You did a nice defense of the orthodox statement. Similar to most of the trinity in answer to (a) or (b) just assert “both” with the how being a mystery. That being said this is a well written apology for the doctrine and I’m going to link to it.

I wanted to thank you for the time you put into these replies. I sent you an email via your church website. I think I’m beyond the seemingly teenage-type-angst struggle and I would rather carry on an honest conversation not written for all to read. Let me know if you got my email, if not I’ll try again.

Jonathan

This isn’t my “official” response to your last comment, I just wanted to say a few things.

I wish I would’ve found your community/ministry a few years ago. Without trying to contribute to the abuse Christians have emposed on this one adjective, it’s awesome. What you’re doing and all the things you are focused on are exactly what I was all about a few years ago. Even though I’m not in the same place I was then, I can still appreciate what you’re doing. Good job, man.

I’m not in So. Cal or even near it. If I ever am I’ll definitely hit you up for coffee or a beer. Thanks for the invite.

I’ll be taking my time with this response in order to do it justice, but in the mean time Happy Thanksgiving.

Jonathan

Been crazy busy…but I really do care about this conversation.

So, yes, as you say, you are not alone in your thinking by far. I think one of the biggest challenges we face today is the overload of information and experts. I think our tendency is just to dismiss everything because it is too hard, too difficult, and/or takes too much time to really attempt at sorting out. It’s one of the reasons I like you..because you are taking the time. But what do you do when two scholars reach different conclusions, how do you decide, can one position be correct? I actually wrote a little piece on this called “Controversy” (you can read it here: http://www.duanesmets.com/2008/10/02/controversy ).

I think your observation, ““What if I’m wrong and I have to face judgment, is this really worth it?” is very keen. In fact it is a question a great mathemetician and philosopher named Blaise Pascal asked in a work of his called Pensées. In it he argues, that God’s existence is unprovable by reason (which may or may not be true, personally as you have discovered I think the question of God’s existence presupposes his existence…and I’m open to evidence, though not proof). Then he moves to say that either our reason or our happiness is at stake in the wager of whether or not God is so. He ends up saying it is wiser to wager that God exists, since “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”

I too grew up in a Pentecostal upbringing and departed from it, so I completely understand and sympathize with your experience probably more than you know. It was almost as if you didn’t speak in tongues you weren’t Christian and the Bible meant whatever the preacher felt like it meant…which is merely authoritarianism. Pentecostals tend to be very fundamentalistic, legalistic, and have a religion based purely upon human experience and works which epistemologically really does not separate them from any of the eastern religions. Anyway, I feel honored that you’d share that with me and share with me your list.

As far as the Genesis story is concerned. Of course I have a viewpoint on it, but I think there is room for varying perspectives. The main point of the book named “beginning” (Genesis in Hebrew) is that God is the creator. No matter what view of Genesis you take, even if it is ancient mesopatamian myth like the epic of Gilgamesh, the Atrahasis epic, or if it is an account of evolution with time gaps, or a literal 7 day account…the point of Genesis remains in its’ intent to say that God is the creator (and I would add “redeemer”). There may be differences in how he created, but even the most fundamentalistic athiests cannot account for the cosmological question of beginnings (the problem of infinite regression).

On morality…I’m not so sure we are talking about a God who is “being that is way more moral and loving than I could ever dream of being.” But rather a God who is the ground and source of morality and has a plan and a way to transform us into his very love and pure morality. I think it is important to distinguish between the essence/source of morality, the act(s) of immorality, and the motives of immorality. I like your analogy of the prison…But I guess I would ask if being able to recognize morality equates goodness? But all this is sort of a side note, I’ll get to the real issue and question.

Your last question (the “sum up”) is perhaps the best question you have asked yet in our entire exchange. It is at least the most difficult to answer, not in my estimation because of whether it is a solid answer or not, but in terms of the difficulty of swallowing the answer. What you ask essentially what is known as “the problem of evil.” I have spent a lot of time on this one…so rather than try and give a pithy response here let me direct you to two places:
1. A piece I wrote called “The So Called ‘Problem of Evil’” http://theresolved.com/downloads/evil.pdf
2. A sermon addressing this very issue from Romans 9:19-29 http://www.theresolved.com/?p=323

As a sidenote, as I understand election in the Bible, it has nothing to do with being born into a “Christian home.” Rather no one knows who is elect, except God. The elect are those he has determined beforehand to have mercy at a specific time. How he determined who was going to be elect is an utter mystery (Deut 29:29).

