I recently took part in a panel discussion entitled “Conversations With My Inner Atheist.” The stated purpose of the discussion was to “normalize the faith struggle,” During the conversation, a few ideas shone through. One of them was the idea of “chutzpah.”
Chutzpah
Chutzpah means having the guts to face God and say “I disagree.” We see it in the book of Job, a few of the Psalms and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Which is to say, it’s not a frequent thing but it is certainly part of the mix. Chutzpah is part of a healthy practice of faith.
I am not suggesting a life of complaining at every scrape and bruise. But one in which, when it sincerely hurts or when it really does stop making sense, we carry our complaint to God like an offering; we sit in protest before Him just as we would in reverence. We plead, we cry, we shout and pace. We return over and over until either the mountain has moved or our hearts have changed.
A good friend, currently in a brutal season, said about his prayer life, “It’s mostly about yelling right now. But that’s still prayer, right?” Yes…Yes it is.
Job railed against God, calling Him unfair and unjust. In the end, his conceptions of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ were crushed under the weight of a broader, deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of God. I believe part of the writer’s intent with Job is communicating that we do not come to such knowledge without putting our best argument on the table, especially when we believe we are “right” and God is “wrong.” That’s chutzpah.
Bad Analogies (cuz that’s all I’ve got)
Chutzpah is one path to wisdom, which famously begins with “the fear of God.” This is not a fear in which one cowers timidly, but one of deep awe; one that many of us only come to by fighting God… and losing. Think of it like the first time we get thrown around by waves at a beach; we learn a bit about the power of the ocean and forever look on it with greater and deeper respect. Or the first time we challenge a professor in class and find out that she is not only far more knowledgable, far better read and more passionate about the subject but also that she is deeply interested in guiding us to wisdom, not just putting us in our place. Chutzpah leads to a knowledge that moves beyond concept to relationship; a knowledge that cannot be gained in study, but only in engagement. In some cases that engagement can last for years. But disagreement is still a way to engage; a facet of relationship. And just as we come to know one another in part by disagreeing, we come to know God.
Wisdom from the West Wing
During the first season of the West Wing, Leo McGarry challenges the White House Staff that “If we’re gonna walk into walls, I want us running into ‘em full speed.” If they were going to find their limits, they should do so in such a way that they would plainly know. Again, the path to wisdom begins, in part, by knowing where we end. I’m convinced that many of us carry deep resentment towards God because we’ve not honestly aired that grievance or pain. We settle for an untested, unsettled and distant ‘belief’ in a God whose goodness is something we’ve quietly or begrudgingly agreed to, like a math equation, but not something we’ve come to know. Our perception or interpretation of the events that cause us grief might be wrong (or even right) but we never truly know because we do not carry our complaint to God and speak… we lack courage… we lack chutzpah.
“In the end, his conceptions of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ were crushed under the weight of a broader, deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of God.”
Just curious – what is this “deeper” knowledge? I always hear things like that, but I never get any kind of clear explanation as to exactly what that means – usually just a lot of hemming and hawing that doesn’t really mean all that much.
The message that I always understood – even though I tried to convince myself that I was wrong about it for the longest time – is that God is capricious and treats people like pawns in a game of chess. Somehow I doubt that’s the deeper meaning you meant though.
Another thing has occurred to me about this particular entry. It’s hardly a conversation with an “inner atheist”. It’s basically a more complex version of the old theist canard that atheists don’t believe because they’re somehow “mad at God”. Of course, if you’re really an atheist, you can’t get mad at something that you don’t believe in, can you?
When bad things happen to you, you don’t show “chutzpah” towards Superman, do you? Do you demand that the son of Jor-El explain himself as to why he didn’t lend you a helping hand? Of course you don’t. That’s because you’re an asupermanist.
If this was REALLY a conversation with an “inner atheist” then it would go more along the lines of, “Ya know what? This description of a loving God doesn’t match with what I observe in reality. Maybe that’s because he doesn’t actually exist.” Now THAT’S an atheistic thought.
What you have here is a conversation with a God that you fear you might not like – or as an actual atheist would put it, a conversation with your imaginary friend. ; )
Oh, and I realize that my analysis above makes me seem like I’m an atheist because I’m “angry at God”. The truth is that I don’t find the Bible to be all that likeable a character. However, I find Zeus to be the same way, but nobody would accuse me of not believing because I’m somehow upset at him.
Ahem…that should read “I don’t find the God of The Bible to be all that likeable a character.”
