Things I Don't Understand

[secondeve]

Sorry I've not replied to people - I have no Internet at home, and I was off work sick yesterday. I think the biggest thing I want to respond to - which several people have said - is this:

The Bible maintans that people who wrote it could not have written unless the Spirit of God so moved them (inspiration). That is the claim it makes for itself. It is up to each of us to decide if we accept that claim. Either way, we live with the consequences.

Yes. Exactly. The Bible maintains it was inspired by God (a eureka moment, Nebula called it - which yes, I have had in writing), but this statement is not externally confirmed. The exact same logic - the book contends it must have been written at the will of God, therefore it speaks the truth - is used by Muslims and Mormons, too. It doesn't bring any assessment to bear on behalf of the reader. It's a bit like saying that a person who goes around calling themselves the King of America is, in fact, what he says he is, for no more reason than that he says it. So when I ask this question, and people like CC answer with scripture, I feel like banging my head against a wall. I'm not asking for what the Bible says in its own defence; I'm asking how it can be defended externally, by logic or observation. The question is a reasonable one. If the Bible can only be defended by what it says of itself, then that seems rather a hollow premise for faith. Example: In order to be believed, a conspiracy theory cannot be viewed from a position of detatched skepticism, or it ceases to be externally consistent. All sorts of supporting information can be found to bolster it once you believe, but this knowledge cannot be queried either, and for the same reason. If you believe fervently in UFO's, certain pieces of information which hint of no such thing to anyone else will stand out as proof; but if held up to the microscope, at the end of the day, they require faith to be seen as absolute evidence of the theory, rather than aliens being - to the more objective assessor - the only possible or most reasonable explanation on its own.

N.B: Saying that logic has no place in understanding God is a cop-out, a way to get around the logically impossible without compromising faith. If I killed a man for my own reasons and the police told me that, according to every letter of the law, I had done wrong, it would not be acceptable if I said that the law had no part in what I had done or why, because I believed it didn't. I would still be forced to answer for my crimes in court. I could go to jail believing I was right and that the law was both unimportant and incorrect, but it would not change the fact that society demanded - with reason - that I answer to it. Even if I had stayed silent at my trial, believing that my actions needed no explanation, this would condemn me in the eyes of others - not because they understood my motives on some deeper level while choosing to ignore the truth out of spite or ignorance, but because I was refusing to admit that I had done anything which required explanation, much less apology, when the law asked that I provide both. So: you can say that logic has no place in Christianity, but that does not change the fact that the rest of the world requires you to defend it on those terms, and merely refusing to acknowledge this does not help you, either to convince us of your motives or to explain your faith.

Also:

Are you legitimately interested in the evidence that supports Christianity, or are you just fishing? I guess my question to you is on what logical basis do you hold to atheism (the claim that you know that there is know God). How can you know that?

1. It seems to me that the external evidence which supports Christianity does not support it to the exclusion of all else; ie, Christianity is not the only reasonable conclusion that one might draw from the facts. Neither is the Christian interpretation flawless - faith being required to sew up what holes appear in the theories - nor does it go unchallenged by other schools of history, science or logic. It is not reasonable to say, in my view, that Christianity is the only sensible, intelligent explanation for certain events - and, in fact, only Christianity - rather than the events themselves - claims that there has to be some kind of higher purpose at all. One does not have to believe in God to know that others have been willing to die for him and every other deity in the whole of history.

2. I hold to athiesm for several reasons. Historically, religion predates Judaism. Faith predates God. Cultures the world over have had their various pantheons and omnipotents, with each religion nicely tailored to support the particular social mores current in the land of its birth. Logically, it seems vastly more likely than man has created God to fill the gaps in his knowledge and give him purpose than that any one creator with a set plan in mind for the human race would give such diverse messages and theologies to every different people on the globe. We know humans can decieve themselves as to the divinity of beings or the truth of faith, as with Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses or any other disciples of a host of recent or historic cults. We also know - or at least, I believe - that there are enough inexplicable occurences in life to tell us that we don't know everything about the world we live in or how it works, and that certain things (like dreams, intuitions or lucky escapes) can be seen to support the cause of a deity we already believe in, no matter that two people could experience the same inexplicable thing and put it down, with reason, to two different causes. I am also inclined to trust the science of genetics and evolution, as I can observe them to be true, and these rule out certain creation stories in most religions. These are just the basics, but hopefully, they go some way towards explaining (again) my position.