Well I think I hit most the stuff you brought up. I don’t want to bag on your upgringing, you know…but is it possible that you may have never really ben taught or really heard the gospel? It sounds like you may have been part of a teaching which was just Christianized Phariseeism all over again…where Christianity was just an offer to work harder, get more religious, and then feel extra guilty when you didn’t measure up. As I understand the gospel of Jesus it is a message not of guilt, but freedom from guilt. Not a message of fear but a message of forgiveness. Not a message of nothingness but a message of deep meaning.

Hey Jonathan…if there were at least plausible answers to your questions, do you think it could actually have the effect of getting you to reconsider Jesus once again. Not a hippie, feminine, lovey dovey feel good Jesus, but the Jesus who people were both amazed by his teaching and overwhelmed with his acceptance? If there were at least somewhat sufficient answers to your questions, would it be enough for you or is there something deeper? Maybe you’ve just needed to actually talk to a level headed Christian? I’m not saying that because I think there is something deeper, maybe there is, I’m just saying that in talking to you, it doesn’t sound like your asking for certainty…just a worldview where you can conceive that maybe it is true and no one has actually been able to show you one. Just wondering.

Where you at? If you’re in So. Cal lets get together for coffee or a beer.

Duane

I’m glad this conversation is helping you get ready for your sermons. Speaking of sermons, nice closing marks at the end of your last comment. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I would actually be disappointed if you weren’t trying to “save my soul” (I know Jesus is the actual savior, just humor me).

Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully consider each reply. This is a deeply personal topic for the two of us, yet we seem to be getting nicer as this conversation continues. I don’t think that is typical, but more of a testament to our desire to really know the truth (if such a thing can be known).

As for your answer to my dilemma with modern day miracles I can honestly say I haven’t thought of it or heard it worded exactly like that (the idea of diminishing the significance of the work and life of Jesus). This is something that definitely deserves some further consideration away from the keyboard and monitor.

I know for certain that I am not alone in my thinking. I have come across several other “Apostates” that have come to the shocking conclusion (opinion) that:

A) The bible is not infallible or even inspired.
B) If a god does exist there is a great chance it’s not the one we read about.

The problem some apostates (me) have with this revelation is the almost innate fear of eternal damnation and the echoing nothingness that follows a divorce from faith. I still find myself wondering, “What if I’m wrong and I have to face judgment, is this really worth it?” Then there’s the idea that there isn’t a divine purpose at all, that nothingness I was referring to. To put it mildly, it sucks. It sucks to think that there’s no caring creator that is listening to your concerns and planning ways to intervene on your behalf. It sucks to think that attraction, love, fear, anger and any other emotion is just a response to a chemical that floods your system and that’s it.

So, you might find several agnostics, atheists and other apostates creating an “Even-if-God-is-real-I-wouldn’t-serve-him-because-of-this-trait-or-that” list when they run out of things to disprove. That is almost a knee jerk response to this monumental change. It’s easier to say what you hate about God than what you loved when you get to this point. The reason I say all of this is because I’m about to share my own list with you, but let me do the hard part first and tell you what part of Christianity was most attractive to me.

It was actually all the focus on the relationship.

I try to step away from things and view them as an outsider looking in when they get difficult and then spot the best parts that have become second nature and easy to overlook (like when my wife and I fight, when my son is bothering me, when my team loses). I did this with Christianity more times than I can count and the one thing that brought me back was the relationship. I imagine when I die the most important part of my life won’t be how much money I had or how many things I owned, but how many people did I really know and how many really knew me. How many people did I love and how many loved me. Thinking like that made me think that relationships are quite possibly the most important function of human existence, and everything else is just a system to support them. Therefore if there’s a religion whose sole purpose is a relationship, well that just plain makes sense.

It all changed over the course of a few years though.

Growing up in a Pentecostal church I never put much stock into the security of salvation, often returning to the altar week after week to ask for salvation all over again. Eventually I was lead through a few scriptures to discover that this was not necessary at all and soon started putting more faith in the eternal security of salvation. Then I started to think that if the Pentecostals had been wrong about salvation, maybe they got a few other things wrong as well. Out went being baptized with the Holy Spirit after salvation as a separate act.

Years later I was confronted with honest questions about Genesis and whether or not I believed it. After a long period of research, prayer and thoughtful conversations like this one I came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough evidence to confirm Genesis’ account of creation to be accurate if taken literally.