@Lance… The title of the blog is just a flashback to the panel discussion that set these thoughts off. I don’t at all believe that atheists, on the whole, are people who got mad at God and left because of it.
That said, the thing I’m after here is that I find the choice between accepting our current description or understanding of God and abandoning faith altogether something of a false choice.
In other words, being “mad at God” is symptomatic of the kind of philosophical/existential disappointment or dissonance you’re describing.
I agree with that notion – whether a god exists or not is a separate issue from whether this being is good or not.
After all, there may be only one God, and it might be Loki.
I think that what happens with a lot of atheists – myself especially, is that once we admit to our atheism (because many of us are atheists long before we feel comfortable admitting it) we start to look at the stories of the Biblical God in a new light, as we no longer feel the need to somehow conclude that He’s good and just no matter where the text takes us.
@Lance.. and I see that description of critique (particularly the idea that “as we no longer feel the need to somehow conclude that He’s good”) as something that can be included in a christian experience. It has been in mine.
Well, I’ve yet to hear a Christian say that they thought that God was capricious. Are you saying that’s an apt description – or at least, a possible or even probable apt description?
Great, I loved this post. one of my favorite passage is in Job, when his friends were ganging up on him and telling him what wisdom really was, he responded archly, “Oh right, so apparently the Book Of Wisdom ends with you.” And then when God finally answers Job, he says, “where were YOu when I created the heavens and the earth, and measured it out. Tell me, since you seem to know.” There is a lot of sarcasm and humor and going toe to toe.
I think we can read these passages from a 21st-century mind and miss the nature of the texts. I think this is written as a tale, an allegory, from an ancient Jewish writer, to illustrate issues of suffering and questioning. I read a good book this past fall, “The Epic of Eden,” an intro to the old testament. Among other things it helped me to understand the ancient near east world view, society, culture, view of God and how God is illustrated in the texts. It kind of demystified some things for me … things that I thought made God look bad I came to understand in a different way. For example, the whole Ten Commandments, “I am the lord your God, who did such and such, here are the rules. Here’s the blessing you’ll get if you obey, here are the curses you’ll get if you disobey.” Sounded really rough and vindictive. The author of the book explained that the structure of the giving of the Ten Commandments precisely follows every legal agreement made in that time period: the parties were introduced and identified, the relationship of them (vassal and lord, vassal country and suzerain country). Then the rules were set out. Then a list of blessings and curses are listed as what will happen if either party obeys or breaks the covenant. It wasn’t that God was so quid pro quo or vindictive, … we read these things into the texts because we are reading from our POV and there are all sorts of things we don’t know unless we’ve studied the culture.
I think there are many things we miss in the BIble because of that. And as for God being capricious in the story of Job … well again I think someone wrote it to bring up the issues of suffering, and how do we respond? What’s the wise and foolish way to react. I love that Job takes God to task, God brings Job to task, there is a relationship and in the end the answer is something more profound than answers. It’s God’s presence himself.
@Susan – Why would a person want to have the presence of a being who treats you like that though?
I’m not the first one to say this, but this kind of reasoning reminds me of the battered person who continues to insist that his/her abuser only has his/her best interests at heart despite the mountain of evidence that directly contradicts that.
Did you really use a math equation as a metaphor for concepts that one must begrudgingly accept?
Funny and revealing.
@Matthew.. you’ve never wished that reality was dramatically different? Even at its core? That’s why I use the metaphor.
Ok, that makes sense. I guess ive felt that way about math before.
@Susan and Lance, as I understand it, Job was written to address the theology of retribution (Deuteronomy is full of it). Hebrews used to believe that if you are good, good things will happen to you. If you are evil, god will punish you. Job corrects that theology by suggesting that sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to prosperity or calamity. It isn’t supposed to be a lesson on the character of God. At least, that is how I’ve understood it.
@Matthew – I don’t understand how one can say that the point is that there is “no rhyme or reason” as to why bad things happen to good people. Seems to me that there is a reason – Satan challenges God, God (even though he’s omniscient and knows ahead of time what will happen) accepts the challenge. Of course, God doesn’t suffer as a result of this challenge – a mortal true believer does.
If anything, the explanation as to why bad things might happen to you even if you’re good is that some higher power up there is messing with you to see just how much you can take it.
I’m not saying it’s a great argument but I don’t think the book was a lesson on how God makes decisions. It’s a story of a good man who finds misfortune. I agree that the story brings up more problems than it solves, but at the time there was no stories to challenge the retribution theology.
