I'm interested in truth & what it means for individuals & humanity. This re-vamped blog is dedicated to truth and honest questions about faith in Jesus Christ. It is an effort to engage in authentic dialogue among Christians, Atheists and all points in between. Posts that do not honor legitimate discussion may be removed at my discretion. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but it DOES mean that you can't be a jerk. Welcome to the discussion.
I have a question that was posed to me by an atheist and I did not have much of a response. If Jesus wants us to believe that He is the one, true God, why does he not reveal Himself to us? Why does he not stand right in front of me and witness to me. My friend said she would believe in God if He would appear to her. Why do we have to trust other humans who are fallible to give us information about God? My response consisted of telling her that the universe is a proof of God's existence, along with morality. Also, God DID show Himself to us in the form of Jesus, and people still did not believe Him, so I'm not sure what it would take. I was reading a book the other day that said that if God actually revealed Himself to us, letting us see Him, it would take away our free will because we would have no choice but to believe. My own question to that is that yes, we would know for sure He exists, but wouldn't we still have the choice to rebell? Isn't that what happened in the Garden? Adam knew God existed, but still disobeyed.
Jared, I think you gave a decent response. I think that the universe itself and a base-line moral standard among humans are good evidence for a creator, but not necessarily proof. Atheists have spent significant time formulating rebuttals and counter explanations for these data, even if they aren't particularly good. I think you're example of God proving himself in the text is also a very valid point.
But to cut to the chase, I think it is a bit silly to say that it would negate our free-will if God "proved" himself to us. Just as you said, people in the Bible had it "proved" but rebelled nonetheless.
It seems, more often than not, that people love to latch on to this idea of, "Why doesn't God just show up and shake my hand?" because they don't WANT to believe, and by this criteria, it virtually makes belief impossible. It also gives them a handy excuse to reject Christ. But it's a pretty poor excuse, not to mention intellectually lazy.
At some point, we need to honestly ask ourselves: What does it take for me to believe in something that I can't see, taste, hear, touch or smell? What would it take for a person to believe anything (not just about Jesus)?
Love is perhaps the best example. Most of us lucky ones have experienced some kind of love in our lives, maybe from a sibling, parent or spouse.
By what criterion would we "measure" this love? Perhaps we would cite the things they have done for us: sacrifices, gifts, resources etc. Maybe they even tell you that they love you. But couldn't these be explained away? Maybe they were trying to manipulate you or trick you altogether? How do you know? Or DO you know?
Do we need "proof" or is it just something that we believe? I think that God has done more than enough to communicate his love for us. How could his showing up to say "Hello" to us ever supersede sacrificing his own Son on the cross for us? For us to DEMAND anything more is a bit petulant and ridiculous in my opinion.
-Corb
At
Faith, by nature, is willing to take at least a little risk
Thank you for the response. One thing that I can't get away from, nor can atheists, is that any time I or they have a problem with Christianity, such as my friend not thinking it fair that God wouldn't appear, is that why do we feel that is unfair? Why do we not like it? We are admitting that there is a right and wrong. Sometimes I doubt God when I look at extreme poverty or child abuse, but then, why do I think those things are wrong? Why do they bother me? Because God has placed a moral conscience inside of us.
One thing that still bothers me though, is the question of individuals, even countries, not ever hearing about Jesus. As far as I know, Scripture doesn't say what happens to those people. Maybe they are under the Moral Law. How do I respond to people who ask me, "How can God be just if people who have never heard of Him perish?" I guess my response would be that I don't know for sure if they perish. Also, to borrow from C.S. Lewis, I would let them know that THEY have heard, because we are talking about it, so what are they going to do?
Hey. I'm curious as to how you respond to people who want to know why God, according to the Old Testament, was so vengeful and barbaric. We read of entire cities being destroyed, including women and children, and the God of the Jews was behind the scenes making sure it happened.