Well, sadly enough several things snowballed into me thinking the same way I thought about the Pentecostals, “If one thing is wrong then maybe more is wrong.” One thing seemed to contradict another thing (in the bible) and the more I looked for reasons to not believe the more I found them. The final straw was the idea of original sin. I can not, in good conscience, think that original sin makes any sense at all.

I know I am challenging theories and ideas that were put into motion (supposedly) by a being that is way more moral and loving than I could ever dream of being. So who am I to question it, right?

But then I considered that as well.

What kind of morality are we talking about here if me in my supposed corrupt state finds it completely offensive? What does that say? That I’m too corrupt to understand it? How does that make sense? We wouldn’t use that same logic if we were telling a good person that even a criminal finds his actions reprehensible. “Jim, when you killed your wife and kids for no reason at all the inmates at Folsom were disgusted and wanted your head on a platter. That’s how terrible your actions were Jim. Inmates were enraged.” Or, let me just use the most common story like this we have all heard at one time or another: “Inmates kill rapist and child molesters all the time because even they know that that is just wrong. Rape and child abuse is too much even for a murderer or a thief.” (Side note: I can’t say I disagree with the inmates.) No one would dare say, “Yeah, but those are inmates! What do they know? I, not being an inmate, posses a morality they can only dream of.”

But we use this idea of a superior morality and goodness to justify God. His morality and love is so far outside our corrupted conscience that it is actually turning evil (sending massive amounts of people to eternal damnation just for being born) into good.

To sum it up: I do not consider him good, just, loving or merciful just because I was born in a Christian home with religious parents and therefore considered “elect”. This system of justice and mercy is so terribly corrupt that I can’t get my own corrupt conscience to buy into it any longer. So, even if I did find out that God is real I can’t say that I would actually serve him. That idea of a few making it and the rest burning in hell is so awful to me that I don’t want any part of it. Having a problem with that idea of original sin makes it pretty easy to say when I wonder if this is worth it while thinking about hell, “Absolutely.” The deep discomfort I get from the original sin message helps me through the nothingness, guilt and fear my specific upbringing has afforded me.

That’s how I got to where I am. Sorry if this was wordy or self-indulgent. I guarantee that I rambled on more than one occasion, sorry about that as well. And lastly, if I offended you in anyway please know that it wasn’t intentional.

Thanks for doing this, and good luck preaching. I would say knock em’ dead, but as Paul was one of the few that could (supposedly) knock em’ dead and bring em’ back to life maybe I’ll just stick with good luck.

Jonathan

I am truly impressed at the spirit in which you are going about this both in the time you are spending to read and the demeanor this conversation. I am extremely busy but it is because of your effort I feel compelled to continue, plus I think it is a good example of a what a healthy dialogue looks like. In addition I am preaching at a special event this week on the difference between religion and the gospel, which I think is the question your last comment really beckons…so you’re helping me with sermon prep in a way. :) And yes, as far as undeniable proof…you are right and I am not arguing for that. I am only saying I think there is sufficient ground given to us to give us confidence to take a step without being crazy.

Okay… :)

1) Modern Day Miracles

A) What you described is known as the “Cessastionist” position. That miracles ceased with the early church apostles as they were only to validate the authenticity and authority as commissioned by Jesus.

There is not a whole lot of Scriptural merit for this position. Some try to say that when 1 Corinthians 13:10 talks about prophecy ceasing when the perfect comes, that it is talking about the Bible…but it is pretty clear that the perfect is Jesus because two verses later it talks about seeing him face to face.

On the other hand, I understand logically it does make some sense that there would have been similar miracles such as the ones Jesus did, if these ones are claiming he told them to start the church.

I think there are a couple reasons for why we don’t experience miracles today to the extent they seem to appear in Scripture.

1. What we are getting in the NT narratives (Gospels & Acts) can easily give the effect that these things were just happening all the time, when in fact there is a lot of time and geographical distance between the occurrences if you look closely. The writers are obviously hitting the highlights and don’t spend a whole lot on all the down time in between.

2. You are correct that there were other documented supposed “miracle workers” during the 1st century, Jewish Holy Men (Josephus mentions Onias, Eleazar, and Hanina ben Dosa) and Gentile Hellenistic Divine Men (such as the well known Apollonius of Tyana). There are interesting differences between the feats of Jesus and these men, but at the very least it shows that there was at least a large populous who had a mental framework to think such things could take place and would also be interested to see a “miracle.” We have such people in our culture today, although they are considered wierdos by most who believe in UFO’s, the power of crystals, Tarot, and other paraphenomena. The place where there are supposedly actual supernatural accounts of things happening today (Christian or otherwise), seem to be mostly come from animistic third world cultures where they have a worldview that provides for it. Just as a the scientific method begins with a hypothesis where you are disposed to only consider certain possibilities…perhaps our predisposition against such phenomena has something to do with our inability to experience them…I don’t know.