Maybe “no rhyme or reason” isn’t quite accurate, but the major theme of the book seems to say that the events in Job’s life had less to do with him and more to do with the business of gods… and by the way, no mere human can comprehend the business of God so don’t even try.
Matthew,
“Don’t even try”? The main point of Justin’s post was that it’s okay to try… “Chutzpah leads to a knowledge that moves beyond concept to relationship; a knowledge that cannot be gained in study, but only in engagement.”
If Lance is an athiest, then I see his point of looking at the Bible in a new light. You can study the Bible all you want, but without a relationship with Him (even a “brutally yelling” relationship) God may not reveal any more of His character to you, if you don’t accept His existence.
And Lance, I do believe there is a rhyme and reason for everything God does. I’m at work, so I can’t go into a long, thorough explanation of Job,(my lack of knowledge also prevents me!) But basically, suffering is a matter of chiseling away what is not Christlike in our lives. It’s often painful, but necessary. I’ve understood this more after having children. My wife and I have their best interest at heart, but they don’t always understand the word, “No”, or the occasional bottom spanking, but in time they will. Things happened in my own life 10-15 years ago, that I’m only now beginning to see God’s hand at work in it. Going through pain was the only way I could have learned certain things about God in my life… and God knows that.
C.S. Lewis wrote a book called ‘The Problem of Pain’ that gives a very intellegent argument for the existence (and need) for pain in a world of a loving God.
And as Wesley, as the Dread Pirate Roberts, says in Princess Bride, “Life is Pain… anyone who says differently is selling something.”
Tony,
Yes, I think there is an argument within Job that one should not try to understand the dealings of gods. Actually, the question never really is answered in the book. The reader is left wondering if God merely tormented Job for God’s own amusement.
I’m not critiquing Justin’s post. I actually agree with him, that people should air Thais grievances – so to speak – re god. I just don’t think that message is particularly stron in the book of Job. I’d look to Abraham’s name change to Israel. Weird story, but cool in an ancient world sort of way.
Or was it Jacob to Israel? Can’t remember.
@Matthew.. Abram became Abraham, just as Sarai became Sarah. But I think it is Jacob’s story you’re thinking of.
@Tony – I’ve heard arguments like this before. Shoot, I even used to use them at one point. I find them severely lacking though considering some of the forms of suffering that happen in this world. We live in a world where children – even those raised by Christian parents – are susceptible to being raped, tortured, and murdered. Is that God’s way of “chiseling away what is not Christlike in our lives”?
From what I can tell, all explanations as to how God let us suffer are all very ad hoc at best, and facts that support the position are emphasized whereas those that do not are conveniently ignored. For instance, the analogy of your children (one I’ve heard before) doesn’t work because you don’t have the ability to make them understand. If God is omnipotent, then he could make us understand instead of just accepting his abuse and hoping that it will all eventually make sense one day.
And I’m sorry, but you Christians are WAY too impressed with CS Lewis. That guy is Captain Circular Argument and only convinces the already convinced.
@Matthew – You wrote: “the major theme of the book seems to say that the events in Job’s life had less to do with him and more to do with the business of gods… and by the way, no mere human can comprehend the business of God so don’t even try.”
Now that I can get behind – but in the same way I can get behind the motivations of the gods of Greek Mythology.
@Tony, again as more thoughts pop in my head:
Didn’t Job’s children die? The thing is, I could almost see your interpretation if bad things were simply happening to Job – but why the heck do his kids need to die? What lesson do they get out of this – other than God can do whatever the heck he wants because he’s stronger and more powerful than us?
Seriously, when I finally came around to being an atheist, it was like a blindfold was removed, and I now marvel at how anybody could find something good in something that’s so clearly messed up.
Can you point out some circular arguments from C.S. Lewis? Because I’m about to paraphrase an example…
Love involves choice. God is love, so if you want to put a limit on God, it would that that God CANNOT FORCE us to love him, it must be our choice. And that’s what free will is about. God didn’t create us to be a bunch of Stepford wives. We must choose. So God gives us free will… and He gives it to us completely. Good or bad. He will not take away that free choice. If I choose to hit your over the head with a bat for putting down C.S. Lewis
God could (because he loves you) turn that bat into a wet spaghetti noodle. But as soon as He does that… he’s taken away MY free will. And because God is complete and thorough in what He does… you now have a big bruise on your head.
(Lewis puts this whole idea a little more eloquently)
And about Job’s kids dying… yes they died. And from what the book of Job sounds like, since he was a God-fearing man… his children most likely were as well. So they then went to heaven. The sadness/fear of death isn’t with those already gone, like Job’s children, it’s with the ones who miss them, like Job.