Edited June 22, 2006 by secondeve

[emeraldgirl]

Secondeve, if I may, here's what I've wondered about atheism, maybe you can give me your opinion:

How do you think the universe acheived such excellance and order, such mathematical precision, if not by a creation? (Note, not THE Creation, but "Intelligent Design", as the term now goes.) My main reason for simply being Theistic is that I notice things don't tend towards order on their own, they tend towards chaos. (Being a mother of three children, I may notice this more than some! ) Left to itself, the ivy will take over the flowerbed, it won't shape itself into an oval. What is your belief in this respect?

[secondeve]

Secondeve, if I may, here's what I've wondered about atheism, maybe you can give me your opinion:

How do you think the universe acheived such excellance and order, such mathematical precision, if not by a creation? (Note, not THE Creation, but "Intelligent Design", as the term now goes.) My main reason for simply being Theistic is that I notice things don't tend towards order on their own, they tend towards chaos. (Being a mother of three children, I may notice this more than some! ) Left to itself, the ivy will take over the flowerbed, it won't shape itself into an oval. What is your belief in this respect?

It's a good question - I'm not going to claim I have all the answers, or even any universal ones. This is just what I believe.

It seems to me that the universe has to have order of a sort, because otherwise nothing could exist. Pattern is a prerequisite for stability. Ergo, the universe has precision because, without it, it couldn't exist. It's interesting, however, that you note the ivy example: not everything tends towards pattern, although the underpinnings do. There's a quote I came across once, I think from Voltaire, that I've always liked, and which to me explains so much: "Without order, nothing could exist. Without chaos, nothing could evolve." Without stability - if everything was chaos - nothing in the universe could develop, because there would be nothing solid to develop on. It doesn't mean there has to be a brain behind it. Imagine this: you get the Big Bang, and the universe is jumpstarted. There is a severely finite number of ways in which all the atoms can successfully interact for long periods of time. They don't choose this way by proxy or by intuition - they simply end up obeying it, because nothing else is sustainable. That still sounds too anthropomorphised for my liking, but I can't explain it any better. As I said, I'm no physicist - it just makes sense to me.

On the other hand, a creator seems to raise just as many questions. Whether you believe in God or the universe, there still comes a point when we have to wrestle with the ultimate beginning. Putting God before the universe only takes the process back a step; it doesn't say where God came from, or where he existed if there was no universe, what he was made of or what he used to create if there were no matter, and how likely it is that an omnipotent, fully-fledged being sprang into existence without any developmental stage, rather than little bits of gas and atom taking their time to interact and finally combining into something more. A Greek myth has the goddess Athena (wisdom) springing fully-formed from Zeus's leg or head when it gets split open by an axe. This, to me, seems much like the genesis of God: he just emerged as is. Yet we can look at the universe, and see that nothing 'just emerges' - there is a chrysalis phase, a growing, a development, encompassing the creation of everything from nebulae and gases to rocks and plants to humans and animals. So why would God break this pattern, if he had to come into being? Or, if he always was, how is this belief of perpetual existence on its own any different from a belief in the perpetual existence of the universal vacuum? I suppose, really, it's all about comparisons and likelihoods. To me, the universe requires fewer questions than God, but has several of the important ones in common. In combination with everything else I believe, it's enough for me to take the universe on faith as something I can never fully comprehend, but which as a theory aligns itself much more logically with what I can observe. Does that answer your question?

[emeraldgirl]

Okay, yes, that answers my question.

Dave, your story rises another series of thoughts in my head. Perhaps I'm taking the post too far off the OP, though; I apologize to secondeve if I'm doing that.

Okay...this is one thing that has troubled me deeply since I lost my daughter. Ultimately, your wife lived. You also were blessed with another child, not that it makes up for losing one as I well know, but it is a happy result that helps heal the pain of the loss. Somewhere, though, there is the mother who died of a ruptured tube. Or who lost also their last chance to bear a child. Or whatever situation could be more painful in your eyes.

When I was pregnant after my loss, I simply could not pray. I pretty much completely ignored God. I was too afraid of attracting more Job-attention, too afraid that God might say "No" again, too resentful that he took my baby girl, etc. Thankfully, my baby boy arrived healthy and breathing (although things got a little hairy right at the end, but that's another post) and is a healthy, normal toddler now.

