I want to believe but...

[AvisG]

So you are a big time expert on God and know all about how to tell "essentials" from "pious nonsense"? Golly, why didn't we just go and ask YOUR humble opinion instead of actually doing our research outside the box.

Oh, and btw, it is against the rules here to be insulting to other posters, especially in regard to their faith. But a moderator will have to decide what is done about that.

Now don't get testy. I am indeed a big-time expert on what I am capable of believing about any aspect of Christian theology, Hindu theology or atheistic non-theology. Who would you suggest is a bigger-time expert on what I am capable of believing than moi?

I am not a big-time expert - or indeed, even a kindergartner - on what you are capable of believing. You'll have to figure that out for yourself.

There is a species of Christian - perhaps you are one, as many are - who derives his or her Christianity from supposed authority figures. This type of Christian's belief system is not derived from what his or her experiences, observations, study, reflection and intuition reveal about the truth of the Bible, Jesus or any other aspect of the faith. Mine is.

This type of Christian's belief system is derived from what supposed authority figures tell him or her must be believed in order to be a Christian. It seems to me that it should be problematical for such a Christian that thousands of different supposed authority figures have wildly conflicting views, resulting in tens of thousands of denominations and huge schisms. But most Christians of this type just find a comfortable and appealing landing spot for social, economic or other reasons and tell themselves that this particular statement of faith (whatever it may be) is what they are "going to believe." This is a very shaky house-of-cards approach to belief, it seems to me.

I am my ultimate authority figure as to what I am capable of believing and thus of what I will believe. My Christianity is the product of a diligent 50-year quest for Truth, based upon my experience, observation, study (including a vast host of supposed authority figures), reflection and intuition. If it is different from yours or William Lane Craig's or the Southern Baptist Convention's understanding of Christianity, this is irrelevant to me.

The OP expressed the same sort of concerns about the same sorts of issues that I had with church. He indicated a strong belief in the essentials but an inability to accept various literalistic interpretations of various Bible passages despite sincere effort and prayer. My message was and is simply "You cannot make yourself believe things that you are constitutionally incapable of believing. You will always be pretending to believe things you don't really believe and living in an unhealthy state of inner turmoil and cognitive dissonance. Abandon the effort and be thankful for the gift of discernment."

I pointed out that this site has a SOF just as most churches do and that the OP is unlikely to encounter anything other than churchy advice to "try harder to believe" - a futile approach, in my opinion. Actually, upon re-reviewing the SOF, I see that it does not endorse a literalistic approach to the Bible and does not contain anything the OP is likely to find troubling (or that I am likely to find troubling, for that matter, even if my understanding is somewhat different).

What "poster" did I "insult"? Do you have a name? Are we allowed to express disagreement with points of view, or do the extreme Bible literalists occupy such a privileged position that we can't even express contrary views without being deemed to have "insulted" every extreme literalist poster on the forum? From my perspective, but obviously not from yours, a literalist understanding of the examples given by the OP is "pious nonsense" that many claim to believe but most (in my experience) really don't. I heard William Lane Craig say a few weeks ago that no serious scholar takes the Genesis passages literally anymore - could he, surely one of the three leading Christian scholars and apologists alive today, post here without "insulting" you?

You feeling threatened and insulted is not the same thing as you actually having been threatened and insulted. Nevertheless, since "pious nonsense" could have been phrased better, I will attempt to edit it to something less troubling to folks such as you.

Perhaps you have been engaged in any even longer and more diligent quest, and perhaps your experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition have led you to an extreme literalist view of the Bible and an understanding of Christianity different from mine. If so, good for you. (I say "extreme literalist" only because there are so many species of supposed literalism.)

 

[AvisG]

Where do you think original sin came from?

Augustine.

 

[AvisG]

You say you believe the Bible, but you don't seem to be concerned if other people believe it all or not and seem to be saying about some of its contents "all this stuff is not that important." ALL of the Bible is "that important." We are told to be prepared to give a reason for our faith.

Who am I going to take the most seriously, someone who says "all this stuff is not that important" or the Bible, which is "God breathed"? He didn't waste His time on any of it. He didn't waste His breath.

Just a point of interest, since you seem to be so sensitive on the topic: How do you distinguish between this and "insulting other posters"? Is there some fine line that I am failing to grasp?

 

[LoricaLady]

Just a point of interest, since you seem to be so sensitive on the topic: How do you distinguish between this and "insulting other posters"? Is there some fine line that I am failing to grasp?

It's not my choice to decide, but a moderator's. In the meantime you can read the Forum rules and search your brain in the area of social skills.