And I’m all too familiar with atheistic thought since my father and brother are athiests.
Do you have children, Lance? No… I can NOT make my children understand. It’s a loooonng process. My oldest is only 6, so I’ve only just begun. Same with the Christian life. It’s a long process of being the person Christ want’s us to be… sometimes we don’t understand and we get angry with God, which roughly puts us near where this post started. I think this line of posts is beginning to stray from the point of Justin’s post… but anyway…
And I want to point out that this WHOLE thread doesn’t specifically address TRUTH. These arguments don’t settle WHAT IS TRUE, it gives an assumption, ‘If God is real, then…” or ‘Since God isn’t real, then…”
Lance said,
“Oh, and I realize that my analysis above makes
like I’m an atheist because I’m “angry at God”. The
truth is that I don’t find the Bible to be all that
likeable a character. However, I find Zeus to be the
same way, but nobody would accuse me of not believing
because I’m somehow upset at him.”
You ‘not finding God all that likeable a character’ doesn’t address or prove/disprove His existence. And to say the your interpretation of the Bible casts God in a ‘capricious’ light doesn’t affect truth. If the God of the Bible is real… then whether you like His character or not… He created you and He is the fuel that you are meant to run on. Any other thing that you feed on other than Him will in the long run (eternity) cause your engine to shut down… man I wish I could sit with you over coffee than over this internet with my one year old son grabbing at my mouse and keyboard…
And I apologize to Justin and everyone else if this post is taking more of a heated turn than intended… but if we’re all Justin fans, believers or not, we all enjoy good discussion…
Do you have children, Lance? No… I can NOT make my children understand.
Got an eight month old, so yes – but not a lot of experience. However, you’re missing my point. I’m saying that your analogy doesn’t work because God could make us able to understand, but he chooses not to do so. My kid (and yours) doesn’t understand, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
As for what you said regarding the irrelevance over how I feel about God in relation to existence, you are absolutely right. However, you stumble a bit when you say:
He created you and He is the fuel that you are meant to run on.
If that’s true, then yes, you’re right. The problem is, just because he created me, that doesn’t make him good now does it? Odin supposedly created us too, but he’s a jerk if you ask me. (Same goes for Zeus and a whole score of other gods you don’t believe in.)
And I apologize to Justin and everyone else if this post is taking more of a heated turn than intended
I don’t feel like this is heated, do you? We’re just disagreeing…YOU STUPID IDIOT!!!! (Man, I sure hope you have a sense of humor, or that’s REALLY gonna fall flat!)
“DON’T CALL ME STUPID!”
–Kevin Kline as Otto(?) in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’
No, I got your point, and I agree that God could make us understand… (I know I said God CANNOT FORCE us to love, but I misspoke… or mistyped… or whatever… I should have simply said ‘chooses not to force us’) but I said God doesn’t want Stepford wives to blindly worship him. Because God IS Love (real love that takes effort and sacrifice, not romance novel, or Hollywood love)He chooses to let us make that choice. Because of that love, He gives us the free will to choose or not choose… just like my children who at 4 & 6 know to clean their room, but still choose not to do it on occasion.
“Just because he created me, that doesn’t make him good now does it”
That topic will require us to sit face to face at a coffee house (or bar, you heathen) to do that justice… but I’ll try…
The shortest way I can put is that there is a standard set by God that we must follow. It is ultimate. If we disagree with what He calls ‘good’, that is a result of our sinful nature (dating back to the Fall of Adam… free will… blah, blah, blah) Being or doing good is lining up with that standard. Being or doing bad is straying from that standard, also called ‘missing the mark’ which is sin. (I’m assuming we understand basic Christian Doctrine that it’s not about good works but a relationship with Christ)
And we can agree that Odin and Zeus are not real… I’m with you… you have my support on that
And I believe that the heated tension I wrote about was more to do with my 1 year old son grabbing the keyboard forcing me to type the same thing over and over…
Yeah, I’m familiar with the basic Christian 101, and your answers only create more questions (and in past experiences, I find that these conversations eventually loop around into one big circle.)
The “free will” thing doesn’t make sense in Christian theology, no matter how much Christians like to throw the phrase around. Do I have the free will to never sin? If so, then I don’t really need Jesus’ forgiveness then, do I? (At least, I potentially don’t.) If not, then it’s all a setup where I’m going to need him no matter what – and obviously, there isn’t any free will. At best, Adam and Eve had free will, but it ends there. Maybe if each one of us got a chance to hang out in the garden and were put to the same test, you’d have something to work with there.
