Figuring Out Religion

[Pointedstick]

An alternative explanation might be that if you never heard or understood the Gospel, you have no chance to reject it and condemn yourself to Hell, so you automatically go to Heaven. This would provide a way for babies and people never exposed to Christianity to avoid Hell. It might also explain why missionaries were so frequently killed! Perhaps the tribal leaders understood that they were saving their fellow tribesmen from having to choose between abandoning their religion or going to Hell!

[Mountaineer]

I'm not offended at all. I understand that that is simply what you believe, and that you are trying to do a nice thing by helping me to understand and believe what I need to understand and believe to avoid condemning myself to eternal damnation.

Be that as it may, I believe that my central point still stands, and is in fact reinforced by your preaching of the Gospel. As you say, the only thing that we need to do is to accept that Jesus Christ died to forgive us our numerous, unavoidable sins. Fair enough. But this leaves several big groups of people who all but certain to go to hell, many of them never even having had the opportunity to avoid it:

1. People who hear and are rationally capable of understanding the Gospel, but who reject it anyway (people like me, and all members of all other world religions who have heard of Christianity).
2. People who are not rationally capable of understanding the Gospel, and so cannot accept it (stillborn children, infants who die of malnutrition, the mentally ill, etc).
3. People who have never been exposed to the Gospel (everybody before Jesus was alive; everybody who was never exposed to Christian missionaries, etc).

These are not small groups of people here. Included in these groups are probably the vast majority of all human beings!

Group #1 encompasses every member of every other religion in all of recorded human history, including many who actually consider themselves Christians!

Group #2 encompasses every aborted baby, every stillborn baby, and every infant who dies within the first couple of years who is not really capable of understanding the Gospel.

Group #3 encompasses everybody who died before Jesus was resurrected and everybody who died never having heard of Jesus, which would be basically everybody outside of Europe until a few hundred years ago.

It may seem pedantic to you, but the reason why I am focusing on the number of people who go to hell is because the number seems very large to me. And because we have established that God is as a perfect and omnipotent being, this state of affairs must be deliberate. Thus, He has set up a system in which the vast majority of humans--who he loves--will suffer an eternity of torture, many of them through no fault of their own because they were simply never exposed to Christianity during their lifetimes! They might have accepted it if they had, or they had grown up into a person with the mental faculties to learn about and comprehend the magnitude of Jesus's sacrifice. But because they didn't, they went to hell.

In other words, God has effectively set up most humans, living or dead, to fail, and then He has communicated to us through the Gospel that it was their own fault for failing in this matter, and then He has furthermore set the consequence for failure to be eternal torture. This does not seem like loving behavior to me. God, as an omnipotent being, could change this at any time. He could say that even though we are all sinners, we are all forgiven anyway, with no preconditions. He could personally visit all of us and explain it to us in order to make it really hard to reject it. Lots of other things.

I am not trying to "make myself God" by asking these questions or posing these hypotheticals. I am simply pointing out that God is not simply an innocent victim of this system as he watches sadly when people turn away and go to Hell; He created it this way! I don't understand why Christians seem to shy away from the logical consequences of this system. I almost never hear anyone thoughtful like you or Desert just come out and admit "yes, hell is populated by all of the people who died before Jesus was resurrected, and all of the stillborn and aborted children, and all of the Jews, and all of the Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists and Shintos and spirit worshippers and Atheists and Agnostics, and even a large proportion of all the Christians too, and this is necessarily an act of love, even if we don't understand it!"

This seems to be the unavoidable logical consequence of the belief that escaping hell is only possible through acceptance of the Gospel and I wish somebody had the balls to just come out and say it!

Did you do what I asked you to do?  If not, please do so, out loud, again.

Comment one:  Please give up the need to understand more than God has revealed in the Holy Scriptures.  It is Satan prodding at you, and I think really, really hard.  Do not succumb, please.

Comment two:  Based on my studies, Group 1 is bound for hell.  Groups 2 is bound for heaven (my shorthand for new heaven and new earth as described in the Scriptures).  Group 3 is mixed.  Those who believed in the promises of God (e.g. Abraham) to heaven, those who did not, bound for hell.  Those who never heard of Jesus, I don't know but God does say (I do not remember the specific verses - you can probably look us as easy as I can) that all will hear before the Last Day and I have zero clue as to the methods God uses to contact people we wonder about.  Final destination will be when Jesus returns to judge the living and the dead on the Last Day. 

Comment three:  I agree the number of hell bound is likely quite large.  Scripture seems to indicate this; for example Matthew 19:24, and by the world's standards, we are very, very rich.

Comment four:  Just because I don't understand or might not agree with every rule God established, am I  to forgo eternal Salvation because of my narrow mindedness?

Comment five:  You do seem to have a very strong desire to "make yourself God".  My suggestion, repeat every time you think about it:  "Satan, get thee behind me; you are defeated, go away, I trust the promises of Jesus, not your lies and trying to plant seeds of doubt!"

Comment six re. balls.  Ask and you shall receive.    "You will rest in the arms of Jesus (that is, not suffer spiritual death, or said another way, escape hell after judgement on the Last Day) if and only if, you believe in the promises of Jesus.  ... Mountaineer"  Go back to my earlier post on "read this aloud" and say it multiple times per day .... and follow my subsequent guidance.

Comments one through six:  my words based on my studies, not God's Word which I proclaimed to you earlier.

Shalom brother! 

