Progress

[onejayhawk]

My wife has read Dostoevsky and we talked quite a bit about it. I agree he's definitely an important voice on this topic. I have a lot of trouble reading the Russian authors, though. Maybe it's the translation, but the prose just seems like wading through hip-deep mud to me.

If God does not set right the suffering of the innocents, that seems terribly unjust. My heart cries out for that to be set right, and I hope and trust that he will, both in this life and in the life to come. I don't think it's enough to simply say that God will set it right in the next life and go merrily whistling on our way. We need to work to set it right in this life and call upon God to multiply our efforts and to do what we cannot. But I do not believe that until the time when God fully and ultimately sets all those things right that the horrific injustices that we see will end. The Jewish and Christian scriptures call us to do both things--to work diligently with God to set things right now, and to hold onto the hope that things will be better in the future when those who have been abused now will be restored and the abusers will receive justice--even though they seem to push in contradictory directions.

Your wife and Judith ought to get together. Judith loves all the Russians, but Dostoevsky is her favorite. As an anthropologist, she sees great wisdom in his outlook on society.

J

[B-Fly]

Yes.

Our family lost a 12 year old (favorite cousin's son) to cancer about 6 years ago. It is a topic that has received some consideration.

By definition, you are shortsighted compared to any diety, much less a truly powerful one. For example, how do you know the child did not grow? Is the child innocent? You have a child. How old was she when she first became defiant? Was it months or just weeks? We know that pain and suffering are temporary, yet we consider eliminating it the goal above goals. God takes a longer view.

J

Sorry, but that assumes a priori acceptance of the G-d of your definition, and if you think a just and merciful G-d can morally strike down a two year old with a debilitating, painful and deadly disease because she yelled "no" at her daddy and threw a tantrum?! Sorry. Not merciful. Not just. Not benevolent. Not justifiable in any moral analysis for the omnipotent being who makes it happen or allows it to happen. You're not going to convince any skeptic with such logic.

[onejayhawk]

Sorry, but that assumes a priori acceptance of the G-d of your definition, and if you think a just and merciful G-d can morally strike down a two year old with a debilitating, painful and deadly disease because she yelled "no" at her daddy and threw a tantrum?! Sorry. Not merciful. Not just. Not benevolent. Not justifiable in any moral analysis for the omnipotent being who makes it happen or allows it to happen. You're not going to convince any skeptic with such logic.

No I wont, but that does not make it invalid.

Remember the name of the tree in the Garden? A two year old throwing a tantrum demonstrates awareness of right and wrong, hence not innocent. The fact that such a tiny indiscretion, to us, is enough to cause an uncrossable breach between us and God seems unlikely from that perspective. Yet consider also that a child's faith is the standard we are given.

If you insist on being humanist, which you and elD are insisting, then the message is folly. It says so on the lable.

J

[Fresno Bob]

No I wont, but that does not make it invalid.

Remember the name of the tree in the Garden? A two year old throwing a tantrum demonstrates awareness of right and wrong, hence not innocent. The fact that such a tiny indiscretion, to us, is enough to cause an uncrossable breach between us and God seems unlikely from that perspective. Yet consider also that a child's faith is the standard we are given.

If you insist on being humanist, which you and elD are insisting, then the message is folly. It says so on the lable.

J

The Tree of Knowledge you mean, the one that God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from it, they'd die, while Lucifer/the Snake told them the truth that God didn't want them to eat from it because then they would gain knowledge, that one?

[OaklandA's]

A two year old throwing a tantrum demonstrates awareness of right and wrong, hence not innocent. The fact that such a tiny indiscretion, to us, is enough to cause an uncrossable breach between us and God seems unlikely from that perspective. Yet consider also that a child's faith is the standard we are given.

Sorry, but this argument makes no sense. Surely you are aware that there are newborns who come into the world with painful, debilitating illnesses? Did they insult God while they were in the womb to compel him to inflict such pain on them?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Sorry, but this argument makes no sense. Surely you are aware that there are newborns who come into the world with painful, debilitating illnesses? Did they insult God while they were in the womb to compel him to inflict such pain on them?

Maybe abortion is God's will also, I mean why would he allow it if those unborns weren't sinful.............

[Kevin Seitzer]

Sorry, but this argument makes no sense. Surely you are aware that there are newborns who come into the world with painful, debilitating illnesses? Did they insult God while they were in the womb to compel him to inflict such pain on them?

Not only does it not make sense, it's not consistent with the narrative of the scriptures. I know onejay is writing from a strain of thought that is very popular in American evangelicalism. I just don't find it in the scriptures and believe that evangelicals have sadly departed from what Jesus taught and exchanged it for a set of rules and formulas. It makes me very sad to say that, but it's even sadder to me that non-believers get this distorted caricature of what Jesus and the scriptures really presented.

The scriptures do not teach of an uncrossable breach between us and God. Rather the prophets are full of calls for people to return to their God. In the story of the prodigal son, Jesus tells of the father who is waiting, looking down the road, longing for his lost son to return, and when he sees him far off, he rushes out and runs down the road to hug him, and throws a huge party to celebrate his return. He won't even hear talk of what the son had done wrong and won't listen to apologies.