Prayer still troubles me a lot, though. Three times now, people have told me gleefully about their near-misses and how God miraculously saved their child (or in one case, their dog!) and "all due to my prayers!". This is so hurtful to me! But how else can I take it? It's like saying they prayed "right" or whatever and so God granted their wish! But why not mine? My child was prayed for, too!

So, it ends up with my wondering why even pray? And why "Thank God" when it goes the way we'd like. I could, for example, Thank God that he gave me my little boy, that he spared my child this time. But what is that to someone who has lost two babies? They would have to feel just like I feel when people say, "Woohoo! My child lived! God blessed me!"

[secondeve]

Emeraldgirl:

I just wanted to say, I'm sorry you lost your child. I'm only twenty - I don't have children of my own, but I know that I want them in the future. Even so, the thought scares me sometimes that I might not be able to (no reason for this - illogical fear), or that they'd be hurt in some way or die. It's funny; they don't even exist yet, but I still worry for them. The other day, I had to go and deliver a gift from my boss to one of his friends. As I walked up to the building, this woman fell down about five, six stairs - quite a tumbled fall. I and two other people rushed to help her up; naturally, she was pretty shaken, and her ankle was hurt. But it wasn't until she sat up and her hands flew to her stomach that any of us noticed she was about five months pregnant. She hadn't fallen on her stomach or hurt the child - she was able to get up and walk away - but I couldn't get the thought out of my head of how slow that fall must have been for her, and how terrified she would have been that she couldn't roll to the side in time. I'm amazed she didn't cry out. But anyway - I'm sorry.

[emeraldgirl]

Aww, Secondeve, you are so compassionate for being able to put yourself in her shoes like that! I really don't think I even was compassionate until I lost my daughter. Other people's problems were just other people's problems, YKWIM? It's very different for me now. I can't even watch a news report without thinking, "That could be me/my child/my husband."

[J.C.]

Well, to be honest, there is really no reason to look into my questions too deeply, as if to over analyze them. They are merely simple question that only need simple answers. Like I said, I am not here to debate, because I really see no point in it; and normally they become heated arguments that end up with ill emotions on both sides. That is something I would rather not see. I would rather make friends here.

Now, if you would like to take my query in private, to leave it out of the debate thread since it really has nothing to do with the topic(or maybe it does, if you look at it from a certain point of view), then that would be perfectly fine with me, considering I have to look all over the place for your response that seems to get lost in the vast wasteland of text.

[nebula]

Yes. Exactly. The Bible maintains it was inspired by God (a eureka moment, Nebula called it - which yes, I have had in writing),

Just for clarification, I said it was like a eureka moment - as in that's the closest comparison I can give - but in a lot of ways it is very different.

I'm asking how it can be defended externally, by logic or observation.

Defense comes from how it is applied to life. You see, the Bible wasn't written as a science manual, nor should it be dissected as a scientific disortation. The Bible is about man's encounters with God, and God's dealing with man (generic term application). Most of the Psalms can be summed as various expressions of, "God, help!" mixed with affirmations of trust in Him to answer. The Bible was meant to be lived, not dissected - and it's in the living that the evidence is found.

It seems to me that the universe has to have order of a sort, because otherwise nothing could exist. Pattern is a prerequisite for stability. Ergo, the universe has precision because, without it, it couldn't exist. It's interesting, however, that you note the ivy example: not everything tends towards pattern, although the underpinnings do. There's a quote I came across once, I think from Voltaire, that I've always liked, and which to me explains so much: "Without order, nothing could exist. Without chaos, nothing could evolve." Without stability - if everything was chaos - nothing in the universe could develop, because there would be nothing solid to develop on. It doesn't mean there has to be a brain behind it. Imagine this: you get the Big Bang, and the universe is jumpstarted. There is a severely finite number of ways in which all the atoms can successfully interact for long periods of time. They don't choose this way by proxy or by intuition - they simply end up obeying it, because nothing else is sustainable. That still sounds too anthropomorphised for my liking, but I can't explain it any better. As I said, I'm no physicist - it just makes sense to me.

But if you read what you are saying - "the universe has to have order" or it wouldn't exist. True. Yet, where does order come from? Random chance? What exactly is order? Is order a controlling factor, or a by-product?

Atoms "end up obeying it" - in oerder for obedience, there needs to be a command. OK, maybe I'm nit-picking your choice of words - but if you think about what it is you are saying, it is as if the universe was meant to exist.