Also, you’re dodging the issue of the absolutely cruel fates that so many children endure. What free will did Job’s children have? What free will do children have who are kidnapped, abused and killed?
To paraphrase a line from The Princess Bride – You Christians keep using this phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’d also say the same thing for the statement that “God is love”. As I’ve said before, it reminds me of an abused person defending the abuser.
Lastly, I missed your question about C.S. Lewis. I wish I had a handy example on hand, but I know that whenever I hear a specific argument from Christians that come from him, it tends to fall apart pretty quickly. For instance, while not exactly “circular reasoning” there’s his false dilemma about how Jesus was either the son of God or a madman. Shoot – I remember hearing that one when I was a believer and realizing that there are certainly more options than THAT!
I also find his entire schtick to be pretty specious. Christians love to point him out to me as a supposed atheist who set out to disprove God but wound up believing in him. I’ve yet to hear any of his arguments address the actual arguments that atheists actually use. Also, his description of his atheism doesn’t resemble any kind of atheism that I know. (Didn’t he say that he was “angry at God”? See what I wrote in earlier comments about that.)
Ugh…”handy example on hand”. I really need to proofread before hitting “submit comment”.
Oh…and one last little bit, which deals more directly with the free will issue you were talking about:
What free will does a person who has never even heard of Christianity have?
Justin, is there a difference between chutzpah and stubbornness or disobedience? Does one become another at some point?
Lance, you know, I’m not sure. How’s that for an answer?
But I would assume that the fall under the same category as those who haven’t heard of Christ 2 months after His resurrection. I only know that once we HAVE heard, we’re responsible for that knowledge, both for accountability and as the urgent need to spread Christ’s story to those people who haven’t heard it.
And again… people not having heard Truth doesn’t make it true or not true (though I understand your point being the lack of free will to choose an idea one doesn’t even knows exists)
Concerning child abuse… though it’s not popular answer, I’d say that on most occasions, God doesn’t sacrifice the free of one (the sinful abuser) for the sake of another (the child) It sounds cruel, mean, hateful. I get it. Murder is wrong, but I don’t know what I’d do if someone hurt/molested/killed one of my children. But that doesn’t change free will. The child has free will to act in the situation they’re in. Yes, I know it sounds cruel, but free will allows for the possibility of disobedience to God resulting in sin.
Inconceivable!
Lance, you know, I’m not sure. How’s that for an answer?
Refreshingly honest. (Not that I’m saying that you’re not honest – I’m thinking of other debates I’ve had on this issue where the response involves enough hemming and hawing to clear out all the trees in Yellowstone.)
As for the child abuse, I guess what I’m saying is that these children (the ones who are killed, that is) haven’t really had a chance to get old enough to understand the choice that they are given. (And despite what some people would tell you, I don’t think that any kid under 15 or so can really understand the weight of what Christianity is offering. Shoot, I don’t think that a lot of adults get it either, but that’s another conversation.)
More importantly though, I can understand up to a point the idea that we suffer as a result of our free will. Yeah, we make bad decisions, so we have to pay for it. However, it seems like too many innocents suffer from a result of our freedom – and the only way this is fair or makes sense is if you apply a standard of goodness on God that doesn’t match any other standard of goodness that would make sense to you.
The thing is, if God is real, then he watches all sorts of atrocities and doesn’t do anything. If I saw a kid being abused and could do something to stop it, yet didn’t do anything, you’d surely think that I was behaving immorally. Somehow though, God gets a pass because anything he does is good no matter how evil it seems. That’s the sort of thing that happens when you start with a conclusion and work your way backward.
Shoot, I could go on and on with examples. The only one I really need though is that a loving god wouldn’t let my dog get cancer.
I don’t believe in a capricious god like Odin, but I do think that he’s more likely than a loving god like Jesus. (Don’t feel too bad though – I think that Jesus is more likely than Scientology.)
My biggest question is how do you type in italics? Is there some trick or are you simply using something other than Internet Explorer?
“The thing is, if God is real, then he watches all sorts of atrocities and doesn’t do anything.”
That’s not accurate… if God is real, the hw watches all sorts of atrocitias and APPEARS not do anything. He could be working through an apparent atrocity and making good of it (I don’t think God causes bad, but if bad happens, He can make good from it… lemonade from lemons, etc)
And the atrocities you speak of bring back Justin’s original post…
“Job railed against God, calling Him unfair and
unjust. In the end, his conceptions of ‘fairness’
and ‘justice’ were crushed under the weight of a
broader, deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of
God. I believe part of the writer’s intent with Job is
communicating that we do not come to such knowledge
without putting our best argument on the table,
especially when we believe we are “right” and God
is “wrong.” That’s chutzpah.”