... Mountaineer

Edited to add:  I really doubt that you want a God small enough to completely understand.  I also doubt you want a God that created puppets instead of humans that are capable of sin.

[Pointedstick]

I read those words aloud, mountaineer. There didn't seem to resonate with any particular power.

The basic problem here, I think, is that I don't have faith. If I did, all of this would be irrelevant; the parts I don't understand would be the parts beyond my comprehension. They would be pointless details.

But because I don't appear to have been struck or blessed with faith, I'm stuck trying to understand this stuff rationally. That's the only other way I know how. And what I see frankly doesn't make a lot of rational sense to me. I also see people I respect, very intelligent and devout christians like you, who appear to be trying themselves to interpret God's teachings in a manner that makes them less brutal. For example, your belief that group 2 goes to heaven, despite their not having accepted Jesus as their saviors. I do not know what your basis for this belief is, since you also claim that it is necessary to accept Jesus to avoid Hell. These beliefs appear to contradict one another.

I also don't get how trying to understand God makes me want to make myself God. Does this mean that all theologians are trying to make themselves God? Where is the line between trying to understand God and trying to become God?

Now, it may be that rationality is a bad tool to try to use to understand religion. It's certainly seeming this way, because every time I feel like I hone in a contradiction, the response is basically, "stop trying to understand! You're too flawed to comprehend the truth, and your source material was compiled by similarly flawed humans, and it of course likely to be full of contradictions and nonsense."

So a perfectly good answer might be, "Stop trying to rationally understand God, Christianity, and the Bible. If any of this doesn't make sense, it's probably because we humans are too flawed to understand it properly."

But then again, if that's the case, what's the point of trying to convince people?

[Mountaineer]

First of all, let's assume the issue is "I am unable, for whatever reason, to clearly communicate God's Word to you in a manner that resonates with you; my problem, not yours."  Let's assume the issue is not "You do not have faith".  Deal?  Either way, let me have another go.  I'll put my comments below in red in your post.

... Mountaineer

I read those words aloud, mountaineer. There didn't seem to resonate with any particular power.  [OK, I really was not expecting a resonation with harps, cymbals or fireworks - I just wanted you to hear the Gospel proclaimed and to know you are forgiven.  Maybe it is strange at first but try to say those words frequently.  I really do not think it is a one shot deal.  Would you be willing to go to 'church' for a while, somewhere where the Word is preached and taught faithfully to the Scriptures?  Or is some other method preferable?]

The basic problem here, I think, is that I don't have faith. If I did, all of this would be irrelevant; the parts I don't understand would be the parts beyond my comprehension. They would be pointless details.  [From Romans, Chapter 10:  14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”? 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”? 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.]

But because I don't appear to have been struck or blessed with faith, I'm stuck trying to understand this stuff rationally. That's the only other way I know how. And what I see frankly doesn't make a lot of rational sense to me. I also see people I respect, very intelligent and devout christians like you, who appear to be trying themselves to interpret God's teachings in a manner that makes them less brutal. [Only the Law is brutal, and it is brutal on purpose.  The purpose of the Law is to make you realize there is absolutely nothing you can do on your own to be saved (insert your favorite word here for beating your senseless for not getting it through rational logic - maybe it will take a while, but I'm firmly convinced that when you let go of trying so hard to do it on your own, when you just be still and listen, when you start praying for God's mercy and guidance (not for your personal needs but His will), when you ask that God's will be done and not your will, when you go somewhere you can hear and question a good Pastor, you will hear the Word).  If this is not possible, get a copy of Luther's Small Catechism and study it relentlessly; that would be a great start.  I think it is available on line; I suggest the one put out by Concordia Publishing House - the latest version.  I have it as an app on my iPhone.  When you finally give up and the Law has achieved its purpose, then you will long to really hear the Gospel and it will register with you, register what an incredible gift it is and you will wonder what took so long.  Don't get discouraged, but this process may take years - it did for me - but it might happen quickly.]  For example, your belief that group 2 goes to heaven, despite their not having accepted [You are still using the word 'accept'; I use the word 'not reject' - that makes it easier for me to see why the unborn etc. will not go to hell.  This is not just me, this is also what my Pastor teaches and thinks based on his Seminary studies and Scripture.]  Jesus as their saviors. I do not know what your basis for this belief is, since you also claim that it is necessary to accept [get rid of the word 'accept' and replace it with the phrase 'not reject'] Jesus to avoid Hell. These beliefs appear to contradict one another.

I also don't get how trying to understand God makes me want to make myself God. Does this mean that all theologians are trying to make themselves God? Where is the line between trying to understand God and trying to become God? [This may sound harsh but I really don't mean it that way.  I perceive your god is logic in a manner that goes way beyond trying to understand ... I may be wrong.  I'm probabably hung up on your apparent rejection of seeing 'revelation' as a valid means of obtaining and understanding information.  For example, the Holy Scriptures contain a lot of revealed knowledge; see my earlier discussion on the inerrancy of Scripture (with all my usual caveats on exactly what that means).]

Now, it may be that rationality is a bad tool to try to use to understand religion. It's certainly seeming this way, because every time I feel like I hone in a contradiction, the response is basically, "stop trying to understand!  You're too flawed to comprehend the truth, and your source material was compiled by similarly flawed humans, and it of course likely to be full of contradictions and nonsense."  [How about considering adding 'revelation' to your tools to understand the world.  And, don't stop honing in on what you think are contradictions.  That is a way to learn - for both of us.]