 

[LoricaLady]

Just a point of interest, since you seem to be so sensitive on the topic: How do you distinguish between this and "insulting other posters"? Is there some fine line that I am failing to grasp?

P.S. I see that the post that seemed against the rules here has been deleted. But then I see another post wichh seems to me, anyway, to be filled with put downs and sarcasm. For example:

" Your examples are the sorts of things that Bible literalists believe, or at least pretend to believe because they think it somehow pleases God. [Presuming omniscience logical fallacy.] You have come to a site - effectively an Internet church - with a statement of faith not unlike those of the churches where you are having trouble fitting in. You can scarcely expect anything other than churchy advice to "try harder to believe." [So you are not only insulting the OP but this Forum and people who post here.] Instead of praying to God for "faith" to believe things you will never believe, try thanking him for the discernment to distinguish between the essentials and the non-essentials you are constitutionally incapable of believing.." [Presuming omniscience again, with the presumption, again, that you know more about the OP's present, and future, thought processes than he can. This forum is called "Christian Advice" not "Christian amature psychoanalysis" or "Christian crystal ball revelations."]

Perhaps you could pray to have discernment between what this Forum is called, "Christian Advice", and verbal abuse.

Again, a moderator can decide, not me.

 

[AvisG]

P.S. I see that the post that seemed against the rules here has been deleted. But then I see another post wichh seems to me, anyway, to be filled with put downs and sarcasm. For example:

" Your examples are the sorts of things that Bible literalists believe, or at least pretend to believe because they think it somehow pleases God. You have come to a site - effectively an Internet church - with a statement of faith not unlike those of the churches where you are having trouble fitting in. [presuming omniscience about someone you hae never even seen]You can scarcely expect anything other than churchy advice to "try harder to believe." [So you are not only insulting the OP but this Forum.] Instead of praying to God for "faith" to believe things you will never believe, try thanking him for the discernment to distinguish between the essentials and the non-essentials you are constitutionally incapable of believing.."

Perhaps you could pray to have discernment between what this Forum is called, "Christian Advice", and verbal abuse.

Again, a moderator can decide, not me.

It hasn't been deleted. I plainly told you I was going to edit it. When people don't read carefully before responding, this is always a red flag to me.

You seem to be heavily into the "report to the moderators everything with which I disagree" game.

I understand that this forum is Christian Advice. I attempted to give the OP sincere Christian advice.

Neither I nor NBB sought advice, yet you felt compelled to weigh in on the depth of our faith. End of discussion.

 

[LoricaLady]

And P.S., as for myself I certainly didn't say "Try harder to believe" as per your insistence. I gave a lot of observable scientific data.

 

[LoricaLady]

......

 

[LoricaLady]

I'm glad you deleted the insults. Before the moderators did.

 

[LoricaLady]

P.P.S. You said that neither you nor the OP sought advice. Then why did the OP come to the Advice Forum? He even said that he would check out a link that I offered. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read more carefully?

Bye!

 

[josef7]

To the original question, First, a lot of this depends on believing that God is sovereign. If God doesn't exist or isn't sovereign, then some things, including Jesus' resurrection, might be really hard to believe. But since He is sovereign He is able to perform things that we can't do or understand. Acts 26:8, "Why should it be judged a thing incredible in your sight if God raises the dead?"

Second, you seem to have an arrogant and foolish attitude. Job 38:4 -- "Where were you when I founded the earth?" God is more than capable of populating the earth and keeping Jonah alive in the belly of a whale without explaining to you how He did it.

 

[chrisRDBA]

Moderators, AvisG’s comments and insights have been really helpful, please leave them if possible.

 

[chrisRDBA]

Second, you seem to have an arrogant and foolish attitude. Job 38:4 -- "Where were you when I founded the earth?" God is more than capable of populating the earth and keeping Jonah alive in the belly of a whale without explaining to you how He did it.

This seems to be an answer for quite a bit though— “it’s completely ridiculous or impossible so you must just not understand”. Where else in your life does this thinking work? Under what other circumstances do you totally disregard common sense? Not trying to pick on you specifically, this has bothered me for the 7 years I’ve been on this journey.

 

[coffee4u]

This seems to be an answer for quite a bit though— “it’s completely ridiculous or impossible so you must just not understand”. Where else in your life does this thinking work? Under what other circumstances do you totally disregard common sense? Not trying to pick on you specifically, this has bothered me for the 7 years I’ve been on this journey.