God is not AT ALL about a series of rules to keep people away and hurdles so high that no one can leap them. God is all about searching and seeking out hurting, broken, and worthless people and redeeming and restoring them. I ****ing hate how Christians want to tell people just who will and who won't make it with God. Read about how God tells the people who had invitations to his banquet that he's gone out and invited the homeless and the poor and the cripples and the prostitutes to come instead.

I've seen more pain inflicted on people by the church, whether evangelical or Catholic, that deigns to put all these rules between people and God. Did we learn nothing from Jesus' preference to be with the sinners? Woe to you, blind guides. What did he say he came to do? To proclaim good news to the poor, release to the prisoners, sight to the blind, and freedom to the wounded.

[regular-guy]

This is a part of commonly recited Christian dogma that always rubs me the wrong way. It just seems like the ultimate cop out to attribute all things good to God and fail to attribute anything bad to him. God only helps batters hit home runs but never curses them to strike out? I'm not sure that's in accordance with what's written in the OT (angry and vengeful God). I'm sure I'm not alone among my skeptic brethren in thinking that this is a little ridiculous.

i'm snickering at this; i like the "God only helps batters hit home runs" part. Apparently He doesn't like my Cowboys anymore.

i don't have the time to make this sound more tactful, so i apologize. If we were sitting at a table over a drink, i assure you we'd be having a cordial conversation. Please read the following with that as my intention.

The Bible is full of people who didn't understand why God did what He did. Job's story is filled with it, the book of Lamentations covers it pretty well. There are tons of stories about people who were confused about God. God told Isaiah and Jeremiah (and its implied that He did it with others, i.e. Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, apostles) some of His prophets, "Go preach. They aren't going to listen to you anyway, but do it. By the way, you're going to be beaten up and all kinds of bad stuff will happen, but go preach anyway. It's not fair to pour out wrath without fair warning." Jonah hated the people he was supposed to go preach to that he went the opposite direction! i did the same thing for awhile...

The comments about frustration with God over evil in the world put us in the same company as Job, Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, just to name a few. Not to mention the 11 disciples who didn't betray Jesus. i'm in that boat with you sometimes. There is a lot of frustration when we don't understand what God is doing. We're not really much different from the followers of God in scripture. They were just regular people too. i get pretty aggravated with God sometimes, and i tell Him so--after all, He says He wants an honest heart, right? But after that, it's only fair to see how He responds. Not understanding His response is very common, because God is spirit, and we live in a world dependent on our five senses. Learning to discern spiritual things is difficult because it doesn't come naturally. We read the Bible to see how God worked in the past, so we can interpret how He moves today--because He's the same yesterday, today and forever.

God is at work in the lives of every single person who is responds on this thread, and any others who keep getting drawn back to just read it. Some of us are angry with God (i know how that feels, i've been there too!), some of us don't want to believe in Him, sometimes i don't want to be a minister anymore. We don't like what's happening on earth and if we had His power we'd do things differently.

But we aren't infinite. We can't see what lies ahead. And in the midst of all of this, the fact that we keep engaging in conversation to argue a point about spiritual matters indicates that whether we like it or not, our spirit is striving to understand the spirit of God.

[regular-guy]

The scriptures do not teach of an uncrossable breach between us and God. Rather the prophets are full of calls for people to return to their God. In the story of the prodigal son, Jesus tells of the father who is waiting, looking down the road, longing for his lost son to return, and when he sees him far off, he rushes out and runs down the road to hug him, and throws a huge party to celebrate his return. He won't even hear talk of what the son had done wrong and won't listen to apologies.

God is not AT ALL about a series of rules to keep people away and hurdles so high that no one can leap them. God is all about searching and seeking out hurting, broken, and worthless people and redeeming and restoring them. I ****ing hate how Christians want to tell people just who will and who won't make it with God. Read about how God tells the people who had invitations to his banquet that he's gone out and invited the homeless and the poor and the cripples and the prostitutes to come instead.

I've seen more pain inflicted on people by the church, whether evangelical or Catholic, that deigns to put all these rules between people and God. Did we learn nothing from Jesus' preference to be with the sinners? Woe to you, blind guides. What did he say he came to do? To proclaim good news to the poor, release to the prisoners, sight to the blind, and freedom to the wounded.

except for there being no breach, i totally agree with you on this one. even with the breach part, i'm struggling over what i suspect may be more of a semantic agreement, but your premise is quite true. God is always seeking to restore.

my fundy background wants to hold to the fact of the breach because Paul quotes Psalm 14 and 53 in his letter to the Romans, chapter 3, that there is none righteous, and later says that all have fallen short. However, i suppose we could say the breach is really only on our side. God has no problem crossing it. He put on flesh and lived among us.