So a perfectly good answer might be, "Stop trying to rationally understand God, Christianity, and the Bible. If any of this doesn't make sense, it's probably because we humans are too flawed to understand it properly."  [I'd like to tell you that, it would be easy  - but I'd be wrong in many cases.  There are lots of parts of the Bible (in particular the history sections) that rationality and/or science are helpful tools.  God gives us a brain and the ability to discern truth.  He gives us many clues in the Scriptures for how to do that.  I will say in general though, since the fall (Genesis 3) and the subsequent curse, ALL of creation is cursed and not the way God intended at the outset.  Adam and Eve fell for the doubt raised by the serpent.  Thus, for example, we cannot say with 100% assurance the Grand Canyon was not created by God in its current state, and not erroded by water over millions of years.  In the end, it does not matter anyway.  The whole 'how old is the earth' and all the various permutations of that are just another of Satan's distractions to make us doubt God's promises.  The real important thing is to focus on the Scriptures, what they say, read good study materials, talk to good Pastors.  I am biased I know.  I'm such a staunch supporter of the LCMS because their worldview (quasi philosophy?) to explain how things are is by far better than all the other worldviews I've studied; and before you call me on it, I freely admit I use my brain to discern that truth.  I've likely really confused you with all of this; it would be so nice for you and me to have a quiet conversation over a few drinks with my Pastor - and yes I remember you would prefer water, tea, or a soft drink  ].

But then again, if that's the case, what's the point of trying to convince people? [Because I sincerely care about you.  Don't ask me why, but I think you remind me of me several years back as do some of the other forum members.  May God help you all if that be the case (figuratively and literally).  ]

[Pointedstick]

It's all good, mountaineer. You never offend me.

It seems as though the point that you and Desert (though that last link, interesting stuff) are trying to communicate is that acceptance non-rejection of God's word comes not from logical study, but from faith... and faith comes from revelation... and revelation comes from exposure to the truth--in this case God's truth.

I have read various parts of the Bible before, but to be entirely honest, I have mostly the Old Testament to be confusing and morally repellent, and the new testament to be confusing and boring. I truly with you no offense; these have simply been my reactions. Maybe it's not enough exposure… but how much do I need? How will it be revealed?

Perhaps the problem is that I don't understand what revelation actually is. I'll admit that when you use that word, I start to get confused. Could you help me understand what exactly you mean by the term?

[Mountaineer]

Yesterday's episode of the "White Horse Inn" is interesting and on topic for the current discussion.  "Evangelicals" as used in this episode, seems to be referring to groups such as "Southern Baptists" - not to the word "evangelical" which just means "according to the teachings of the Gospel".  Interesting that I heard this episode last night after all the back and forth discussions of yesterday on this forum.  I do not believe in coincidences. 

... Mountaineer

Chaos & Grace episode
What is the state of contemporary Christianity, and what are some of the current trends that are shaping the way we think about God, heaven, hell, and the Christian life? Why do evangelical Christians think about the gospel in subjective and experiential terms? On this edition of the White Horse Inn Michael Horton discusses these issues with Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today magazine, and author of Chaos & Grace Discovering the Liberating Work of the Holy Spirit.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WhiteHor ... 140810.mp3

[Mountaineer]

Suggestion: If you have not read the previous Letters, posted earlier in this thread, I suggest you do so prior to reading subsequent Letters.  Each Letter, a short chapter in the book "What They Need to Hear" by Klemet Preus tends to build on prior material.  They begin with "Preface" in my August 6 post; the preface discusses the purpose of the book.

Letter 10 - The Resurrection of Christ
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a9gjjwdvc150a ... Christ.pdf

Letter 11 - Miracle Recovery
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0s0wjpej50jj2 ... ery%3F.pdf

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

It's all good, mountaineer. You never offend me.

It seems as though the point that you and Desert (though that last link, interesting stuff) are trying to communicate is that acceptance non-rejection of God's word comes not from logical study, but from faith... and faith comes from revelation... and revelation comes from exposure to the truth--in this case God's truth.

I have read various parts of the Bible before, but to be entirely honest, I have mostly the Old Testament to be confusing and morally repellent, and the new testament to be confusing and boring. I truly with you no offense; these have simply been my reactions. Maybe it's not enough exposure… but how much do I need? How will it be revealed?

Perhaps the problem is that I don't understand what revelation actually is. I'll admit that when you use that word, I start to get confused. Could you help me understand what exactly you mean by the term?

PS,

What do I mean by the term "revelation"?  This may be painful, but the best way I can answer that question is to present some material from the intro to my Lutheran Study Bible.  It is in the link below.  Basically, God reveals Himself to us through His Word and that Word is captured in the Holy Scriptures - but that said, the Word is bigger than just the Holy Scriptures, it also includes the words of my Pastor in his sermon, as an example.  Said another way, I do not think we can determine God's Word by deducing it, or intuiting it, or feeling it, or dreaming it, or by empirically determining it (although our seeing nature somewhat does reveal God) - and notice I'm using the word "I" a lot here - God can do anything so everything "I" just said could be a little bit suspect since I'm a sinner who does not claim to completely understand God; forgive me if I divert you from hearing the Word.  I hope this material will be useful to you.  Keep on asking! 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6301o8yfg7jc7 ... 0Bible.pdf

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

When you say "hearing," can I assume you mean something beyond just hearing in the traditional sense?  To me, hearing a story is not learning truth through revelation... it's just hearing a story.  I don't know if it is true or not.