3. There are many things in life which occurr and are seemly to be extraordinarily coincidental. Perhaps it only our philiological baggage which prevents us as recognizing these as miracles.

4. It seems that many people in the New Testament, though they did witness these miracles did not automatically convert as you suggest you or most would if they encountered one. In fact, nearly everyone abandoned Jesus before his crucifixion. I mean really think about it…If I myself saw something “supernatural” happen, I am sure I would start trying to figure out the magic trick or come up with some other explanation for it.

5. Most of all, I think the strongest thing reason why God doesn’t not seem to do miracles like we read about in the NT all the time is that it would diminish the greatness of what he did in Jesus. One of the things that makes Jesus so astounding is that he is the peak of history and that in one act God came into our world to do something so significant that it was sufficient to effect people for all time. If God had to do that in every generation for every single person it would seem to greatly diminish the quality of Jesus life, death, and resurrection…it just wouldn’t be that special of a thing.

B) Charismania, I like to call it. Supposed miracles in everything, false accounts and forced tongue speaking and the like.

I am on the same page with you on this one my friend. I think many charismatics have not only an improper epistemology solely based on their feelings/experience alone, but also are just trusting they are saved because they did some sort of supposed charismatic work/deed/miracle etc. Jesus clearly condemned this saying even people who say they prophesied and cast out demons may not even know him (Mt 7:22-23). I don’t think miracles can’t happen, I’m open…just cautious (that’s my official position :) “Open With Caution”). Sort of a potential charismatic. I just wear a seat belt, helmet, and protective gear and try to stay clear of all the crazy stuff. :)

2) Canon Completion (you called it “code of silence”)

A) No more communication needed?

A few things on this one…first the canon.

1. The canon was more recognized than determined. You didn’t bring this up but I think it an important point that when you study the historical evidence the Bible was not so much created as a power play by the church. There were certain letters being circulated between the churches which were considered by them to be inspired documents. The canonizing or compiling them all into one book was an act not only of ease or necessity but because there were other documents people were attempting to circulate (pseudipigrapha) that clearly had a different Jesus and different gospel in them (all you got to do is read them and you’ll see…Jesus killing people, telling women to become men).
2. The canon was essentially closed once the apostles died because only the apostles (Acts 1:20-26; 1 Cor 9:1) and those who were commissioned by them had the authority from Jesus to write Scripture (Eph 2:20).
3. The canon was the foundation of church which needed to be closed and in place so that something could be built upon it (Eph 2:20-21; 3:1-5). If you were having to build a new foundation every time someone supposedly had a new book to add, that would be very frustrating and unreliable. Sort of like the Mormon Living Prophet who can just have new revelations totally abandoning or contradicting what was already revealed.
4. Another reason for the need of the closing of the canon is akin to the response concerning miracles and specifically the miracle of Jesus concerning it’s significance. If the Bible was still open now and new books were being added to it all the time, I’m sure it wouldn’t be considered by so many to be such a great book. Plus, the Bible is not just a compilation of things but is a story, the greatest story of who God is and what he has done. Even though the story is still being told in us and there is a future yet to take place, every good story has a beginning, climax, and end.

