Porphyry: Why is the bible full of extraordinary and obvious divine interventions in human affair (look at the Exodus!), but in recent history, whatever miracles there are are almost impossible to distinguish from fortuitous natural events?
I have toiled over this problem. I’ve tried so many times to pinpoint just one thing that could only have been divine intervention. Instead I have a lifetime of instances I’ve chosen to “give God glory” while aware there were alternative explanations waiting in the wings.
I hear the childlike faith response that @Judith brought up, and I do appreciate that, BUT… childlike faith is easy for children who have no perspective about the world around them. Once we’ve lived long enough to see the suffering inherent in our world “just believe like a little child” seems like a dismissal of some very valid questions. It seems like if God wants us to know Him he could reveal himself to every generation equally. Here we are, 2000 years post resurrection and we have to decide whether or not to believe in what someone else saw. I don’t think we can be too intellectual to see God if He is wanting to be seen. If I believe that the Intelligent Designer created me in His likeness, then it follows that God made me to be intelligent on purpose. Why would I have to bracket my intelligence to know him? It seems illogical.
I am personally in a season of being tossed back and forth between belief and unbelief. Sometimes my souls feels motion sickness. Haha.
Great discussion.
Stephen wrote:
It is possible to conceive of death as being part of a benevolent, divinely ordered universe. At the end of a life one dies the way one goes to sleep at night after an active day. The Kingdom of God described in the Hebrew bible seems to consist of the normal round of living and dying. It’s just that one lives a long fulfilled fruitful life and at the end of one’s days lies down to an honored rest.
Yes, it is.
For the longest of times, I’ve looked with a great deal of fondness on such a position.
Micah wrote:
…God made me to be intelligent on purpose.
Yes, and as you say, we should use what we’ve been given.
What has always interested me is the fact that equally intelligent people can come up with vastly different conclusions, which suggest there are other things that play a role in what we eventually choose to believe.
Robert wrote:
The people who engaged in midrashic retellings certainly did not take the stories literally, nor did their audience. Why should we?
It doesn’t have to be true to be true.
@BJH1960: What has always interested me is the fact that equally intelligent people can come up with vastly different conclusions, which suggest there are other things that play a role in what we eventually choose to believe.
Ah yes, a very important observation. Do you think there are an infinite number of unknowable factors, or do you think they can (mostly) be categorized into groups such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.?
@Judith: The 2 Timothy verse indicates the dishonorable vessel can be cleansed to become honorable. I would have a hard time seeing a good, loving God if I thought it were true that some people are predestined for destruction. In this case, he would not be the kind of God I could love or worship honestly. I think I would feel too much indignation toward him.
equally intelligent people can come up with vastly different conclusions, which suggest there are other things that play a role in what we eventually choose to believe.
The issue is close to my heart. A big part of my deconversion was coming to realize how tribal human thinking and beliefs are, and (eventually) seeing how tribal my own thinking had been. Apparently they call it “myside bias”. We find people we trust and respect and then we adopt their narrative as our own and defend it (and the people who tell the narrative) at extreme lengths.
It makes sense. We are storytellers. We like stories, especially simple stories with good guys and bad guys with simple, one-dimensional motives. And our stories define us–they tell us who we are in the world–so we are reluctant to let them go. And we are wired to use social heuristics to approximate truth: If I catch this guy lying, he is now a bad guy and not to be trusted, and the guy who is opposed to him is a presumptive good guy (who is therefore trustworthy). We don’t like uncertainty, so we force people into black and white categories.
If you look at politics in the United States right now, I think we see this playing out in really obvious ways.
At any rate, that is where I had gotten on my own, and then I ran ** you do not have permission to see this link **, which prised my eyes wide open: The most intelligent people are the most susceptible to these sort of cognitive biases. From an evolutionary perspective, being correct is not always as useful as being a member of a group. Using your intelligence to reinforce your tribe’s narrative and identity is an excellent survival strategy.
It is all beyond our understanding. I’ve said this here before: Just as there is no possible way to explain to the smartest ant why in spite of my admiration there is no way they can settle on my brick walkway, it is impossible to understand God. We simply must “trust and obey…there is no other way”.
Do you think there are an infinite number of unknowable factors, or do you think they can (mostly) be categorized into groups such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.
Great question, of which I’m afraid I have no answer.
My hunch would be that the main factors could probably be categorized into such groups. I’ve never looked into it very much, but this question might get me started.
It doesn’t have to be true to be true.
But then you have to explain that to a fundamentalist whose only conception of truth is to ask “Did it really happen?”
As ridiculous as it might sound I only seriously read the Bible after I stopped believing. I remember how astounding it was to read the gospel of Mark without blinders.
Wait! Jesus told parables to deliberately confuse outsiders? His mother and siblings came to where he was preaching to bind him because they thought he was crazy? Rather than falling to their knees in piety the women at the tomb lost their sh*t, ran like hell, and didn’t tell anyone??? Whaaat?
Never heard any of that in Sunday School.