So I'm imagining that some "feeling" has to accompany this "hearing" to reveal to you that it IS the truth and the Word of God.  Am I incorrect in this assumption?  I think this is the operative point here... I've "heard" the Word of God before, but felt nothing that told me it was "the Truth."  You seem to have had a very different experience when hearing the Word of God.  It is that difference that I'm interested.  That experience, feeling, spirituality, what-have-you that accompanied your hearing The Word that made it so powerful.

Because you must have "heard" the Word of God a LOT before it actually kicked in.  Most people have heard lots of Gospel readings.  Only some of them felt it truly resonated & taught them something about reality.

[Pointedstick]

So I'm imagining that some "feeling" has to accompany this "hearing" to reveal to you that it IS the truth and the Word of God.  Am I incorrect in this assumption?  I think this is the operative point here... I've "heard" the Word of God before, but felt nothing that told me it was "the Truth."  You seem to have had a very different experience when hearing the Word of God.  It is that difference that I'm interested.  That experience, feeling, spirituality, what-have-you that accompanied your hearing The Word that made it so powerful.

Because you must have "heard" the Word of God a LOT before it actually kicked in.  Most people have heard lots of Gospel readings.  Only some of them felt it truly resonated & taught them something about reality.

Yes exactly. That's where I'm at, too. I'm reading a lot of the material you send (though not all of it, I admit) and none of it really resonates in any way. I'll take a look at those scanned pages you just posted.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

When you say "hearing," can I assume you mean something beyond just hearing in the traditional sense?  [I only mean what it says in Scripture, no more, no less.  For a more thorough explanation, read the link Desert posted a few posts back on the 1872 sermon by Charles Spurgeon.]  To me, hearing a story is not learning truth through revelation... it's just hearing a story.  I don't know if it is true or not.

So I'm imagining that some "feeling" has to accompany this "hearing" to reveal to you that it IS the truth and the Word of God.  [Maybe, but not for me; I've never experienced the "feeling" part, and I must say, that is a good thing because feelings can be so very fleeting or change when circumstances change.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  I believe the Holy Spirit worked within me over time to enable me to hear God's Word.  I somehow have learned to trust the Word of God.  See Spurgeon's sermon.]  Am I incorrect in this assumption?  I think this is the operative point here... I've "heard" the Word of God before, but felt nothing that told me it was "the Truth."  You seem to have had a very different experience when hearing the Word of God.  It is that difference that I'm interested.  That experience, feeling, spirituality, what-have-you that accompanied your hearing The Word that made it so powerful.

Because you must have "heard" the Word of God a LOT before it actually kicked in.  [True.  But God did not give up on me.  When I started going back to church and hearing the Word proclaimed in all its fullness, it slowly made a difference.  100% God's work, not mine.  I only had to "not reject" the external gift of hearing God's Word proclaimed which is very passive on my part and somehow was kept open to the Holy Spirit (another case of God's external source that is within me - It certainly was not there by my doing).]  Most people have heard lots of Gospel readings.  [There is a big difference between hearing Gospel readings (assuming you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) versus hearing the Gospel (the 'you are forgiven for the sake of Christ'.]  Only some of them felt it truly resonated & taught them something about reality.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

When you say "hearing," can I assume you mean something beyond just hearing in the traditional sense?  [I only mean what it says in Scripture, no more, no less.  For a more thorough explanation, read the link Desert posted a few posts back on the 1872 sermon by Charles Spurgeon.]  To me, hearing a story is not learning truth through revelation... it's just hearing a story.  I don't know if it is true or not.

So I'm imagining that some "feeling" has to accompany this "hearing" to reveal to you that it IS the truth and the Word of God.  [Maybe, but not for me; I've never experienced the "feeling" part, and I must say, that is a good thing because feelings can be so very fleeting or change when circumstances change.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  I believe the Holy Spirit worked within me over time to enable me to hear God's Word.  I somehow have learned to trust the Word of God.  See Spurgeon's sermon.]  Am I incorrect in this assumption?  I think this is the operative point here... I've "heard" the Word of God before, but felt nothing that told me it was "the Truth."  You seem to have had a very different experience when hearing the Word of God.  It is that difference that I'm interested.  That experience, feeling, spirituality, what-have-you that accompanied your hearing The Word that made it so powerful.

Because you must have "heard" the Word of God a LOT before it actually kicked in.  [True.  But God did not give up on me.  When I started going back to church and hearing the Word proclaimed in all its fullness, it slowly made a difference.  100% God's work, not mine.  I only had to "not reject" the external gift of hearing God's Word proclaimed which is very passive on my part and somehow was kept open to the Holy Spirit (another case of God's external source that is within me - It certainly was not there by my doing).]  Most people have heard lots of Gospel readings.  [There is a big difference between hearing Gospel readings (assuming you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) versus hearing the Gospel (the 'you are forgiven for the sake of Christ'.]  Only some of them felt it truly resonated & taught them something about reality.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

You had already "heard" God's Word, though.  We need to understand definitions here (same as in our deductive arguments).  You say that you were "enabled to hear God's Word."  But you had already "heard" it in a traditional sense. So you must be talking about "hearing" in a different way.

