09.04.07
Why Doesn’t God Just Prove He Exists?
From the Suddenly Christian blog.
“A young man wrote me the other day to ask why God doesn’t once and for all prove his existence. Here’s my answer to that earnest seeker. (Yo! Danny! Do good in school! And don’t take drugs! And … well, actually, that pretty much covers it.)
First of all, God did prove his existence; that’s pretty much the whole point of the Bible specifically and Christianity generally.
So. Massively gargantuan point.
But I know that what you mean is why doesn’t God prove his existence again — and this time, to you personally.
If you think about that question, though, you’ll see pretty soon that what anyone asking it really wants is for God to not only prove to them personally that he exists, but to simultaneously prove his existence to a whole bunch of other people, too. Because if God proved his existence to just you, then that’s going to leave you with one whopper of a challenge on your hands, insofar as right away your choices will boil down to exactly two: Either tell people how you personally encountered God, and risk them thinking you’re absolutely badoinkers — or don’t tell anyone how God proved to you he was real, and risk having a stress-induced heart attack from having to keep such an extraordinary experience locked up inside of you.
See? Neither’s what you’d call an Optimum Situation.
And that is why anyone who claims to want irrefutable, objectively verifiable proof of God’s existence must also want God to prove he exits to everyone else in the world — or to half of them, anyway, so that he or she will at least be in the majority of people.
And God proving the reality of his existence to everyone all at once pretty much boils down to him suddenly, all around the world, appearing in the sky, and in a booming voice announcing (something like), “Hello, world! Surprise! It’s me! Try not to faint!” And of course he would have to say whatever he said in the language that any given person listening to him could understand. Including, come to think of it, baby talk.
Point is: It would be quite the Logistical Challenge.
But hey! It’s God! If anyone could pull it off, he’d be the … divine entity to do it!
And do you know what would happen if God did, all at once, to everyone in the world, finally prove his existence? People all over the world would scream, and faint, and exclaim, and tear their hair and rend their clothes — and then they’d realize that they just got so bored they’d all slump over and pass out.
Bottom line? God doesn’t prove to you in an objectively verifiable way that he exists because he knows doing so would flat-out ruin you.
The truth is, we don’t want God to prove he’s real to us in the same way everything else in our lives that’s “real” to us is real to us. Because it would destroy that within us which keeps us ever moving forward toward resolution, knowledge, clarity, context, wholeness. It would strip from us the very thing that makes us human.
Just imagine it. Imagine God really appeared before you, in physical form — that he spoke and talk and … hung out at your place for awhile.
First, you’d be awed and amazed!
And then — and in fairly short order, too – you’d become a zombie. Because there’d be no mystery left in your life.
Who remains deeply fascinated by a novel when they already know how it ends?
We need God to be mysterious. In order for us to have the richest, most human experience possible for us in this life and on this earth, we need God, and all Essential, Divine Matters, to be just beyond our rational comprehension, just outside of our grasp.
Our relationship with God needs to be, to us, a two-way, interactive, give-and-take, constantly exchanging sort of relationship — of essentially the same sort as we have with everyone else in our lives. If God just appeared to all of us, all at once, the fundamentals of our personal relationship to him would instantly be so radically altered — we’d be so thoroughly pushed out of the subjective give-and-take role that’s actually necessary to keep us engaged with God — that … that we’d no longer be who we are.
We’d be … Us, Severely Unplugged.
Our spiritual initiative would be gone.
We move forward because we want to know.
If we did know, we’d stop.
Not so good.
You don’t, actually, want God to “prove” his existence, any more than you want to lose, for instance, your imagination.
Here’s another reason it actually doesn’t make any sense to desire that God suddenly prove to everyone that he exists: It’s not God’s primary purpose to work with people as a whole, from the outside. God develops his relationship with us individually, from inside of us: God speaks to our heart, to our soul, to our experience, in the ways we most need to hear and understand him. God loves each one of us personally –a nd he wants to communicate that personally, intimately, carefully, delicately; he wants to communicate everything about himself — and us — to us in the ways and at the times that are best for us.
