll now have nothing further to do with him." It just leaves me scratching my head. Is that really the desired reaction?

Also, I want to say that I do appreciate that you are approaching me in a non-judgmental fashion. Thank you.