But where does this 'common sense' come from? You will say your learning and your mind, right? But your mind is saturated in evolution and you believe that science, which is only man's endeavour to understand the world, is true. Indeed if evolution were true and mankind gradually emerged from some apelike creature then Genesis would be foolishness. Man does not and cannot know everything, he will never have access to the world God made or the rules it had because it no longer exists. There were no thorns, no death or disease, these only happened as part of the curse from the fall. Even then it still wasn't the same world as we have now since we know that people lived to be hundreds of years old between the fall and the flood.
Genesis 5
5: Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
8: Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.
11:Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.
and so on.
Nothing that we have now and certainly not the natural world will allow us to live that long, some things were fundamentally different.

We only have God's word of which contains both creation and the resurrection of Christ. I do not believe God would lead us astray with Genesis only to show us truth in the Gospels. It all hangs together or it all falls together.

 

[AvisG]

P.P.S. You said that neither you nor the OP sought advice. Then why did the OP come to the Advice Forum? He even said that he would check out a link that I offered. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read more carefully?

No, I plainly said that neither I nor NBB had sought advice on this thread. NBB is the poster who said he believed the Bible, whereupon you questioned this. NBB does not equal OP.

 

[AvisG]

Moderators, AvisG’s comments and insights have been really helpful, please leave them if possible.

This seems to be an answer for quite a bit though— “it’s completely ridiculous or impossible so you must just not understand”. Where else in your life does this thinking work? Under what other circumstances do you totally disregard common sense? Not trying to pick on you specifically, this has bothered me for the 7 years I’ve been on this journey.

Thanks, chrisRDBA.

You seem to me to have hit upon the essential insight in regard to this issue.

God created a universe that operates according to principles and laws that are largely susceptible to discovery, investigation, analysis and understanding. God blessed humans with minds capable of such investigation and analysis and of reaching a very high level of understanding.

The uncanny way that these two mesh is one of the key clues to the existence of God. It's why the OT and NT both say that the heavens proclaim the glory of God. It's why Romans 1:20 (NASB) says, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Note the key word: understood.

In every other area of life - science, academics, day-to-day living - we apply and rely upon the investigative and analytical abilities, the reasoning skills and common sense, with which God has blessed us. If we hadn't done this, we'd still be living in caves and thinking every solar eclipse was a dragon eating the sun.

If we do this with the Bible, as you and I and countless others have discovered, a strict understanding of the book as being literally true and inerrant is simply impossible. This is certainly true in regard to matters of science and history. Extreme literalists will stake out positions outrageously at odds with mainstream science (and then, somewhat comically, try to prop them up with fringe "science" of their own).

Even in regard to matters of theology, it is true to some extent. Everyone makes some sort of peace with the Bible. Everyone engages in some level of "creative interpretation." Even the most ardent literalists seldom remove poisonous snakes from their yards by hand, cut off their own sinful hands or pluck out their own sinful eyes; few of them even turn the other cheek.

My level of peace, my understanding, reflects my 50 years of experience, observation, study, reflection, intuition and prayer. In regard to the Bible as in regard to everything else, I trust the investigative and analytical abilities with which God has blessed me and my fellow humans. What I now believe about the Bible is what I'm capable of believing about it. As I've said repeatedly, to "try" to believe what someone else believes (or thinks I should believe) would put me in a constant state of inner turmoil and cognitive dissonance.

Those who promote an extreme literalist understanding of the Bible typically have a vested interest in doing so. An entire segment of Christianity - denominations, churches, evangelists, authors - has such an understanding as its foundation. This segment is invested - theologically, psychologically and financially - in promoting such an understanding and in discouraging any questioning of it.

Individual believers cling to such an understanding for a variety of reasons. It may seem appealingly simple and secure to them - they may see themselves as believing like little children who simply trust their heavenly Father. It may be driven by fear of a wrathful God who tolerates no questioning or at least views it as arrogant and prideful. It may be driven by a sincere belief that such an understanding is pleasing to God, that greater faith is shown when one clings to the words of the Bible even when this requires abandoning (or at least subordinating) all the reasoning skills they rely upon every other area of their lives.

I have no desire to sway those who hold to an extreme literalist - or any literalist - understanding of the Bible. I simply say, "I cannot do anything other than to rely on my own experiences, observations, studies, reflection, intuition and prayer to the best of my abilities because to do otherwise would be psychologically unhealthy and require me to live in a state of cognitive dissonance; I've done my homework; I know what I believe and am capable of believing; I don't share your understanding of the Bible or of what God requires; I'm not going to pretend to believe what you believe in order to make you happy, to become a member of your church or to achieve some sort of artificial fellowship; and whether my understanding of the Bible is or isn't correct is strictly between me and God, not between me on one side and you and God on the other as you seem to think."