Jared, As usual, that is a good question. I recently discussed a variation of this topic with a cyber-friend over email. His basic premise was that, given the wide variance between the alleged God of the Old Testament (OT) and that of the New (NT), we must conclude that either they are different gods altogether or that this god character is capricious and untrustworthy.
If adopted, either of these options could significantly undercut the Christian faith in regards to how it understands God. Fortunately, I think we can offer good, counter explanations.
First of all, we can make a good defense of God's "barbaric" actions in terms of basic morality and how far all humans miss the mark at some point over the course of their lives. The Bible tells us that all have fallen short of God's glory, none are "good" and none are righteous (Romans 3:10 & 23). As such, if God calls us to account at any given moment, because he is absolutely perfect, he is the only one who is truly "just" in condemning us. No human can exact perfect justice because no human is perfect. But we cannot accuse God of doing evil here. He is being extremely consistent with his character, and not capricious at all.
Furthermore, if God knew that these people would never listen or turn to him and hence always seek to destroy his people (Israel), then why would he be under any obligation to let them persist and carry out their evil plans? If it's "judge now or judge later" then why not cut them off now and prevent their evil from carrying on unchecked? I actually take comfort in the fact that there is a point where God says "Enough!" and seeks to actively, even violently, stop evil. I can't help but to even cheer him on a bit.
My frustration comes when he doesn't do this enough to suit my tastes. From our limited human perspective, it seems that God should have said "Enough" to the Nazis earlier and kept them from murdering untold millions. At the same time, I recognize that I am not exempt from doing, thinking, and saying evil. And at THOSE times, I am very glad that God is patient and slow to exact his justice.
Of course, quoting Bible verses to someone who does not hold them to be authoritative is relatively futile, but I think I would be remiss to not include the follow up verse to Romans 3: 23 (24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus). Apart from Christ, everyone is equally as screwed as the proverbial Sodom and Gomorra, it simply becomes a matter of when. God is not being inconsistent here.
Also, focusing too heavily on the discontinuity between Jesus of 1st Century Palestine and that of the vengeful God of the OT fails to take into account what the Bible says about the "return of Christ." I won't quote the text here, but it essentially teaches that when the final page is written, Jesus won't come with sunshine and lollipops (like he did the first time around), but rather with a "sword." Judgment Day, Armageddon, a consuming fire and all that, etc. From this perspective, we can see the uniformity of the OT God and Christ at THE End as bookends framing human history with a peaceful (but firm) Jesus splitting the difference in the middle. All the way through the text we see a central God-character who lets people choose him or not choose him, and tells people that there will be future consequences for their respective choices.
Again, I know this perspective will draw fire from anyone who regards the Bible as unauthentic. Nevertheless, we are not necessarily asserting its authority here, but rather its logical consistency on the issue in question. I contend that it passes that test rather well.
Sorry for the verbosity, but I hope that helps. -CL
Things get difficult whenever we start talking about conclusive evidence as a prerequisite for belief. I think its interesting that throughout the gospels, the miracles of Jesus were not conclusive evidence for those who witnessed them. Whenever He would perform a miracle, there were those who believed, concluding that this Jesus came from God, and those who "did not believe," concluding that Jesus was using demonic powers to perform His miracles. First of all, if miraculous events don't even prove to be conclusive evidence, then what in the world would? Secondly, the two reactions to His miracles were reflections of peoples presuppositions... and those presuppositions were less about cognitive abstractions of the intellect and more about character. I'm pretty convinced that the heart and all of its confused desires seems to be a most underrated factor in issues of "belief" these days.
Apart from Christ, everyone is equally as screwed as the proverbial Sodom and Gomorra, it simply becomes a matter of when. God is not being inconsistent here.
I had to laugh when I read this because of the frank way you put it, but sadly, it is a very important truth.