I've "heard" God's Word.  How can the Holy Spirit give me the ability to "hear" it.  I already have.  The Holy Spirit could give me the ability to BELIEVE that it is God's Word, but that is not "hearing" in a traditional sense.  There has to be some other sense involved, and that is what I'm referring to as "feeling." I don't mean "feeling" to make it an automatic pejorative.  It probably sounds that way.  On the contrary... your "feeling" of God's presence (if that is what exists in you that doesn't exist in me), could be the most REAL thing in the universe.  But we have to work within the limited language that we've set for ourselves, and "hearing" doesn't seem to be the right word.  Perhaps "feeling" is the wrong word, as well, but it's a lot more open a word to mean different things than "hearing" is.  "Hearing" is a very specific, empirical, scientific sense.  "Feeling" can be the placebo effect, or "feeling" could be a connection to a God that actually exists.  That's why I use that word.  Not to undermine your position, but to give it a word that could better describe what it is that's going on in your soul that isn't going on in PS's/mine.

To me, the difference between you/Desert/Xan, and me/PS/doodle/Kshartle, isn't the fact that you've "heard God's Word" and we haven't, but that you have had an accompanying "feeling" (for lack of a better word) that spoke to you that THIS is the truth.  Perhaps you just decided to "accept it on faith," but then there's no "God finding you."  It's just you taking something on faith.  There's absolutely NOTHING unique about my taking on faith that we exist, and empirically-evidenced facts about physics and cause/effect are in-fact true.  This isn't due to God revealing anything to me.  Just my senses revealing that I'm happier if I understand reality than if I don't.

So there has to be something unique about you "hearing" God's Word (beyond actually hearing it), and if it is just taking something on faith, that is fine, but this isn't "God revealing" himself to you.  This is just you making a decision to take something on faith.

So if you could break down what you mean by "God revealing" himself to you through Scripture beyond just HEARING the words (as we all have done to some degree), that would be great, as this is the operative difference between you and the rest of us skeptics.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

When you say "hearing," can I assume you mean something beyond just hearing in the traditional sense?  [I only mean what it says in Scripture, no more, no less.  For a more thorough explanation, read the link Desert posted a few posts back on the 1872 sermon by Charles Spurgeon.]  To me, hearing a story is not learning truth through revelation... it's just hearing a story.  I don't know if it is true or not.

So I'm imagining that some "feeling" has to accompany this "hearing" to reveal to you that it IS the truth and the Word of God.  [Maybe, but not for me; I've never experienced the "feeling" part, and I must say, that is a good thing because feelings can be so very fleeting or change when circumstances change.  God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  I believe the Holy Spirit worked within me over time to enable me to hear God's Word.  I somehow have learned to trust the Word of God.  See Spurgeon's sermon.]  Am I incorrect in this assumption?  I think this is the operative point here... I've "heard" the Word of God before, but felt nothing that told me it was "the Truth."  You seem to have had a very different experience when hearing the Word of God.  It is that difference that I'm interested.  That experience, feeling, spirituality, what-have-you that accompanied your hearing The Word that made it so powerful.

Because you must have "heard" the Word of God a LOT before it actually kicked in.  [True.  But God did not give up on me.  When I started going back to church and hearing the Word proclaimed in all its fullness, it slowly made a difference.  100% God's work, not mine.  I only had to "not reject" the external gift of hearing God's Word proclaimed which is very passive on my part and somehow was kept open to the Holy Spirit (another case of God's external source that is within me - It certainly was not there by my doing).]  Most people have heard lots of Gospel readings.  [There is a big difference between hearing Gospel readings (assuming you are referring to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) versus hearing the Gospel (the 'you are forgiven for the sake of Christ'.]  Only some of them felt it truly resonated & taught them something about reality.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

You had already "heard" God's Word, though.  We need to understand definitions here (same as in our deductive arguments).  You say that you were "enabled to hear God's Word."  But you had already "heard" it in a traditional sense. So you must be talking about "hearing" in a different way.

I've "heard" God's Word.  How can the Holy Spirit give me the ability to "hear" it.  I already have.  The Holy Spirit could give me the ability to BELIEVE that it is God's Word, but that is not "hearing" in a traditional sense.  There has to be some other sense involved, and that is what I'm referring to as "feeling." I don't mean "feeling" to make it an automatic pejorative.  It probably sounds that way.  On the contrary... your "feeling" of God's presence (if that is what exists in you that doesn't exist in me), could be the most REAL thing in the universe.  But we have to work within the limited language that we've set for ourselves, and "hearing" doesn't seem to be the right word.  Perhaps "feeling" is the wrong word, as well, but it's a lot more open a word to mean different things than "hearing" is.  "Hearing" is a very specific, empirical, scientific sense.  "Feeling" can be the placebo effect, or "feeling" could be a connection to a God that actually exists.  That's why I use that word.  Not to undermine your position, but to give it a word that could better describe what it is that's going on in your soul that isn't going on in PS's/mine.

To me, the difference between you/Desert/Xan, and me/PS/doodle/Kshartle, isn't the fact that you've "heard God's Word" and we haven't, but that you have had an accompanying "feeling" (for lack of a better word) that spoke to you that THIS is the truth.  Perhaps you just decided to "accept it on faith," but then there's no "God finding you."  It's just you taking something on faith.  There's absolutely NOTHING unique about my taking on faith that we exist, and empirically-evidenced facts about physics and cause/effect are in-fact true.  This isn't due to God revealing anything to me.  Just my senses revealing that I'm happier if I understand reality than if I don't.

So there has to be something unique about you "hearing" God's Word (beyond actually hearing it), and if it is just taking something on faith, that is fine, but this isn't "God revealing" himself to you.  This is just you making a decision to take something on faith.