A helpful book in this regard is The Five Stages of Faith, a classic by James W. Fowler - a Christian theologian who charted the five stages from an infantile understanding of faith to a fully mature one. Most believers, Fowler noted, become stuck at stage 3: "At this stage people rely on some sort of institution (such as a church) to give them stability. They become attached to the forms of their religion and get extremely upset when these are called into question." Sound familiar?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Adam and Eve... no, I don't believe that two people populated the entire earth. This is NOT to say I believe in evolution as I don't, there are plenty of holes in that idea as well, but that doesn't make this any more credible.

There is a problem though. The genealogy of Christ goes all the way back to Adam. 28 generations. If you believe that Christ was the son of God, then you might want to consider that his genealogy is also true.

Noahs Ark... no, I don't believe that two of each animal traveled from opposite ends of the earth to hop on a big boat, and then went back home when all was said and done.

It wasn't just two of each. Of the "clean" there were seven pairs, of the "unclean" 1 pair.

"You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth." (Gen. 7:2,3)

Why is the flood story so hard to believe? Every culture has its own flood story, suggesting that there was in fact a world-wide flood. The difference between the rest of the cultures and the people of Israel was that they wrote down the words given to them (Moses is said to have written the Pentateuch) whereas the rest were based upon oral tradition. Even the native American tribes have flood stories though they differ according to tribe.

That a man was in the belly of a big fish for 3 days, then barfed back out. Really? Seriously?

How is this any less credible than the resurrection of Jesus - which took the same amount of time actually? In fact Jesus says called his resurrection "the sign of Jonah."

Tithing. I know this one is super controversial, but I've read the New Testament, and it's not in there. When someone references the Old Testament on this topic, I wonder if they've also had their oldest child stoned to death at the gate of the city for being disrespectful. I mean, why cherry pick only the parts of the OT that are convenient?

Paul explained that Jesus nailed the old law to the Cross. "It is finished." There's no going back to the law. You're right, tithing is not a requirement under the New Covenant.

But this is an interesting thing. You've based your conclusion on your reading of the text and accepting its truth in this one case (and in the case of Christ's resurrection). You've also rightly rejected false teaching based on the authority of the scriptures.

Paul said this about the scripture:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:15,16)

When Paul wrote this, there wasn't yet a complete New Testament. So he was referring to the Old Testament. Eventually, the 27 books of the New Testament would be incorporated, but it is all good for what he says.

How can I continue to attend church when there's so many things I simply don't buy? I love Jesus, but it's really tough attending week after week when I just want to call BS all the time. I've been attending and praying for God to open my mind/ heart for years now, it's not changing what I don't believe in though.

I know many are of the "If the Bible says it, it must be true" camp. Trust me, I'd love to be there and not have this inner turmoil, but I'm simply not.

What to do? Thanks!

Well, the part that is important, Jesus and his sacrifice you have believed and apparently from the scripture. There is an interesting Latin saying, 'credo ut intelligeum' - I believe that I may understand. The idea behind it is not to just blindly accept a premise, but to believe temporarily to understand what is being put forth.

You can always change your mind, but John explains the Jesus is the word of God. In a sense, he is all of the words delivered to us through the prophets God spoke to and who recorded all of the words in the Bible. If you believe the part about Jesus and his resurrection, what is the barrier to believing the rest? Isn't the God who raised Christ and Lazarus and Talitha and the Widows sons through the hands of Elijah and Elisha, able to 'prepare a fish' for Jonah and keep him alive in its belly for three days? Isn't the God who created the universe, able to give Noah the proper instructions build an ark and save the species?

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " - Heb. 4:12

 

[josef7]

This seems to be an answer for quite a bit though— “it’s completely ridiculous or impossible so you must just not understand”. Where else in your life does this thinking work? Under what other circumstances do you totally disregard common sense? Not trying to pick on you specifically, this has bothered me for the 7 years I’ve been on this journey.

It's not disregarding common sense, it's just not having the common sense of an atheist. I can understand how an atheist would disbelieve miracles in the Bible. But if you know that God does exist, it's reasonable and expected that he can do things beyond our own abilities. Hebrews 11:3 - By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. (cf. John 1 - In the beginning was the Word...all things were created through Him). Do you really believe that God created the worlds, yet he can't keep a man alive inside a whale? Honestly, that's the thing that doesn't make sense to me. It's not denying understanding, it's understanding that God exists and is capable of acting in the world that he created.

And I have to say, some of these supposedly rationalistic arguments are not as intelligent as the people making them think they are. It's like someone who's never heard of gasoline or met an engineer patiently explaining how cars must not exist. That way of thinking is addressed in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Denying God's sovereignty and identity as creator doesn't just have to do with a few parts of the Old Testament, it's denying the Old and New Testament as well as the works and the word of Jesus. Can someone believe that Jesus "upholds all things by the word of his power," and yet a miracle is impossible for him to perform?