[nebula]

Okay...this is one thing that has troubled me deeply since I lost my daughter. <snip>

Prayer still troubles me a lot, though. Three times now, people have told me gleefully about their near-misses and how God miraculously saved their child (or in one case, their dog!) and "all due to my prayers!". This is so hurtful to me! But how else can I take it? It's like saying they prayed "right" or whatever and so God granted their wish! But why not mine? My child was prayed for, too!

Hey -

I am not sure how best to share this, because I know of people who would rather argue the point *smirk*, but I share it with you because it is the only comfort I have found for those who have lost a child. No, I can't find a Scripture for this (why it's controversial), so you'd have to take this before the Lord.

Imagine in Heaven we still "do" things (I mean, we cant' stand on a cloud all day playing harps, you know!) I can't explain what roles we are given in Heaven, but imagine they are there.

I heard a man share about how when his son was dying, he felt the Lord speaking to his heart about realeasing his son to Him. The man was reluctant until the Lord said, "I have a job for him up here."

Now I am in no place to try to figure out what "job" the Lord might have for the unborn and infants, but I find comfort in believing that the Lord has a purpose for that life - just with Him rather than down here on Earth. Why the Lord wanted your child, I wish I could say, but again it's the only comfort I have heard - that the Lord does have a purpose for your child, and it just happens to be in Heaven.

Blessings!

[traveller]

Okay, yes, that answers my question.

Dave, your story rises another series of thoughts in my head. Perhaps I'm taking the post too far off the OP, though; I apologize to secondeve if I'm doing that.

Okay...this is one thing that has troubled me deeply since I lost my daughter. Ultimately, your wife lived. You also were blessed with another child, not that it makes up for losing one as I well know, but it is a happy result that helps heal the pain of the loss. Somewhere, though, there is the mother who died of a ruptured tube. Or who lost also their last chance to bear a child. Or whatever situation could be more painful in your eyes.

When I was pregnant after my loss, I simply could not pray. I pretty much completely ignored God. I was too afraid of attracting more Job-attention, too afraid that God might say "No" again, too resentful that he took my baby girl, etc. Thankfully, my baby boy arrived healthy and breathing (although things got a little hairy right at the end, but that's another post) and is a healthy, normal toddler now.

Prayer still troubles me a lot, though. Three times now, people have told me gleefully about their near-misses and how God miraculously saved their child (or in one case, their dog!) and "all due to my prayers!". This is so hurtful to me! But how else can I take it? It's like saying they prayed "right" or whatever and so God granted their wish! But why not mine? My child was prayed for, too!

So, it ends up with my wondering why even pray? And why "Thank God" when it goes the way we'd like. I could, for example, Thank God that he gave me my little boy, that he spared my child this time. But what is that to someone who has lost two babies? They would have to feel just like I feel when people say, "Woohoo! My child lived! God blessed me!"

emerald,

I know what you're saying here. I lost my only child a little over 3 years ago. He jsut turned 30, and had just married. It was the most devasting thing I have ever endured. I know what you saying about having your faith tested. I find it ironic that I am an intercessor for others. I wake up int he middle of the night and pray for people, if the Lord puts them on my heart. Amazingly enough, sometimes I don't even know them. I've often wondered why I wasn't led to pray for my own child that night. Or if someone else was. Then, I remember. I did pray for him, on many many nights. Almost all of them for 30 years. Then I remember that my mom also prayed over and over for him.

So, why didn't those prayers change things? I have no idea. But I do believe that becasue of those same prayers he was led to the Lord. I also believe that becasue of those prayers I was strengthened at that time.

I also understand about the friends that hurt you. The guilt and pain they inflict is horrendous. But, like Dave said, you have to forgive them because it is a salve to your wounds to do so. Are we any less blessed becasue we lost our children? No. Are they more spiritual or closer to God because their children live? No.

We can't begin to know the mind of God. We can't begin to know the unimaginable mercies and wonders that await us. We can only trust that He is just and and righteous. It took a while for me to accept that my child was better off with the Lord, in His presence, than here with me. It didn't diminish the pain, but it made me so very thankful that he was in far better hands than my own.

There is a God. There is going to be a time and place when all our tears will be dried, all our questions answered, and all our hearts filled with peace and joy that surpasses understanding. This I believe. You can have that peace now if you allow Him to comfort you.

No matter the trials that fall on us, no matter the circumstances, the Lord has not left us, nor will He.

"For I know, my Redeemer Lives."

If you ever wish to talk, I'm here for you.