God had no natural interest in just … overpowering everyone at once.
Please.
This is God we’re talking about, not … P.T. Barnum.
God is pleased to be “real” where he can be the most real — where you can comprehend the most of him — which is inside of you. God is a spiritual power. The fullest communion with God must happen spiritually; it must happen inside of you, not outside of you.
The bottom line is that while you might think you want God to objectively “prove” his existence, you don’t, in fact, want that at all.
You don’t want that because you’re more complex than that. You don’t want that because your needs are more real than that.
You don’t want that because you were designed to be better than that.”
09.03.07
Question: What Mosaic Laws Are We Still Supposed to Follow?
Question:
Jesus died for our cheeseburgers.
Anyone who has read the Bible knows that the beginning bits are a little unpleasant. There is blood everywhere, people killing each other left and right. There are a lot of innocent people getting killed by god in a laundry list of atrocities. The most prominent example of this unpleasantness is in the book of laws.
There are laws for everything. Disobedient children, incest, rape, adultery, public defecation, bestiality, male genital injury, fighting, kosher food, working on Sunday, stealing, religious tolerance, tattoos, science, menstruation faux pas, haircut rules, unruly slaves, extramarital sex, being mentally handicapped, religious tolerance, blended fabrics, slander, divorce, astrology, homosexuality, and rules on how to treat darker skinned people. The list goes on and on. And if you haven’t guessed by now, each and every offense is punishable by death.
Now if you ask a Christian about this they will tell you that you really shouldn’t pay too much attention to this because later on Jesus let everybody off the hook. Unfortunately he had to die as part of the deal. Apparently God wasn’t satisfied to give everyone amnesty until He got His pound of flesh.
But here is where things get confusing. When Moses was making these laws he said, “The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.” This sounds pretty explanatory.
Then later Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” It sounds a little strange I know, but I am told that the “fulfill” part is the important bit.
From what I understand it is like paying the fine before committing the crime. So if you were to pay a traffic cop $50 and do some community service, you could then drive the wrong way down a one-way street. So by Jesus accepting the death penalty it is like he is paying in advance for all the little laws we break. And this is what they mean when they say “Jesus died for our sins.”
But it’s a little more than that. Jesus also died for our cheeseburgers, and our blended fabrics. And fortunately for us he died for every other odd law that could get you stoned to death.
Now my question after all of this is where is the line in the sand drawn. How far did Jesus’s fulfillment go? Did he die for all of our sins? When you turn on the TV and see Christians, when you see them preaching on the plaza, and when you check the policies of a church it’s plain to see that there are some Old Testament laws that made it, and some that didn’t.
For example, it’s ok to eat non-kosher food, but it’s bad to get divorced. Getting a tattoo is ok, but it’s still a bad idea to use an Ouiji board. 67% cotton undies good, Harry Potter bad. I have been told that “God Hates Fags” but nobody wants to stone your kids when they enter the rebellious teenager phase. And up until June 2, 1865 darker skinned people weren’t treated very well. (By the way, a few choice Bible verses were used as the primary justification for slavery.) And when was the last time that you heard of a court trial for someone who boiled a baby goat in his mother’s milk?
So what sins are ok? What sins are off limit? I think we can all agree that killing and stealing are bad. But if I was brawling with a friend of mine, and his wife decides to stop the fight by grabbing me by my testicles, I would not feel comfortable cutting her hand off.
Will Dave Thomas be sent to hell for leading us astray with his tasty meat and cheese abomination to the Lord? Will Carl Sagan find forgiveness for believing that the Sun and all the stars are older than the Earth?
So for the events of the Old Testament, what will Jesus forgive? Which laws do we follow? And which do we sweep aside?
Answer:
Jesus did die for all sins, across time and space. He will forgive all of them, if you accept what he did for you. He fulfilled all the old covenant Laws and legalisms; which were set up to help humans, but which had turned into a way of measuring people and binding them; by offering himself as a perfect sacrifice in the covenant the Israelites had made and agreed to – and then broke, several times.
