The following comment was left by a professing atheist on a friend's site:
.
"You place morality below "forgiveness". That's terrible. That God would place more value on ritual and belief than on morality is terrible."
.
Admittedly, I see how that would be disturbing to an atheist. Is it an accurate representation of ALL people of faith? Probably not. What about me, as a disciple of Jesus Christ? Is that what I believe... that belief has more value than morality?
But that was not what they said. This person said that it is terrible that God places more value on "ritual and belief" than on morality.
.
My soap box:
Ritual and belief have been lumped together here, and that's unfortunate, because they do not always go together. Ritual is an outward thing that can be faked. That is why Jesus compared some of the pharisees to white-washed sepulchres. Belief, on the other hand, is the conviction of one's heart; it's what's inside. God is able to see past ritual and know whether their belief is genuine.
.
Your turn:
That being said, why would God prefer this supposed harmonious conglomeration of ritual and belief over morality? What sayest thou?
Posts
36 comments:
Belief takes the form of ritual when my heart is weak.
Belief takes the form of moral right living when my will is strong.
My belief is a decision to act as if Jesus died for my sins and the world's--without full proof that He did.
When my life changes to match my belief, I have integrity.
I'm just thinking through this stuff. Does that sound logical?
I don't know that God places any value on ritual and belief, beyond what supports relationship with him. And I'm thinking that both can support relationship.
Then, when we have such relationship, morality is sure to intersect. Otherwise, there is not yet a relationship.
(Oh, and as an aside, I thought your comment on Green Inventions was very clever. And funny. Is there a morality of comedy?)
I found the post and read it - very interesting. What I find confusing is how "forgiveness" becomes interchangeable with "ritual and belief".
Forgiveness as a ritual would be very moral, if you ask me.
Forgiveness in the context of belief is what spurs on morality.
I understand from the post that this individual questions why God would condemn a "good person" to hell - hence, the valuing ritual and belief more than morality. I think this person is highlighting the hypocrisy seen in Christians today. If we truly understand and accept the gift of forgiveness, and seek to serve God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength then we will seek to be "moral." We will want serve and help others. Unfortunately, there are many Christians out there who are more concerned with "defending their faith" than just living it out. God does value morality. In fact, he values it so highly that we must be without sin to enter heaven. Forgiveness is the demonstration of His grace. He allows us to be made righteous through the death of His son. We are no longer slaves to the law, but Christ does not abolish the law (but fulfills it).
Just some thoughts for now. Will be interested to see how the discussion unfolds.
Call me "Lynet", and "she", not "this person" and "they" -- if you're willing :-)
Your post makes one good point. I said "ritual and belief" and lumped them together instead of "forgiveness" because that is my impression of what the stricter sort of Christians seem to consider necessary for forgiveness. My lumping of "ritual" in there was possibly a misunderstanding, but the reason I didn't just say "belief" was because the original post was criticising "emerging" Christianity, and I know for a fact that the pastor whose views were critiqued, there, really does believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. The only point in dispute is that said pastor also believes that God could have forgiven us without Jesus' sacrifice if he had wanted, and that Jesus' sacrifice was not to procure forgiveness but to serve as evidence for God's forgiveness, and at the same time to demonstrate perfect goodness to us. Or something like that; Pastor Mike might not agree with my exact wording, but it's along those lines.
I guess the real difference here has nothing to do with ritual and everything to do with the specificity of belief that some Christians believe is required. It's like at the end of "Pilgrim's Progress" where that poor fellow who loves Jesus but doesn't think we're all infinitely depraved is sucked off to hell as he is about to reach the Celestial City. Terrible, again, because it is possible to inspire goodness in people by believing it to be possible, so it's not as if said unorthodoxy was likely to cause evil!
Of course you will not be surprised that, as an atheist, I find the idea of belief as the litmus test for whether we are to be given eternal torture to be flawed full stop, but the more specificity you require, the greater the injustice, to my mind.