Porphyry, that’s an interesting article. Funny, though probably unintentionally so. Mr Gurvinder has several interesting things to say but then demonstrates his own mental limitations and cognitive bias when he goes on about “Wokeism”. Excellent. I wonder if anyone pointed it out to him? Perhaps he is perceptive enough to use himself as an example?
It is all beyond our understanding.
Judith if it were all understandable or all beyond our comprehension we would be ok. The problem is that some of it is and some isn’t. All the arguments are where to draw that line which of course is always in motion.
I came across this book, which I suspect will soon be in my possession:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Here’s a quote:
“We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.”
Micah wrote:
he would not be the kind of God I could love or worship honestly. I think I would feel too much indignation toward him.
The notion of the elect is equally hard for me to stomach. I’ve never been particularly interested in the Pauline epistles, so I have no idea if that’s what Paul was really saying.
I would also add that I think indignation is the only moral response to how we see God sometimes portrayed in the OT where people are slaughtered for no particularly good reason that I can follow. This is not to say that we don’t see the same thing sometimes in the NT – Revelation is a complete and utter nightmare.
The morality (and justice) of God is an interesting subject. If it’s true that our sense of morality is instilled within us by God, and is reflective of his nature, then it seems that anything we find morally deplorable would also be something God would find morally deplorable. So when we run up against doctrines that stand in contrast to our sense of morality (and justice) then maybe we should be consider that is an indicator that something is awry. Meaning, this repugnant act or ideology is not from God at all.
Of course, we run into some problems when we consider that the morality of mankind has evolved and progressed over the centuries. Things that were social norms in ancient times are considered abhorrent today (for instance, child brides, child sacrifice, slavery). Trending toward widespread rejection is idea of eternal conscious torment. Once upon a barbaric time, it was acceptable to coerce converts through fear-based tactics. Today, many people can clearly see that any conversion based on avoiding ECT is hardly sincere. It’s entirely selfish. It’s not until we remove the idea of hell that people are truly free to choose to worship God. Otherwise, hell completely negates free will. Confessing devotion at gunpoint is just self-preservation.
So back to the morality of God——on the one hand, our own morality should reflect his, if in fact, we get our sense of morality from God (which is a common apologetic ideology). But because the morality of mankind doesn’t have a great track record, and is also inconsistent, perhaps our sense of morality doesn’t come from God after all.
Regarding the morally incoherent sections of the OT, I think once we realize the Bible is a human book, then we no longer have to reconcile the character of God with the atrocities we find there. But then, since Judaism and Christianity are “bookish” religions and the Bible has been the primary way we’ve learned what to believe about God, then if we take away the divine authority of the Bible, then how do we know anything at all about God?
There is a lot of talking in circles in my post. I hope I made some sense.
Of course, we run into some problems when we consider that the morality of mankind has evolved and progressed over the centuries. Things that were social norms in ancient times are considered abhorrent today (for instance, child brides, child sacrifice, slavery).
Our ideas of right and wrong have definitely evolved. Consider just within our own lifetimes the change.
I’ve always been amazed by those people in antiquity who got it right (e.g. Dio Chrysostom opposing slavery) when others were completely clueless.
until we remove the idea of hell that people are truly free to choose to worship God.
I’ve often wondered if a de-emphasis on an eternal reward might also be a positive thing. One does good not because of the reward but because it’s the right thing to do.
BJH1960: I’ve often wondered if a de-emphasis on an eternal reward might also be a positive thing. One does good not because of the reward but because it’s the right thing to do.
Sure. I think both are important. I didn’t emphasize the rewards angle in my previous post, but serving God for his “presents” and not is “presence” is also superficial. Only recently when I began to be more critical of the idea of hell, did I also consider that the accoutrements of heaven should be equally scrutinized. While I would hope eternal life would include meeting Jesus, and fellowship with loved ones who’ve preceeded me in death, I’ve long thought the material descriptions of the New Jerusalem were clearly symbolic (many mansions, streets of gold). If the city’s streets are paved with the stuff, I think that indicates it won’t be considered precious anymore. Gold is only precious now, but in comparison to living in fellowship with Jesus, gold will be of so little value, we will walk on it.
In my personal journey, I’ve come to a place (not so long ago) that I decided, even if there are no rewards or punishments in the end, being connected to God right now in the present moment is still worth believing.
Like I said in a previous post recently, my believing isn’t as secure or steadfast as it once was, but what I can say is, when I do believe — it’s no longer tied to afterlife mythologies.
I think this mental shift really does move my personal focus to the present moment — bringing the kingdom of God to earth. If this is my only chance to live out goodness, mercy, friendship, stewardship, etc., then I don’t want to miss it.
*Side note. I haven’t been able to figure out how to put my quotations in italics like everyone else clearly seems to know how to do. (ha.)
I think this mental shift really does move my personal focus to the present moment — bringing the kingdom of God to earth. If this is my only chance to live out goodness, mercy, friendship, stewardship, etc., then I don’t want to miss it.
A worthy goal. Repairing the world.
As for quoting stuff, this should do the trick:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You can preview it to check before you post.
is currently browsing this topic
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)