I did a very thorough search and could not find the verse you are referring to when Moses said “It’s permanent,” do you still have the reference? In either case, Moses’ word is not binding – only God’s is. Moses was an imperfect human like the rest of us, albeit one with more contact with God than most of us. Jesus also didn’t add or subtract anything to the Law – he left it just as it is. He was simply fulfilling the terms of the covenant – he paid the $250 when you break your cell phone contract early, essentially. Or, a better example: the $1.2 million for pirating music or movies. $250 you might be able to pay. Hardly anyone can pay the $1.2 million on their own (and practically everybody in the US pirates).
What you are referring to are the things that are repeated in the new testament – things like divorce, sexual immorality, following other gods, etc. These are not laws per say – we are not compelled to follow them, our salvation does not rely on what we do or do not do anymore. That’s why we say we are saved by grace, and by faith. Not by works, so that no one can boast. If a Christian gets divorced or has premarital sex, or does drugs, or other things, their salvation is not in jeopardy. God isn’t going to revoke salvation if people sin, because God knows people aren’t perfect anymore, and we can’t live up to his standards on our own.
What we are called to do is to try, out of love for God, to be more like God. That means remaining faithful to your wife or husband no matter what, and to try to work things out in a Godly manner (see Five Love Languages book) rather than just give up and try someone else. God never gave up on Israel, even when they turned away from him, and we are to follow his example.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:12-20;&version=31;
“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:%2023-33;&version=31;
“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
Granted, these apply only to those who believe that Christ saved them already. It’s not that we are given a free pass and are allowed to sin all we want now, since it’s forgiven, but that God knows we’re going to sin anyway, no matter how hard we try not to, and he’s not holding it against us anymore.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2031:31-34;&version=31;
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
You don’t have to follow any laws, since there aren’t any in the New Testament / New Covenant. There are guidelines, which, when you follow them, are outward indications of spiritual growth and maturity. You can be saved and still be sinning – sex, drugs, etc – but you’re not very much a follower of Christ. That’s the part that involves work, and wanting to be changed, and asking God to help you stop sinning – help you to be a better person. That’s what makes you a Christian.
Let’s go back to your cop example real quick. If there were no cops, would it be ok to drive the wrong way down a one-way street? No. We have laws for a reason – because they prevent harm. What we have in the New Covenant aren’t laws written in a book anymore. We have an internal counselor, that we call the Holy Spirit. You are free to obey or disobey as you choose, but if you disobey, you’re likely to get hurt – no extra fines or community service, etc, needed. It’s self-fulfilling. Physically, spiritually, mentally, or emotionally, you’ll get hurt.
The original Mosaic laws were trying to keep people from harm. The dietary laws were trying to keep them in good health. The moral laws were protecting people from consequences of immoral behavior – and there are natural consequences. Extramarital sex, for example. STDs would not – could not – exist without extramarital sex.
In the prior Q&A, I discuss covenants and their consequences, and the cultural understanding of covenants at the time of the Israelites and first century Jews / Romans in great detail. See here.
The Israelites broke the moral laws, and it resulted in the collapse of their civilization – multiple times. What other people group can you think of who has had their kingdoms overthrown and conquered multiple times, yet still exist with their own distinct cultural identity?
So the real question is: Do you think the Mosaic Laws were designed to hurt people or to help them?
Addendum:
There’s nothing in the bible about how to treat people with darker skins – The only time it ever mentions it is by inference, by saying the Cushites were the descendants of Ham, and the Cushites were from Lower Egypt and Africa, so they were most likely darker skinned. There are NO verses in the bible dictating different treatment for different skin colors. See here. And here.
And not all Mosaic Laws were punishable by death. Many of them were simply fines, in money or property, or as you gave the example of, removal of various offending body parts. To say all Laws were punishable by death is a gross over-generalization.
08.05.07
Question: Was Jesus an accomplice to murder?
Here is a question I recently received through my “Ask the Christian” page, and my answer:
Name: religionandatheism
Website: http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
Hi
Here’s a theological question for you.