So if you could break down what you mean by "God revealing" himself to you through Scripture beyond just HEARING the words (as we all have done to some degree), that would be great, as this is the operative difference between you and the rest of us skeptics.

moda,

Once again you are stating your case and questions kindly.  Thank you.  I too will now state my thoughts to you fully intended in loving kindness.

Jesus loved Peter.  Yet, Jesus told Peter "get thee behind me Satan" when Peter tried to tell Jesus what was right by Peter's view of the situation (Matthew 16:23  http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-23.htm  ).  Peter did not understand until after the resurrection even though he had been in the presence of Jesus, the God-man, for quite a while and had been exposed to Jesus' teachings extensively. 

So, as I've asked you to do before, all you have to do is prove the resurrection did not happen, using your 100% "only logic counts" methods and I'll listen to what you have to say.  Otherwise, all I can tell you is "you are forgiven for Christ's sake and if you wish to live in eternal joy, believe it" and pray that God gives you the gift of faith, trust, and hearing His Word.  So, I am kindly passing the ball to your court.  I have made all the baskets I know how to make, at least for now, ... your turn.  I shall be awaiting your proof.  Perhaps you (and/or PS, doodle, kshartle) will take this challenge and do the research; maybe it will be the method God uses to reach you, convince you, and save you.  Shalom. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I can't prove Christ wasn't resurrected.  I hope you don't think I'm asking you to "prove" he is the son of God.  I just want to understand what you have that I don't have.  There is something in you that is not in me.  I wish only to understand it as much as possible, but we tend to speak different languages about these things .

And so when you say you've "heard" God's word, is it not true that I also have (I've been to church hundreds of times and heard the Gospel)?  So don't you think there is something different between you and me that can't be summed up in the word "hearing?"

I know, at some point, you're going to have to describe something that is foreign to me as an agnostic, but as much as possible, it would be beneficial to explain things in my agnostic terms, if we are dealing with the physical realm.  "Hearing" is a natural, physical act, and I have "heard" the Gospel.  There appears to be some way that you are processing that information that is fundamentally different than the way I am.  I'd love to drill down on that process.  I know it is super hard, as the process doesn't exist within me.  It probably is like trying to explain emotions to a snake .  But to the degree you use "physical" terms, I'm going to either assume you mean them in their normal context, or that there's something more there that I have yet to grasp.

So I'm pretty lost in this discussion, so you've probably been over this, but what is different about "hearing" The Word, back when you didn't believe, and "hearing it" as in "having Truth revealed via revelation."  There appears to be something fundamentally different between hearing the Word, and HEARING the Word, if you get my drift.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I can't prove Christ wasn't resurrected.  I hope you don't think I'm asking you to "prove" he is the son of God.  I just want to understand what you have that I don't have.  There is something in you that is not in me.  I wish only to understand it as much as possible, but we tend to speak different languages about these things .

And so when you say you've "heard" God's word, is it not true that I also have (I've been to church hundreds of times and heard the Gospel)?  So don't you think there is something different between you and me that can't be summed up in the word "hearing?"

I know, at some point, you're going to have to describe something that is foreign to me as an agnostic, but as much as possible, it would be beneficial to explain things in my agnostic terms, if we are dealing with the physical realm.  "Hearing" is a natural, physical act, and I have "heard" the Gospel.  There appears to be some way that you are processing that information that is fundamentally different than the way I am.  I'd love to drill down on that process.  I know it is super hard, as the process doesn't exist within me.  It probably is like trying to explain emotions to a snake .  But to the degree you use "physical" terms, I'm going to either assume you mean them in their normal context, or that there's something more there that I have yet to grasp.

So I'm pretty lost in this discussion, so you've probably been over this, but what is different about "hearing" The Word, back when you didn't believe, and "hearing it" as in "having Truth revealed via revelation."  There appears to be something fundamentally different between hearing the Word, and HEARING the Word, if you get my drift.

If you believe the resurrection happened, how do you explain it?  If you do not believe the resurrection happened, why can't you prove it?  Have you come to the conclusion you are a misserable sinner deserving of the eternal wrath of God?  Have you begged God for his mercy?  Have you thanked God for the gift of forgiveness because of what Christ did?  Have you prayed for God to help your unbelief?  I have given my guidance, imperfect as it is, several times re. "hearing"; and yes, I do agree with you there is a difference between hearing and HEARING.  It is just to me like the difference between knowledge of facts and really understanding those facts and what they mean. 

What is it you are asking me to do?  What is it that bothers you enough to ask and want to engage in this conversation?  What is it you really, deeply, want to know?  What is the source of your dilemma as best as you can verbalize it?  Ball in your court.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I can't prove the resurrected, but I guess I just am really unsure as to whether it happened.  My bet would be that it didn't.  But, I also can't prove that the Hindu God doesn't exist, or that no God exists, or that Islam has an incorrect interpretation of reality.  I can't prove Samson didn't have super-powered hair.  I can't prove Noah didn't save animals from a flooded Earth.

I can't prove any of those things because there's not enough empirical evidence that they, in fact, did NOT occur or are NOT truth.  Or, perhaps there is, but I just don't have it.  To all those other questions, I have not come to the conclusion that I'm a miserable sinner.  I have prayed to God to make himself more clear to me.  I have not begged for his mercy, though I've asked for forgiveness for things that I've done.  I have thanked God but not for the gift of forgiveness because of Christs acts.