Okay now on the needing of communication…
1. Whether we need new communication from God is a different question than whether what he has already communicated is conclusive enough for us. One is a objective question the other is a subjective one.
2. I do think we need God to communicate to us today. I think you need that Jonathan and that’s okay to want and wish for that. But let’s clear a few things up concerning such communication.
3. I think that God communicates most clearly and frequently through his Word…I don’t hear voices in my head and call them God and ever put my words on par with Bible and say “God told me.” That is foolishness that way too many people are caught up into. It does not take into account their own sinfulness and thus a great potential of being wrong. But there is a way in which the words or the stories of the Bible can have a way of piercing our heart, almost speaking directly to us, which I would count as God communicating to us…not in a hyper religious existential experience way, but in an objective to subjective application way.
4. Hearing God communicate to us and knowing its him takes time, meaning years. Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice as they follow him (Jn 10)…so I think the more that we follow Jesus the more we develop our senses of when we know it is really him and when it is just us. His written word is a sure guide.
5. Jesus talked about those of us who would not see him visibly or hear him audibly. He says to Thomas in John 20:29 “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Then two verses later John tells us why he wrote his book, “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (Jn 20:31).”
6. It is something unique to God’s people that they have always been people of a book. In ancient Mesopotamia, when physical idol worship was big…the thing that made the Hebrews so different is that Yahweh revealed himself in words, in a book, not an image. The cognitive nature of thinking inspired through reading is something very unique to Christianity and central to our faith. There is a great book by a guy named Neil Postman called “Amusing Ourselves To Death” which addresses the psychological and sociological implications of a faith that comes through reading versus solely religious experience.
7. Yes…you are not going to believe in Jesus by looking at a tree. Maybe you could derive the existence of God from thinking about the tree cosmologically or by studying its rings and thinking about the tree telelogically…but that doesn’t get you to Jesus. We need the Bible for that to tell us how bad off we are but how much God has done about that. So yes, without the Bible, we’re done.
8. Lastly, I say there are no new updates, not only because of all the things I already said but because right now we are in an era or an age where we are still fulfilling the tasks Jesus gave us to do until he returns.

B) God speaking through nature, disasters, circumstance etc.

Maybe, maybe not. That’s one another reason why I am so glad we have a written trustable book like the Bible because then I can test things against it. God won’t say anything that contradicts what he has already clearly said.

As far as your summary and the verses you cited…I can see where it might seem like a sort of closed full proof system to keep people out. But honestly I don’t think these verses are truly saying, “don’t think about it, just believe a priori, prima facie.” If anything they seem to be saying the opposite, that the gospel of Jesus provides a supreme philosophy (Col 2:8), that isn’t just someone’s idea/speculation but actually has power to save us (1 Cor 1:18), who need salvation because our (mine included) thinking is often incorrect (1 Cor 2:14), and makes me thing certain things matter which really don’t (1 Cor 3:19).

The Romans verse is about God’s general revelation evident in creation by which we can know God’s exists…it’s not about the truth of Jesus being plainly revealed in the trees or something. It’s just telling us we all know there is something bigger and greater than each of our individual little puny lives and that deep down we know that greater thing (God) really deserves all the credit for everything.

As far as Jesus words concerning lust and the act of adultery itself… I think Jesus would be an idiot not to recognize that there is a difference. One has far more physical outward consequences. I think that is the precise reason he brings it up, because of that it makes it easy to think God only cares about our outward performance. Jesus points out that all sin really begins in the heart and that’s what wrecks us internally. The guilt is the same, because God sees and hears all of it. For example, I’m a dad. If I knew and heard the sexual thoughts of men who were not married to my daughter do you think I would not be provoked. Upon knowing I was provoked don’t you think that dude would feel like, “oh crap!” Regardless of whether or not he ever read that verse in the Bible or not. As your wife how she would feel about you thinking sexual thoughts about other women…she’d probably be pretty hurt if she was brave enough to admit it.

Jonathan you said something really interesting to me when you said the Bible was like a book with a bunch of rules and impossible stories. I think that combined with the verses you quoted kind of drives out the difference of the gospel and why I love it and believe in it so much. The gospel seems to me to be something entirely different than religion. It’s religion that says you must perform in order to get. You must do this or that and get all the rules right, or your out. Every religion functions like this. The gospel is different. It says, look you are a failure and have broke the rules and continually break them. That is because there is something deeply wrong with you. But the good news, gospel is that God loves you anyway and did something so that change could be possible. In the gospel God does all the work, Jesus performs all the rules perfectly for us, pays the price (an eternal death / hell) for our heart rebellion and rule breaking and then gives us the benefit, himself and his life. So I’m far worse than I ever thought but at the same time more accepted and loved by him than I can even be toward myself. That’s why the gospel isn’t just a philosophy and isn’t just a religion because it focuses solely on a person…Jesus.

Much love man.
Duane

Thanks for the links, even though I’ve been trying to read as much as possible on both sides of the argument I sill find myself hoping that there is some way to disprove Christianity. I wasn’t burned by the church at all, actually the exact opposite. I grew up in it, spent a large portion of my life serving it and made some lifelong friends in it (one being my wife). I have nothing but fond memories of my time in the church, whether it was the Pentecostal church I grew up in or the non-denominational church my faith grew up in. I was challenged, inspired and encouraged on multiple occasions. There are some brilliant, loving and wonderful people involved with the ministry.