It’s okay to have these questions… but they stem from the concept that the person questioning ACTUALLY BELIEVES HE’S TALKING TO GOD. If he believes he’s talking to God, then there is a relationship there through which God will give feedback (Holy Spirit). Not knowing why God allows something doesn’t disprove His existence. (And yes, not knowing the color of a unicorn’s tail doesn’t disprove its existence, either) It’s simply
You’ve compared my argument to an abusive partner saying it’s love… but why is THAT the example you cite…
Remember the scene in ‘Robin Hood’ (Kevin Costner) when Morgan Freeman’s character, Achoo, (no… that was Dave Chappelle… anyway…) was helping Little John’s wife give birth? He started cutting her open and she started screaming? It was evident no one had scene a c-section before. If not for Robin Hood, they wouldn’t have let it continue… it was cruel… cutting a fullterm pregnant woman right in the belly during birth. But that was the very action that was needed.
Instead of an abusive spouse, why is this not the example you use?
With a relationship with God, He does reveal Himself to you, but denying His existence severes that relationship, leaving these questions unanswered.
So if you’re in northwest Ohio, look up Anthony Butte. I’ll treat you to the beverage of your choice…
That’s not accurate… if God is real, the hw watches all sorts of atrocitias and APPEARS not do anything. He could be working through an apparent atrocity and making good of it
I think that this is where I’d use Occam’s Razor – the argument that makes the fewest amount of assumptions is the usually the right one. All I can go by is what I know, not by what I hope is true.
Your c-section analogy doesn’t really work either though. Those folks were able to see for themselves the benefit of what happened. As for the benefit of the apparent cruelties of this world, well…still waiting…how many millions of years now? Even if you’re a Biblical literalist, it’s been thousands of years. Again, it only makes sense if you start with the conclusion that he’s good. I used to do that too, but once I no longer believed it, it became much easier to reach the other conclusion.
With a relationship with God, He does reveal Himself to you, but denying His existence severes that relationship, leaving these questions unanswered.
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what this means. If he’s given you some real answers, then you guys should be able to communicate them. We’re bordering on subjective reality here. I need it to make sense BEFORE I believe it.
Oh, and not sure when I’ll be in Ohio, but I never miss the opportunity to have somebody come through on an offer of a free beverage.
This doesn’t help me in anyway, but I’ve heard a Christian actually say, “Don’t confuse me with your logic” Isn’t that hilarious!
Yes evil has been going on for “millyuns and millyuns of years” (it’s hard to do a good Carl Sagan impression in type) And that answer still falls on the basic principle of free will in a world that since Adam has gotten corrupted.
Justin wrote, “I’m convinced that many of us carry deep resentment towards God because we’ve not honestly aired that grievance or pain. We settle for an untested, unsettled and distant ‘belief’ in a God whose goodness is something we’ve quietly or begrudgingly agreed to, like a math equation, but not something we’ve come to know. Our perception or interpretation of the events that cause us grief might be wrong (or even right) but we never truly know because we do not carry our complaint to God and speak… we lack courage… we lack chutzpah.”
And I want you to know that I’m still on the road to discovery. I don’t know why God has allowed Satan to run amuck as long as he has. I can only say that I believe the Bible to be historically accurate about Christ’s death and resurrection, and asking Him to lead me, and the inner change that followed.
Remember Jodie Foster’s character in ‘Contact’, based on Carl Sagan’s book. After she explained she was sucked through a wormhole and talked to her dad for half an hour, she was shown footage of her being dropped straight down, seemingly going nowhere. (Occam’s Razor was used here, it’s actually where I learned the meaning of the term… movies are such great teachers!) When asked to reconsider what she said, she admitted that evidence points to her being dillusioned. But she then starts crying and exclaiming, “But it WAS real!” And within the context of the movie, she was right.
Justin says he has 3rd installment in this ‘Inner Atheist’ topic, “…certainty is not the aim of faith. That, in fact, making certainty a goal in any area of life can be, and often is a recipe for existential paralysis.”
Let’s see what he has to say this… I’ve been neglecting my kids because of you, Lance
And quit shoving your fancy ability to use italics in my face, okay!?!
That was my intent all along! Mwuh ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Ahhh, well played, sir… well played…