I don't know that God places any value on ritual and belief, beyond what supports relationship with him. And I'm thinking that both can support relationship.
Then, when we have such relationship, morality is sure to intersect. Otherwise, there is not yet a relationship.
Nice. So some unorthodoxy might still support a reasonably good relationship with God?
But I'll give the basic atheist response anyway, just so you don't think I'm faking my unbelief:
Look, if God really wants to have a relationship with all of us, why is He so difficult to find? Why is the evidence so equivocal? Would a nice, obvious voice coming out of the sky every fifty years to remind us He still exists be so much to ask?
Peace,
Lynet.
Lynet, I am curious to know how you conceive of unorthodoxy... and really, I am curious to know the next level of thoughts on your mind. In other words, what's really really bothersome. Are you meeting people who seem to be all talk and no depth? Who make God seem hard to approach? Or maybe it's something altogether different, as you begin to discuss above. (Hope you don't mind my asking.)
Oh, and one more curiosity question. (And this could really be for all of us). Let's say God could possibly be found... if so, what would we expect God to look like? (And no fair just saying Jesus.)
Warm greetings Lynet! Thanks for participating (and inspiring) the discussion about belief.
A moderating guideline for anyone wishing to jump in: We will not be addressing “Emerging” Christianity here and now. Save that for someplace else or another time, okay?
f.y.i. I have a pretty narrow view on this (the value of belief), but I know that we could have people here who hold very different theological positions, so I’m hoping for a stimulating (but friendly) discussion.
I hope to pop in now and then, but I’m getting ready to head out for the weekend.
And now, addressing my original question of why God would prefer belief over morality:
Belief trusts God, whereas morality could possibly misdirect trust towards self.
By believing (saving faith/absolute trust in God for salvation) one will supernaturally also acquire morality, based on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a new heart’s desire to please God. But on the other hand, striving for morality will not automatically acquire belief in God.
In other words, believing is the means by which God covers us with the righteousness of Christ, and morality is a byproduct. But no one is capable of maintaining such a perfect moral code that would match or earn the righteousness of Christ.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
"Look, if God really wants to have a relationship with all of us, why is He so difficult to find?"
Lynet, He's not.
The creation surely declares He is who He is. The trillion times a trillion stars are His masterpiece! And the Earth is His special creation for us, His children.
However Adam brought God's curse upon this creation, and now all "creation groans and labors with birth pangs" to be set free of this corruption.
And God has made a way to make all things new. He sent His Son to become a curse for us, His children, and for all creation.
All who believe in the death and ressurection of the Lord Jesus our Savior, will inherit this new kingdom of righteousness, love, joy and peace.
All who reject the Cross, and don't believe will stay cursed, and shall suffer the judgement of a Holy Creator.
I agree with Craver as far as morality goes:
"In other words, believing is the means by which God covers us with the righteousness of Christ, and morality is a byproduct. But no one is capable of maintaining such a perfect moral code that would match or earn the righteousness of Christ."
Amen brother.
And it's God who receives all the honor and glory. We are simply under His wonderful grace, and are extended His incredible mercy.
He truly is a marvelous Savior and God.
I pray that all people would come to Christ, and ask Him to have mercy on their souls, and to see the Cross as the ultimate manifestation of genuine love.
Lynet,
Could I encourage you to read 1st Peter, and 1st John. These two books, or espitles, of the Holy Bible are incredible proof that God is who He says He is.
And these two witnesses knew Jesus quite well.
I truly believe it would be worth the read for you.
(Hi Lynet! :))
Craver:
I think you nailed the point I was going to make when you said: "Belief trusts God, whereas morality could possibly misdirect trust towards self."