I haven't done some of those things because doing so is inconsistent with not being sure whether God exists or if Jesus is his son.



I am asking you to clarify the difference between those, like you, who believe with all their heart and soul that Christianity is true, and those like me and PS, who simply have no idea, in spite of hearing the Word and praying to God to reveal himself to us.  Obviously, you can't know much about me or PS, so we've tried to tell you that 1) we have heard the Word, 2) we've asked God to make himself more apparent to us, and 3) we have seen/heard/felt nothing.

I am doing this because this is quite possibly the MOST important issue one can imagine, and I seem to be on the opposite side from some people whom I respect, immensely.  It behooves me, if there is a God, to put in an effort to understand the process of becoming connected to him.

I'm not doing this to undermine your faith... perhaps some of my questions about heaven and hell imply that I am, but right now I am simply trying to understand the differences between us by using words that may be imperfect.  You asserted that "hearing" Scripture was enough, but you meant it as the difference between having knowledge and knowing what it all means.  I'm glad we clarified that, but it still leaves the big question... if simply "hearing" something isn't the operative term... but that there's something deeper about the understanding of the Gospel, and that this is the source of your faith, then I wish to explore this, because it is THIS that separates you and I.


You said you were once skeptical when hearing the Word.  Then all of a sudden it started to click.  This "clicking" has to either be logic (like when you read HB and what he says about finance makes "logical" sense and starts to "click"), emotion/feeling (a feeling of the presence of God in your soul), or a decision to have faith... but the latter sounds like more of a decision of yours then "things starting to click."  When I take something on faith, nothing is "starting to fall together" in my mind.  It's simply a tool when there is uncertainty.

Or perhaps it's another phenomenon altogether... but I want to understand it, rather than have circular arguments proposed.  Obviously, you and others are experiencing something PS and I are not.  I just wish to drill down to exactly what is driving that, and I don't think I've found it, yet.

[Pointedstick]

Neither of us can prove that the resurrection did or didn't happen. I guess we're agnostics on the matter, same as we are on a lot of matters.

If the difference between hearing and HEARING (to continue the use of this terminology) is "like the difference between knowledge of facts and really understanding those facts and what they mean"… then how do we come to understand the facts of the Gospel rather than just reading the words and hearing people tell them to us without them really making any impact?

The answer I think we keep hearing is basically repetition. "Hear it enough and you'll get it." "Go to church for 6 months and it will sink in." Etc. It's hard for me to avoid seeing this as simply the powerful psychology of peer pressure. If you join a group and repeatedly expose yourself to an unfamiliar, confusing, or discomforting message--any message--it's highly likely that your brain will, in order to alleviate the discomfort of exposure to something you don't like or think is true, either force you to leave the group and avoid the exposure, or re-organize itself to believe that the message is true so that continued exposure results in positive feelings instead of negative ones.

It seems to me that it would be very easy to mistake this psychological defense mechanism against uncomfortable psychological states for revelation.

[Kshartle]

The answer I think we keep hearing is basically repetition. "Hear it enough and you'll get it." "Go to church for 6 months and it will sink in." Etc. It's hard for me to avoid seeing this is as the psychology of simple peer pressure. If you join a group and repeatedly expose yourself to an unfamiliar, confusing, or discomforting message--any message--its highly likely that your brain will, in order to alleviate the discomfort of exposure to something you don't like or think is true, either force you to leave the group and avoid the exposure, or re-organize itself to believe that the message is true so that continued exposure results in positive feelings instead of negative ones.

It seems to me that it would be very easy to mistake this psychological defense mechanism against uncomfortable psychological states for revelation.

Don't forget the influence of beliefs instilled as a child. These are extremely difficult for any adult to examine in any area of life. It  requires a lot of courage to examine your beliefs and face the possibility that the people you respected were telling you things that aren't true, whether or not they believed it themselves. You have to be open to both of the possibilities if you are truly going to examine your deeply held beliefs. That would include a childhood belief in any religion, or athieism, or racism etc.

That is very difficult, nearly impossible for many.

That being said, many people I'm sure examine closely held beliefs from their childhood and conclude they are correct.

[moda0306]

Don't forget the influence of indoctrination as a child. That is extremely difficult for any adult to overcome in any area of life. It really requires the courage to examine your beliefs and face the possibility that you were deceived by the people you respected or they were just fools themselves. You have to be open to both of the possibilities if you are truly going to examine your deeply held beliefs.

I don't really think Mountaineer lacks courage or was deceived or has been hanging out with fools.

Just us .

[Kshartle]

Don't forget the influence of indoctrination as a child. That is extremely difficult for any adult to overcome in any area of life. It really requires the courage to examine your beliefs and face the possibility that you were deceived by the people you respected or they were just fools themselves. You have to be open to both of the possibilities if you are truly going to examine your deeply held beliefs.

I don't really think Mountaineer lacks courage or was deceived or has been hanging out with fools.

No he very well could hang out with smart people and have examined the issue at length and come to his conclusion. I wasn't discussing who anyone hangs out with (or anyone in particular), I was discussing childhood influences on beliefs.

Many people hold beliefs from their childhood through their entire lives and never examine them because it takes tremendous courage. That would include I'm sure many athiests and Muslims/Jews/Hindu/etc. that convert to Christianity, and vice versa.