I believe that God carefully guided the formation of the nation of Israel, right down to specific responses to the tribulations they brought upon themselves because through his prophets and this history was slowly built the need and the anticipation for a christ. Had God's son been plunked down into the world without warning or preconditions, it is unlikely anyone would have listened. He would have been, for all intents and purposes, just another crazy person prophesying on the street corner. (There were plenty in those days, just as there are now)
If you look at the overall consequences of God's careful "pruning" in human history, there is no way his actions can be taken for barbaric, at least in my view. The trouble comes when trying to explain this to someone who might not believe in an active God or that history was tailor made to support evidence and need for a Christ.
Which brings us back to the main topic. To believe, one has to take off the blinders and see how God has orchestrated events to his singular purpose. Just as he built anticipation for Jesus through prophesy and human events, he made his death, resurrection and disappearance a powerful story to convert future generations of believers. If he were in the habit of appearing to everyone that doubted, the witnesses would all be crazy people on street corners as well.
A voluntary belief in a personal, ideal, savior is much more powerful a vehicle for God's love than an obvious, all-powerful dictator.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. You've brought some good stuff here, and what really caught my attention is your clarifying the need for genuine seekers to take off their "blinders" to see.
Having been a glutton for punishment on Amazon.com discussion boards before, I have encountered several atheists who claim to let the evidence lead in their pursuit of truth. At various points we get down to the nitty-gritty of positive, compelling evidence and reasoning for Christ. Thus far, and without fail, these cyber-friends hit a wall and switch-off or switch over to other arguments or biting commentary once they see where the evidence might be leading them.
I can't swagger here. I am not a good debater and have probably done very little for the cause of Christ in Cyberville. But I mention these discussions because they remind me that accepting Jesus requires far more than good "arguments." It calls for an overwhelming sense of humility and need for repentance. And as a by-product of these qualities, becoming a disciple requires an act of will. Without that will, no amount of evidence can ever be enough, not even Jesus showing up to say hello. Which, ironically enough, is exactly what he did almost 2000 years ago in Palestine. Then, as now, not everyone could muster the will to believe in him.
Nonetheless, we must remain hopeful for our friends, neighbors and enemies,
Please keep in mind that comments which do not honor the spirit of legitimate dialogue may be removed at any time and without notification. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately. -CL
I have a question that was posed to me by an atheist and I did not have much of a response. If Jesus wants us to believe that He is the one, true God, why does he not reveal Himself to us? Why does he not stand right in front of me and witness to me. My friend said she would believe in God if He would appear to her. Why do we have to trust other humans who are fallible to give us information about God? My response consisted of telling her that the universe is a proof of God's existence, along with morality. Also, God DID show Himself to us in the form of Jesus, and people still did not believe Him, so I'm not sure what it would take. I was reading a book the other day that said that if God actually revealed Himself to us, letting us see Him, it would take away our free will because we would have no choice but to believe. My own question to that is that yes, we would know for sure He exists, but wouldn't we still have the choice to rebell? Isn't that what happened in the Garden? Adam knew God existed, but still disobeyed.
ReplyDeleteJared,
ReplyDeleteI think you gave a decent response. I think that the universe itself and a base-line moral standard among humans are good evidence for a creator, but not necessarily proof. Atheists have spent significant time formulating rebuttals and counter explanations for these data, even if they aren't particularly good. I think you're example of God proving himself in the text is also a very valid point.
But to cut to the chase, I think it is a bit silly to say that it would negate our free-will if God "proved" himself to us. Just as you said, people in the Bible had it "proved" but rebelled nonetheless.
It seems, more often than not, that people love to latch on to this idea of, "Why doesn't God just show up and shake my hand?" because they don't WANT to believe, and by this criteria, it virtually makes belief impossible. It also gives them a handy excuse to reject Christ.
But it's a pretty poor excuse, not to mention intellectually lazy.
At some point, we need to honestly ask ourselves: What does it take for me to believe in something that I can't see, taste, hear, touch or smell? What would it take for a person to believe anything (not just about Jesus)?
Love is perhaps the best example. Most of us lucky ones have experienced some kind of love in our lives, maybe from a sibling, parent or spouse.