Morality betrays the whole purpose that God might serve in sending Jesus down. That somehow, we have an inhereint capacity to somehow become 'good' and worthy of a perfect God really underestimates the whole logical concept of 'God'
Lynet, the thing I appreciate about Christianity as a whole, if this helps spur on discussion, is that grace, as a concept, allows you to be who you are. You're changed from the inside, if you will. Too often, we need to present a 'face' to somehow be valued. Jesus said that isn't the case; he'll redeem us, we have to trust him.
The problem with Morality (read: following religiously an abstract set of rules to somehow gain favor with God), is that ultimately you fail. No one's perfect.
Welcome, Donsands! Thanks for chiming in, Pete!
I would add this to Sandman's comments: 1st Peter and 1st John are very small "books" of the Bible, so do not be intimated that two books were recommended. Also, if you don't have your own Bible, you can access it free online in several places. One of which is:
www.Biblegateway.com
(My favorite English translation is the English Standard Version.)
"Look, if God really wants to have a relationship with all of us, why is He so difficult to find? "
Oh, I can so relate to this, Lynet! I am a follower of Chirst, but spent many, many years feeling hurt and angry and wondering where God was anyway.
Peace.
Lynet, I am curious to know how you conceive of unorthodoxy... and really, I am curious to know the next level of thoughts on your mind. In other words, what's really really bothersome. Are you meeting people who seem to be all talk and no depth? Who make God seem hard to approach? Or maybe it's something altogether different, as you begin to discuss above. (Hope you don't mind my asking.)
No, I don't mind your asking!
I'm an atheist, pure and simple. I wasn't brought up to believe, and I have a strongly scientific mindset, so there is a limit to the extent to which I can trust without evidence. If you claim that something exists outside of the human mind, then I claim that that pronouncement is subject to scientific inquiry. If we find insufficient evidence, we cannot reasonably believe.
Science doesn't make me moral, of course. However, it will not surprise you that my view of morality differs from
following religiously an abstract set of rules to somehow gain favor with God.
My morality starts with the idea that human happiness and fulfilment are good things that we should work towards, all together. Arbitrary? It never feels like it.
"Goodness" isn't a scientific property, but I'm willing to concede it exists -- it's just that it exists in our minds. God, on the other hand, is claimed to exist outside of out minds.
Belief trusts God, whereas morality could possibly misdirect trust towards self.
In trusting your belief in God, aren't you trusting yourself anyway? Trusting that your idea of God has some congruence with the truth?
Or have I missed the point? Perhaps you are simply pointing out that we all have flaws, and that if you do believe you have access to something without flaw, then it makes sense to trust that thing above yourself.
Taking belief in a perfect God for granted, your view makes perfect sense, I guess. The trouble is, you're not talking about belief; you're talking about what you should do after you've decided that it is reasonable to believe.
I know that, browsing the Bible, I've read bits of both John and 1 Peter. If you really think it will make a difference, I'll read them both straight through. Still, remember that I won't take their truth on faith. John in particular seems to have been deliberately written to make certain symbolic points, so trusting it to be an accurate account might be unwise (I have always preferred the synoptics. John sounds like it was written by someone with an over-active imagination -- all that "favoured disciple" business is really wishful -- whereas the synoptics sound like genuine attempts to be factual about something that had probably passed through a lot of over-active imaginations along the way).
I'm glad you didn't mind my asking, Lynet. So, I wonder, if there was evidence for God, what should, could, might it look like?
" John sounds like it was written by someone with an over-active imagination"
In that case how about reading through 1st & 2nd Peter.
Let us know what you think of Peter's letters, if you have the time. I'd be very interested.
ll - Good question.
Lynet - "My morality starts with the idea that human happiness and fulfilment are good things that we should work towards, all together. Arbitrary? It never feels like it."
is something you mentioned. I'm curious, how did you arrive at this?
So, I wonder, if there was evidence for God, what should, could, might it look like?