[Mountaineer]

Don't forget the influence of indoctrination as a child. That is extremely difficult for any adult to overcome in any area of life. It really requires the courage to examine your beliefs and face the possibility that you were deceived by the people you respected or they were just fools themselves. You have to be open to both of the possibilities if you are truly going to examine your deeply held beliefs.

I don't really think Mountaineer lacks courage or was deceived or has been hanging out with fools.

No he very well could hang out with smart people and have examined the issue at length and come to his conclusion. I wasn't discussing who anyone hangs out with (or anyone in particular), I was discussing childhood influences on beliefs.

Many people hold beliefs from their childhood through their entire lives and never examine them because it takes courage.

I hope that wasn't an attempt to instigate something nasty rather than add a constructive thought.

You guys are a hoot!  Thanks for the endorsement, TennGaPa.  kshartle, I perceive you are just calling it the way you see it - you cannot help it that you have your beer goggles on.    kshartle said:  "No he very well could hang out with smart people and have examined the issue at length and come to his conclusion."  Actually, you hit the nail on the head.  That is why I really enjoy my alone time.   

On a more serious note, I really have examined the issue at excrusciating length and depth and have come to the conclusion I have a higher level of confidence in Christianity being correct, i.e. the truth, than almost anything else that I've studied - especially the "Advanced Mathematics" course I took during my final semester at the university; I mistakenly thought it was going to be practical math after all that geometry, trig, calculus, etc.  I still can remember having nightmares about the dell dots and tripple integrals and not knowing if I made 0% or 100% on my final exam when I left the room and that was very troubling since if I did not pass the class I would not graduate.  My problem is I have always had a very high self-opinion of my intellect that has been externally reinforced from before 1st grade forward via my parents, my friends, IQ tests, grades, honors, class rankings, ACT scores, and just a general "superiority" perspective of how smart I really am versus the unwashed masses.  You might even call me an asshole, but probably not since I learned that if I wanted friends, I had to hide the superiority stuff and I got good at it.  It took me quite a while to realize that while intellect is a wonderful gift, it is also a mighty curse that prevented me for so long from understanding that God is really in charge of everything and I'm a woeful, lowly sinner, in need of rescue and no different than the dumbest, uneducated, pagan on the planet.  It truly is humbling when you can look into the mirror and see what is really behind that smiling, handsome, intellectual mask.  It is similar to the movie "American Beauty" -  everything looks wonderful on the surface, but beneath it lies a mucked up, decrepit, immoral culture that is every bit as bad as what is in the inner city slums - the suburbanites just have more money to spend covering it up and hiding the truth of the stench. 

So, now that I've exposed my soul to you guys, maybe that will help you all understand where I'm coming from, what is different about hearing vs. HEARING and the like for me, and all I'm trying to do is save you all from the years of emptiness that I experienced and did not even recognize it for most of the time.  The world is truly a mess (check the news) and Christianity not only explains why but also offers the solution - even though it will likely not come until my death.  I "feel" blessed (just for you moda - actually I "know" I'm blessed but I could not resist the cheap shot) when I walk into my church Sanctuary with all the other sinners and know that I'm going to confess, be absolved, hear the Word, and then receive the body and blood of Christ, shed for ME for the forgiveness of MY sins; it is a truly a miracle on earth that I have no way of proving, but I know it more assuredly than anything, absolutely anything, that MY sins put Christ on that cross, He took them all upon Himself and gave me eternal life (the great exchange), and HE forgives me anyway and welcomes me into His presence. 

Carry on!

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

When I see a nail I hammer it 

Post T's comment I modified my posts to make them more of a rubber mallet than a hammer.

[Mountaineer]

My Pastor's sermon "You Are Part of Something Bigger".  He discusses the topic we have been banging around ... namely "hearing" ... as well as some other things.  Short, sweet, to the point.  He who has ears, listen, and let him hear, or as Desert just posted "I once was blind and now I see" to continue the theme 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM-1uYs ... Wilmington

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

As much as I have tried, i just cannot find any solace or peace in Christianity. The Christian God is just too fickle and human for me to find comfort in....However, I find things like the simulation hypothesis by Nick Bostrom to be very comforting for some reason....I cannot begin to psychoanalyze why that is the case, but I find theories or philosophies that challenge my perceived existence to be soothing. It's also probably why I'm attracted to Vedantic/ Buddhist/ and Daoist conceptions of reality. They don't seem as rigid, closed off, and dogmatic to me as Christianity does. They allow more space in which the wondrous mysteries of the universe can reside. 

For the simulation hypothesis this is a basic intro....kind of interesting: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JOdOdrqGsK8

[doodle]

I am doing this because this is quite possibly the MOST important issue one can imagine, and I seem to be on the opposite side from some people whom I respect, immensely.  It behooves me, if there is a God, to put in an effort to understand the process of becoming connected to him.

Moda, I clipped out this text from a longer post from you, but this really affected me tonight.  I know where you're coming from, and I'm praying for you.  It took me SO long ... or maybe just a second or two in God's time, to be rescued.  Wish we could discuss this face to face over a 20 pound smoked brisket and a box of fine wine.   

Hey, you guys.  Make sure you give me a heads-up.  I'll bring the wine.

My parents love me unconditionally......yet an all loving God doesn't? I'm sorry, no amount of wine would ever get me to respect God as portrayed in the Bible and I'm willing to burn in hell if I'm wrong. Any God that wants me to kneel before him like a slave else he condemns me for eternity is an ego maniacal being that will never command my respect.