In order for the story of the New Testament to unfold according to God’s and Jesus’ plan Jesus submitted himself to the will of the Romans. He rode into Jerusalem in the full knowledge that he will get crucified. He therefore anticipated that a Roman or a number of Romans will nail him to a cross and kill him. He therefore was complicit in the act of murder, since by his own actions he facilitated it. This facilitated the Roman’s sin, murder.
And yet a loving Jesus did this?
Suggestions appreciated.
My Reply:
Hello!
Sorry for taking a little to get back to you — life has been weird, with work and all. I take it this is AT? Or AG, I suppose, since AT usually signs his/her posts?
I will be happy to answer your question so long as you remember that I can only speak for myself and what I understand of Christianity, not Christianity in general. I’m not a professional theologian or anything. =)
If you are asking on the playing field of Christianity (in that you are accepting that Jesus had foreknowledge of his death and God’s plan), you should accept the rest of it as well — Christianity is not something that works in bits and pieces. The rest of it being that Jesus died for the redemption of ALL sin. So with that in mind:
Here are some other things to consider:
When confronted with the reality of the consequence of sin in this world; ie pain, suffering, death, disease; there are basically three options.
a) Sin can be excused – as in saying that it doesn’t matter, ignoring it, and thus belittling our pain as a temporary issue. Religions that accept reality as an illusion usually go this direction, because there are no eternal ramifications for sin.
b) Revenge or Justice — making an individual person pay for their actions. They are getting exactly what they deserve. If we look back in history and realize the multiplying consequences of our actions over time, there is a LOT to pay for.
c) Someone else can pay in substitution for our consequences — they can pick up our tab, as it were. This is the nature of forgiveness – every time I forgive someone, it is not because what they did has no consequence. It is my way of saying that I am willing to pay the cost instead of forcing the other to pay, instead of taking revenge.
God chose not to belittle our pain but to endure it along with us. Pain in the world has a very real nature to it – it’s not simply an illusion. Jesus’ life was a demonstration of God’s willingness to pay for our consequences and forgive us. Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant (or contract) that God made with Israel in the Old Testament — It was understood in those days that a covenant was A Serious Business — if you violated it, you died, since it was enforced by God. Israel didn’t keep the covenant — they could not be perfect, just like we are still incapable of being perfect. Jesus came to die instead of the Israelites — he was perfect (according to us), and therefore the only one who was even capable of being that sacrifice.
Jesus suffered along side the rest of humanity, he knows what it is like to be mocked, abandoned, beaten, hungry, thirsty, tired, alone, and grieving. He also knows what it is like to love, be happy, find joy, be full, have friends, etc. It leaves us with a decision to make – we can either choose Justice and fairness, in which we pay for all of our actions, or we can choose to accept Jesus’ offer of forgiveness.
So here’s the question: In fulfilling the big picture, did Jesus fudge over the little picture? If he hadn’t done what he did, there would be at least one thief with no hope, and one Roman who is still paying for his own sin.
1. The Romans weren’t going to stop crucifying and conquering and doing all the things that Romans did just because Jesus didn’t come to Jerusalem. There were two thieves scheduled to die the same day – if Jesus hadn’t come to Jerusalem, they still would have died, and the Romans still would have “murdered.”
2. To the Roman common soldiers who were crucifying Jesus, he wasn’t an innocent child or anything. He was a criminal, no better than the thieves on either side, and a political dissident. They were carrying out orders to execute enemies of the Empire — much like the poor guys who give lethal injections on Death Row.
3. Would it have been more loving to have one less person hanging on the cross that day (taking into consideration they wouldn’t have stopped choosing to follow orders even if Jesus hadn’t have come to Jerusalem) and allowed the rest of humanity no way to reach God (through payment for sins)? Or is it more loving to share in a person’s pain to achieve the redemption of ALL murders, ALL sins, for all time?
The term accomplice comes from our justice system, a human defined morality that insists that people must pay for their crimes in full. When dealing with the morality of God, it’s different — since he operates as the definition of morality. So yes, Jesus was loving, if you choose to accept him. At least one of the Romans who crucified him became a follower later on, ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:%2032-36;&version=31;) so that’s one lifetime of sin redeemed.
-Raeliyah