Can I be lazy? Ebonmuse (the most inspiring atheist I know) has a list of possible proofs here which I would mostly agree with. Feel free to ignore the slur on theists at the beginning! In general the main reason I distrust the idea of 'God' is because the only reason people ever seem to agree on the details of that story is after they have interacted with each other. The same religion never arises in two different places. This strikes me as good evidence that, if there is a God, we really don't know anything much about Him.
Lynet - "My morality starts with the idea that human happiness and fulfilment are good things that we should work towards, all together. Arbitrary? It never feels like it."
is something you mentioned. I'm curious, how did you arrive at this?
Gosh! Big one. Um... lots of things had an influence on me. My mother started studying philosophy at university when I was about four (and ended up specialising in ethics), so, being a scholarly little kid, I learned a lot about theories of ethics from the age of about ten on and have been influenced by several of them, utilitarianism in particular (I like virtue ethics, too - not because I consider it the best way to describe what it means to be good but because cultivating specific virtues can be a good way to improve yourself). However, deep down, I suspect the driving forces behind my ethics, such as they are, would be empathy and a sense of fairness, plus the stuff I had to learn in order to fit into society; you know.
You guys are really friendly! Thanks for that.
To make sure I'm clear, let me define some terms. Merriam-Webster defines morality as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct." Not very helpful until we define "moral". So, the definition of moral that fits the discussion best would seem to be "conforming to a standard of right behavior."
Belief from a Biblical viewpoint is a little tougher than a dictionary look-up. The Biblical view of belief, it seems to me, is the transforming conviction that God exists and has freely reconciled the fallen creation, including me, to Himself through the life and death of Jesus Christ.
Without this specific definition of belief, I do not know that we could begin to make a case for God valuing belief over morality. After all, the Bible tells us that the demons believe, but they tremble. In other words, their belief is not pleasing to God, because it is only belief that He is, not belief that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Does God value morality? Certainly. The Bible teaches that God's wrath rightly falls on all who are immoral. The catch is that is all of us. Because God's standard of right behavior (morality) is to perfectly "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Only one person therefore has ever lived a truly moral life - Jesus. One time of not loving God totally or not loving our neighbor as ourself destroys any pretense of morality(not before men, admittedly, but before God).
So why would God accept my belief in place of morality? Because Jesus, having lived a perfectly moral life, took the penalty of my sin. God does not place more value on belief than on morality. He places more value on the morality of Jesus and Jesus' sacrifice than He does on my lack of morality. My trust (belief) in the sacrifice of Jesus is the means by which that sacrifice is credited to me as sufficient to pay the debt I owe for my lack of morality.
In other words, God does not see my belief and say, "that's better than loving your neighbor." God sees Jesus' perfect morality when He looks at me because of my belief. Belief has value only because it connects me to Jesus and makes Him my representative before the Father.
This may seem like a word game but it is actually very important in the Bible. The Bible says that it is Jesus' sacrifice that allows God to be just (righteous, fair) and yet declare me innocent - even though I (and everyone who has ever met me) know I'm not.
But if God has done this for me, should I not now to the best of my abilities love Him and my neighbor (and according to Jesus, everyone is my neighbor)?
PS - Why belief? According to the Bible because it is not something for which I can take credit. Salvation is of the Lord in every aspect. Belief connects me to Jesus because it is an acknowledgment of total dependence on Jesus.
Hooray, Tal gave an answer to my initial question! Go reward yourself with a cookie. :-) ...And since the kids have been playing nice, go ahead and share with everybody else.
I appreciate the tone of the conversation, folks. I have one more day away if you care to continue the dialog.
Hi Again Lynet,
"Can I be lazy? Ebonmuse (the most inspiring atheist I know) has a list of possible proofs here which I would mostly agree with. Feel free to ignore the slur on theists at the beginning! "
It's a good, thoughtful piece. I think my big issue with his reasoning that generally God can be determined from his followers. But, what happens if you have a, by definition, perfect God whose purpose is to redeem a wrecked man, you're gonna have a bunch of wrecked people that follow him right?