By what criterion would we "measure" this love? Perhaps we would cite the things they have done for us: sacrifices, gifts, resources etc. Maybe they even tell you that they love you. But couldn't these be explained away? Maybe they were trying to manipulate you or trick you altogether? How do you know? Or DO you know?
Do we need "proof" or is it just something that we believe? I think that God has done more than enough to communicate his love for us. How could his showing up to say "Hello" to us ever supersede sacrificing his own Son on the cross for us? For us to DEMAND anything more is a bit petulant and ridiculous in my opinion.
-Corb
At
Faith, by nature, is willing to take at least a little risk
Thank you for the response. One thing that I can't get away from, nor can atheists, is that any time I or they have a problem with Christianity, such as my friend not thinking it fair that God wouldn't appear, is that why do we feel that is unfair? Why do we not like it? We are admitting that there is a right and wrong. Sometimes I doubt God when I look at extreme poverty or child abuse, but then, why do I think those things are wrong? Why do they bother me? Because God has placed a moral conscience inside of us.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that still bothers me though, is the question of individuals, even countries, not ever hearing about Jesus. As far as I know, Scripture doesn't say what happens to those people. Maybe they are under the Moral Law. How do I respond to people who ask me, "How can God be just if people who have never heard of Him perish?" I guess my response would be that I don't know for sure if they perish. Also, to borrow from C.S. Lewis, I would let them know that THEY have heard, because we are talking about it, so what are they going to do?
Hey. I'm curious as to how you respond to people who want to know why God, according to the Old Testament, was so vengeful and barbaric. We read of entire cities being destroyed, including women and children, and the God of the Jews was behind the scenes making sure it happened.
ReplyDeleteJared,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, that is a good question. I recently discussed a variation of this topic with a cyber-friend over email. His basic premise was that, given the wide variance between the alleged God of the Old Testament (OT) and that of the New (NT), we must conclude that either they are different gods altogether or that this god character is capricious and untrustworthy.
If adopted, either of these options could significantly undercut the Christian faith in regards to how it understands God. Fortunately, I think we can offer good, counter explanations.
First of all, we can make a good defense of God's "barbaric" actions in terms of basic morality and how far all humans miss the mark at some point over the course of their lives. The Bible tells us that all have fallen short of God's glory, none are "good" and none are righteous (Romans 3:10 & 23). As such, if God calls us to account at any given moment, because he is absolutely perfect, he is the only one who is truly "just" in condemning us. No human can exact perfect justice because no human is perfect. But we cannot accuse God of doing evil here. He is being extremely consistent with his character, and not capricious at all.
Furthermore, if God knew that these people would never listen or turn to him and hence always seek to destroy his people (Israel), then why would he be under any obligation to let them persist and carry out their evil plans? If it's "judge now or judge later" then why not cut them off now and prevent their evil from carrying on unchecked? I actually take comfort in the fact that there is a point where God says "Enough!" and seeks to actively, even violently, stop evil. I can't help but to even cheer him on a bit.
My frustration comes when he doesn't do this enough to suit my tastes. From our limited human perspective, it seems that God should have said "Enough" to the Nazis earlier and kept them from murdering untold millions. At the same time, I recognize that I am not exempt from doing, thinking, and saying evil. And at THOSE times, I am very glad that God is patient and slow to exact his justice.
Of course, quoting Bible verses to someone who does not hold them to be authoritative is relatively futile, but I think I would be remiss to not include the follow up verse to Romans 3: 23 (24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus). Apart from Christ, everyone is equally as screwed as the proverbial Sodom and Gomorra, it simply becomes a matter of when. God is not being inconsistent here.