I have struggled my entire life with a few things, though. (I read your article you attached. Again, well written but not exactly what I would call fool-proof. But if we are to be honest there really isn’t undeniable proof one way or another. There is only faith. Anyway, I read it.)

1) Modern day miracles (or just the Gifts of the Holy Spirit). There seems to be different schools of thought on this and I’ll do my best to explain what I know.

A) God stopped doing miracles because they were only a sign for those to believe what the early church fathers/OT prophets/etc. were saying and once the bible was completed there was no need for those “signs and wonders”.

I can not stand that stance. Who wouldn’t believe that God is alive and real and his son is Jesus if they saw the things that the people in the bible were able to see? I guess there were a few calloused hearts that could still do what I’m doing right now, but if I’m to be honest I would believe in a heart beat if I saw a miracle. I would love to see one! I would also instantly believe if all the Christians disappeared one day along with the kids and babies. For me Rapture = Instant Belief. What I’m saying is, why not continue this? Why not turn water to wine (that is one miracle I would love to see!)? Why not raise the dead? Heal the sick? Open the eyes of the blind? Miracles were all over the place in a superstitious time, but in today’s world they are seemingly no where to be found. Is that because they don’t happen? I can’t actually know that. It’s not from a lack of sincere requests; I know that for a fact.

B) Miracles do happen today. Look at some of the Word of Faith preachers, Morningstar Schools of Prophecy, Pensacola/Toronto/Azusa Street Revivals, etc.

I do not believe miracles are happening in the locations that claim to be working them, and maybe you don’t either. At all of these locations the “lame” are made to walk again or IBS and other difficult to prove diseases are cured. Not just that, prophecy has turned into a vague admonishment preceded by a comically severe sounding, “Thus saith the Lord”. It is really disappointing to see a large portion of the church turn a blind eye to the terrible turn for the worse these Holy Spirit gifts have taken. Tongues is just mumbled garbage (or to some an “Angelic Prayer/Public Address Language like Paul refers to in Corinthians). Healings are typically non-existent or just silly. Prophecy is either vague or verging on the “cold readings” of a psychic. What has become a very outspoken and popular portion of the modern church is really weird. A good majority of them make decent music, but that might be the best that can be said of them. What was once a supposed powerful tool used for drawing in non-believers has turned into a chance for weekly ecstatic outbursts of the charismatically faithful.

2) The code of silence since the bible was completed. Again, there are different schools of thought on this one as well. I’ll do my best to explain.

A) The Bible was the complete and perfect word of God; no more communication is needed from him now that we have it in its completed form.

A 2,000 year old (I’m exaggerating the time) love letter filled with rules and seemingly impossible stories doesn’t cut it for me. I want just one sign that he is real and he did what the bible says he did. I can’t just look at a tree and say, “Oh, there you are Jesus.” Science has removed that option. The proof is not in the product, no matter how many times I read the Psalms or Romans. I just find it hard to believe that he has been silent for this long. No miracles (as far as I am concerned), no messages, no updates, nothing. Why? Is there nothing else to say? I’d at least say hi if I wanted someone to believe in my existence or they stand the chance to burn for eternity.

B) God still speaks through prophecy, natural disasters, visions, dreams, feelings and other chance happenings.

I can’t say that I have ever experienced a credible conversation with God via any of these avenues I cited. It goes hand-in-hand with the miracle problem, honestly.

To sum it up, I think the bible has placed its followers into an impossible position with the following scriptures:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Colossians 2:8

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness;” 1 Corinthians 3:19

“…since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matthew 5:28

The bible is brilliant in that it explains to its followers that there will be those that doubt, but don’t worry about it. They aren’t spiritual; therefore they don’t get spiritual stuff. “Some might even make a whole lot of sense with their crazy philosophical speak, but if it ain’t Jesus don’t pay it no mind.” (I know that’s tacky, sorry.) And then on top of that it claims that God can be detected by just looking at the world, duh. And last, the most impossible of all things, don’t have wondering thoughts. How many young and old men have been racked with guilt over this one verse? Too many, I assume. Thinking “nasty” is NOT as bad as doing “nasty”. It’s just not.

Even if I were to ever fully return to the fold, these are issues I would still have. The fact that miracles don’t seem to happen today (as far as I can tell); God’s seemingly 2,000 year silent treatment; and the loopholes/impossible demands the bible has.

Anyway, thanks for talking with me.

Jonathan