Christianity seems to bear the brunt of it's bad examples and often the anomolies of people who are Christians in name only and have never really figured out grace and how to extend it to others are those that are those that drive others away. I often wish many could experience a genunine, loving, compassionate community where people are allowed to be real.
As far as the miracles issue goes, one direct answer to prayer always has and will be an encouragement to me (that to my mind, has no other explanation). At Urbana 96, a missions convention put on by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (a University ministry)a speaker got up to talk in front 20,000 people regarding post-modernism. He couldn't speak, and was suffering from a cold (he had no reason to 'fake it') and was prayed for and was able to deliver the rest of the talk. You can listen to the audio here, and there are other more personal examples, but I still go back to that one because it was a really tangible, cool moment that wasn't made a big deal of but I don't think anyone left quite the same.
Thanks for letting me share,
--pete
p.s. sorry for the non edited post. (self disclosure...)I have to admit I'm always a bit timid posting around my friends blogs knowing that there are editors out there :).
Taliesin made some excellent points. One clarification on morality would be that morality that a culture accepts is constantly changing whereas biblical morality is an absolute. I'm probably as old as anyone in this thread and I have seen dramatic changes in what is considered moral in America by the culture.
What is moral in issues like abortion and homosexuality has changed dramatically in our culture while remaining the same Biblically.
"if there is a God, we really don't know anything much about Him."
The "if" isn't really negotiable with me.
The "don't know much about Him", couldn't be a more true statement.
Though we surely can know Him, which is the ultimate experience for a human being, the more we understand who He is, the less we know of who He is.
Lynet,
I don't know if you've heard of Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, but you can listen to his talk at Princeton University called, "Why I am not an Atheist." He would be a good person to listen to. His program is called "Let My People Think" and he has a smaller program in which he speaks and has question answer times with college students and professors all around the country called "Just Thinking." (Although, much of what he says has been addressed here.) :) I think it would be good for you to hear from someone who came to faith in Christ in another country,(India) and speaks not only to atheists but to people of various religions all over the world. The website is rzim.org, and the specific talk I am speaking of is in the archives.
Hope this helps!
Pete -- I was at that Urbana convention as well, and was impacted by that prayer. I remember sitting in my seat (a professing Christian at the time, but with ZERO authentic faith) thinking, "Maybe, just maybe there is a God."
Those seeds of faith grew into a genuine, real relationship with God. But it took many years.
What is moral in issues like abortion and homosexuality has changed dramatically in our culture while remaining the same Biblically.
Ahem.
The Bible says nothing about abortion.
Well, except possibly Exodus 21:22-25, which states:
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
In other words, the miscarriage is worth a fine; further harm to another (already born) human being is punished "eye for eye, tooth for tooth". Furthermore, the fine is "what the woman's husband demands". Presumably if the husband wanted an abortion, he could just not demand anything...
don't know if you've heard of Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, but you can listen to his talk at Princeton University called, "Why I am not an Atheist."
I just heard the first part. It made me want to scream. I hate that old "Stalin was an atheist" canard. He might have been an atheist, but he was no friend to science! As a result of political maneuvering, Lysenko's view of biology was adopted as part of the party line, and, despite the complete lack of scientific evidence, applied to Soviet agriculture, with predictably unimpressive results. The problem with Stalin was not atheism but dogmatism. Dogmatism in religion has similar results.
Then there's the implication (never directly stated, and for good reason!) that atheism had something to do with Nazism. The connection is, apparently, that Nietzsche said that "God is dead" and various -- other! -- aspects of Nietsche's philosophy were influential on Nazism. It's a blatant smear. Here are some nice Hitler quotes:
In 1933: "It will be the Government's care to maintain honest cooperation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith."
In 1940: "But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years."