Also, focusing too heavily on the discontinuity between Jesus of 1st Century Palestine and that of the vengeful God of the OT fails to take into account what the Bible says about the "return of Christ." I won't quote the text here, but it essentially teaches that when the final page is written, Jesus won't come with sunshine and lollipops (like he did the first time around), but rather with a "sword." Judgment Day, Armageddon, a consuming fire and all that, etc. From this perspective, we can see the uniformity of the OT God and Christ at THE End as bookends framing human history with a peaceful (but firm) Jesus splitting the difference in the middle. All the way through the text we see a central God-character who lets people choose him or not choose him, and tells people that there will be future consequences for their respective choices.
Again, I know this perspective will draw fire from anyone who regards the Bible as unauthentic. Nevertheless, we are not necessarily asserting its authority here, but rather its logical consistency on the issue in question. I contend that it passes that test rather well.
Sorry for the verbosity, but I hope that helps.
-CL
Things get difficult whenever we start talking about conclusive evidence as a prerequisite for belief. I think its interesting that throughout the gospels, the miracles of Jesus were not conclusive evidence for those who witnessed them. Whenever He would perform a miracle, there were those who believed, concluding that this Jesus came from God, and those who "did not believe," concluding that Jesus was using demonic powers to perform His miracles. First of all, if miraculous events don't even prove to be conclusive evidence, then what in the world would? Secondly, the two reactions to His miracles were reflections of peoples presuppositions... and those presuppositions were less about cognitive abstractions of the intellect and more about character. I'm pretty convinced that the heart and all of its confused desires seems to be a most underrated factor in issues of "belief" these days.
ReplyDeleteApart from Christ, everyone is equally as screwed as the proverbial Sodom and Gomorra, it simply becomes a matter of when. God is not being inconsistent here.
ReplyDeleteI had to laugh when I read this because of the frank way you put it, but sadly, it is a very important truth.
I believe that God carefully guided the formation of the nation of Israel, right down to specific responses to the tribulations they brought upon themselves because through his prophets and this history was slowly built the need and the anticipation for a christ. Had God's son been plunked down into the world without warning or preconditions, it is unlikely anyone would have listened. He would have been, for all intents and purposes, just another crazy person prophesying on the street corner. (There were plenty in those days, just as there are now)
If you look at the overall consequences of God's careful "pruning" in human history, there is no way his actions can be taken for barbaric, at least in my view. The trouble comes when trying to explain this to someone who might not believe in an active God or that history was tailor made to support evidence and need for a Christ.
Which brings us back to the main topic. To believe, one has to take off the blinders and see how God has orchestrated events to his singular purpose. Just as he built anticipation for Jesus through prophesy and human events, he made his death, resurrection and disappearance a powerful story to convert future generations of believers. If he were in the habit of appearing to everyone that doubted, the witnesses would all be crazy people on street corners as well.
A voluntary belief in a personal, ideal, savior is much more powerful a vehicle for God's love than an obvious, all-powerful dictator.
Well said, Marc.
ReplyDeleteThanks for adding to the discussion. You've brought some good stuff here, and what really caught my attention is your clarifying the need for genuine seekers to take off their "blinders" to see.
Having been a glutton for punishment on Amazon.com discussion boards before, I have encountered several atheists who claim to let the evidence lead in their pursuit of truth. At various points we get down to the nitty-gritty of positive, compelling evidence and reasoning for Christ. Thus far, and without fail, these cyber-friends hit a wall and switch-off or switch over to other arguments or biting commentary once they see where the evidence might be leading them.
I can't swagger here. I am not a good debater and have probably done very little for the cause of Christ in Cyberville. But I mention these discussions because they remind me that accepting Jesus requires far more than good "arguments." It calls for an overwhelming sense of humility and need for repentance. And as a by-product of these qualities, becoming a disciple requires an act of will. Without that will, no amount of evidence can ever be enough, not even Jesus showing up to say hello. Which, ironically enough, is exactly what he did almost 2000 years ago in Palestine. Then, as now, not everyone could muster the will to believe in him.
Nonetheless, we must remain hopeful for our friends, neighbors and enemies,
Thanks again, Marc!
-CL