(obtained here)
On more minor notes, very few atheists think one can be absolutely certain that there is no God. Funny how Ravi completely ignores the possibility of believing that it is exceedingly unlikely that there is a God. And then there's the bit where he says "the moral philosophers of the late 18th century were really the romantic poets". Aaaagh! Immanuel Kant, anyone? He was even a Christian! He wrote his works on moral philosophy in 1785, 1788 and 1797! Why Ravi ignores the major competition to utilitarian moral thought in favour of the poet Coleridge is beyond me.
Sigh.
I was intrigued, Lynet, by your observation that the same religion never arises in two different places. And so I spent a good part of the next hour yesterday thinking about this. One would expect that if there is a God, people all over the world would have some kind of basic knowledge about him.
As I pondered this, I remembered how striking the Upanishads were when I read them. (Hindu writings.) Some sounded strangely like King David's Psalms. There was this idea of the Transcendent that amazed me.
Similarly, my study of some African traditions came up with the same idea. A Transcendent, unreachable God. In both regions, the solution was to interact with a set of "lesser gods," more tangible, more approachable.
Also, in reading Up from Eden (atheist writer, I believe), the same patterns emerged. People seemed to have a desire for a god and they came up with similar approaches to this god or set of gods.
Now, on the other hand, when I first read the Jewish scriptures, I was amazed at the similarities and the difference. Indeed, this God stood out as Transcendent but approachable (in the sense that he provided a way to him that did not involve craziness like child sacrifice, bloodletting, and so forth). So I was quite taken with the Hebrew God.
Now all this similarity (and difference) makes some sense if we examine the view that Paul lays out in Romans 1...
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.... Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are..."
Someone will say the Christian response is the same as those who "walked away" from the original, immortal god: to worship a more tangible, approachable "god" in Jesus. This is a good thing if it speaks to your point that religions should exhibit recognizable similarities. It is a bad thing if Jesus is simply more of the same.... just another mortal being who will disappoint us and betray us.
As much as I've doubted (and I've had my major doubts), I never could see Jesus as more of the same. He said he was the way, the truth, and the life. Whereas I can only say that I am not a path to anywhere, nor can I be trusted to always be truthful, nor can I give life in its deepest senses. If I could not say that Jesus was a dead-end, a liar, and a death-giver, I found myself squarely confronted with a choice. Act on my belief or walk away.
(This must be my record for a long post. Sorry all!)
Oh, and can I say, in a very brief post here...
From what I've seen so far, I like you very much, Lynet. It's not often I meet (if you could call this meeting) people like you. I don't mean your religious stance. I mean your intelligence, passion, articulation, and honesty. I find you most refreshing.
Lynet,
Sorry to make you want to scream! In Ravi's defense, he does address the things you mentioned in other, more recent talks. He's also good about differentiating between the truth of scriptures and the failings of religion, which is a distinction I think many here make as well. That's important to do, because much has been done in the name of religion, but following the Truth of the Scriptures is where the rubber meets the road and we see followers of Christ in the truest sense.
I was quickly trying to find the segment in which he speaks with an atheist/scientist yesterday but couldn't find it. I listen to them in random order, so it could be anywhere in the archives. I would encourage you hear more than just the one you heard today, especially Just Thinking and their archives of Q and A at various universities.
I'm very interested in your viewpoint. It's new to me, because I have always known this side of things. :) So thank you for this dialogue with everyone here. It's been educational for me.
I do seem to more and more see our incarnational faith in Jesus as sacramental, not in the sense of the Roman Catholic Church or the like. But more in a general sense.
What we do, even with our bodies (which includes our lips and voices, as well as hands, knees, etc.) is important and has its place Biblically.
For me, being influenced by western modernist enlightenment in which all that matters is the mind and the body can only blur the mind, this Biblical aspect has been all but lost for me.
But I think you word it well, Craver, it's all about a living faith in the end. We can make all the right motions, but as Jesus said, our hearts may be far from what we're doing outwardly.
So what we do is sacramental if it's done as an expression of obedience to or faith in God. And when done God answers with something of his grace into our lives. This should have impact to move us along in progressive sanctification, growing in our salvation.
This doesn't address positional salvation which I believe in and is too long a comment, and for that I apologize.
But a great question, Craver, and a great way of framing it.
L.L.Barkat,
You're right that there is this idea of the Transcendent in almost all religions. I wonder how much of that corresponds to the feeling of awe at the universe that atheists are just as prone to as anyone else! To be breathless with wonder at the beauty of what you see, or to try in vain to comprehend the sheer magnitude of the universe or even the magnitude of this mere Earth, to laugh with joy when you comprehend something about how the world works... all that stuff is amazing and tends to get incorporated into religions.
If you would be interested in a detailed atheistic expression of wonder, allow me to recommend Ebonmuse again.
And thank you for the compliment. I'm truly honoured.
So, Lynet, this isn't the first time Craver's visitors have kind of taken over, though I must say it's usually with jokes about clowns or recipes for beef stew. I'm thinking maybe this time we simply invent a sticky html that makes this post stay at the top. And he can start having proper lunch breaks again. And you and I can talk forever about all these fascinating things. Just a thought.
I read the Ebonmuse article, loved the writing (beautiful, thoughtful), and now have even more thoughts and questions. (None of which, at this point, involve beef stew.)
So maybe we will just have to keep in touch on your blog, and you are certainly welcome at mine. In the meantime, I will say this very small thing... I felt both exhilarated and saddened by the Ebonmuse piece. (Oh, you've got to understand that, as a writer, good writing thrills me... probably the way parabolas and so forth thrill you.)
Llamma Mamma
Thanks for sharing. I ended up bumping into TV a couple of times since then at other conferences and he still remembers that prayer and how it affected him as well.
I think that was the first time I ever saw God do anything really big and visible. I think it totally redefined a number of things about faith for me. Faith meant trust a bit more after that.
" ...all that stuff is amazing and tends to get incorporated into religions." Lynet
I agree.
The one difference, and the most awe rendering things in the universe for the disciple, follower, believer in Christ, is that He died on a cruel Cross for our sins, and then rose from the dead on the third day!
That is THE most awesome and amazing thing I can comprehend in this life. Along with everything else as well.
I'm late to the party, but loving the willngness for everyone to really hear each other and think! It is refreshing.
I have a comment on what Lynet called, "all that 'favoured disciple' business" in John. I have struggled with that (and the bias I supposed plagued the author of the words). Frankly, it used to taint my opinion of anyone who claimed "inerrancy" of scripture. I can understand why these words (and other bits of scripture you mention) are difficult to swallow.
I would ask that you read those verses in John, and join me in considering them with a new open mind. Perhaps this "disciple Jesus loved" did not claim "favoritism," nor his own superiority. He gives no evidence that Jesus solved those "who's greater" arguments on the road by saying, "John."
So, perhaps he was simply describing himself as accurately as he knew how. If this is true, then he chose to claim no identity except that he was loved by Jesus. He was willing - no, hoping - to only be known and remembered as the guy his Savior loved.
What would make somebody want to only describe himself as one loved by another? It certainly doesn't seem "normal" human behavior.
I don't want to tell you what to think (nor imply that I could!). I do wonder if this is a bit of evidence of the God you wish would speak now & again. While the book of John was primarily about the person and deity of Jesus, the disciple who wrote those words gives a glimpse into one of the first people to believe Jesus was God, a God who exists and can be seen in very real ways.
I think every person who can truly, with all intellectual & emotional capacities, state "I am one loved by Jesus" to describe her complete identity, speaks evidence of God. This might not be the only "speaking" you'd like to see. Perhaps it is something, though.
Even more so, if we live in such a way that shows this truly is our identity, then our lives speak of the transformation that belief (by grace) achieves when morality fails.
Blessings as you continue to think about it all,
MamaToo
Post a Comment