Further, i completely echo your sentiments about church. i've been a minister for 18 years. With the exception of a few personal injury attorneys using people to line their pockets when i was an insurance adjuster, the meanest people i've ever met were members of some of my churches. All i could do with a person like that is strip them of any authority and love them anyway. The sad part is that a couple of them think they are Christians. But in all reality, i can look back and see when i've been just as bad. i know i've hurt a few of you guys before, and i apologize for that.

i'm at a new church now, and i'm wrestling with leading the church to get out of their Christian circles and engage themselves with people who don't want to go to church. We're starting something that's not really practiced by many churches this summer, and i'm praying it takes off. Some of the members are catching the vision, but we've still got a ways to go. There's not much point in doing another food pantry, clothes closet, etc. The ones we have are already double and triple-dipped. Instead, i think the Lord wants us to start fellowships in people's homes (not members) who want to fulfill spiritual longing without being pressured to "accept Christ" or join a church. The point will be to help them build stronger family relationships, mend broken hearts over grief and/or divorce, strengthen neighborhood fellowship, that kind of thing. i see that being of more benefit to the neighborhoods and apartment complexes. If some of these groups become churches, we'll train them to do the same thing--then maybe we'll start seeing the crime rate, drug use and divorce rate drop.

[Fresno Bob]

Meanwhile, the local Archbishop here in New Mexico is telling people that unmarried couples are not welcome to come to church, as they're sinners (in the hands of an angry god, apparently).

Never mind the fact that New Mexico is a safe haven for fallen Catholic pedophile priests, with permanent residences established in both Pecos and Jemez, New Mexico where priests that fondle little boys can spend time to reflect among the woods, rivers, and lakes about how to get right with their god. No, what's important is to exclude unmarried couples.


Edit: My bad. Unmarried mortal sinners may come to church but not participate in the pseudo-cannibalism rituals, aka communion.

I wish Leviticus wrath on all pedophile priests....ok, all pedophiles....

[Midnight Otter]

I wish Leviticus wrath on all pedophile priests....ok, all pedophiles....

You don't want them to eat seafood?

[Midnight Otter]

Aw, lookie who's been following along!

I even understand some of the smaller words.

[Kevin Seitzer]

except for there being no breach, i totally agree with you on this one. even with the breach part, i'm struggling over what i suspect may be more of a semantic agreement, but your premise is quite true. God is always seeking to restore.

Right. I didn't say no breach. I said it wasn't uncrossable. God's not seeking to bar people from himself; wholly the opposite, in fact. Certainly not a two-year old: "Let the little children come to me." "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Etc. But even with older children and adults, he's trying to reconcile.

"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters;
and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and you will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live."

As Paul said to the Athenians: "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us."

(Edit to add: I appreciated the rest of your post, too. I just didn't have anything to add to it.)

[Jefe]

Meanwhile, the local Archbishop here in New Mexico is telling people that unmarried couples are not welcome to come to church, as they're sinners (in the hands of an angry god, apparently). ...

Edit: My bad. Unmarried mortal sinners may come to church but not participate in the pseudo-cannibalism rituals, aka communion.

Ignoring the vitriol for a moment — just b/c I think a lot of what you've said so far has gone unaddressed — I will say that this makes perfect sense in the context of a biblical church. There are two kinds of people who come to church services: partners and attenders. Attenders may just be checking it out, they may be one-time visitors, they may have been coming for months but aren't ready to commit. Partners have made a commitment — they've said, I want to follow Jesus, I want to be part of this church body. A group of people, not a building. And a major part of that following is agreeing to repent, or turn away from anything the bible calls sin. That would include sex outside of marriage. A large portion of the western church chooses to focus on homosexuality over premarital hetero sex, which is pretty ridiculous even from a biblical sense —*they're both supposed to be considered sin. So while a Christian is not supposed to judge an outsider, or attender, and just love and serve them, partners are expected to hold each other accountable. So if you're shacked up with your girlfriend, and you're a partner at a Christian church, you should expect to be confronted about it. More often than not, you won't be. But if you have a bunch of believers trying to live together and follow Jesus, yeah -- they're not really supposed to welcome an attender who's made no commitment to participate in communion and whatnot. Now, asking people not to come at all is pretty questionable.

And as for all the Leviticus stuff, shellfish blah blah -- that's old covenant. Jesus came and created the new covenant, and Paul made it clear that legalistic adherence to the old covenant is not necessary or advised.

That all comes from the bible, and if you don't respect the bible, it all sounds like BS, I reckon. But that's the thing -- people who follow the bible are always going to seem like weird outsiders to those who don't. That can't be fixed unless they water their faith down and conform to the world. Which happens all too often.

[Jefe]

Just shows me that the "progress" alluded to in the original post is just that --- progress. All this exclusionary stuff just serves to render the Church even more irrelevant than it already is. It ain't the year 33 any more, brother.

And, trust me, the vitriol is more than deserved when it comes to the Catholic Church in this area. Casting aspersion on unmarried couples with one hand while sweeping the systemic abuse of children under the rug with the other? Gee, I wonder why people are disillusioned.

Oh, i agree with some vitriol about that... I am no fan of Catholicism in general, and feel that it's done more harm than good. Their behavior with the pedophiles in particular is amazingly offensive. I meant your general vitriol in any post referencing Christianity.

As for the other... exclusionary? I guess so. But it makes sense to me. If I visit some other religion's temple, i don't expect to be invited to participate in their holy rituals on day one. Just like I can't visit a fraternity house and vote for their next president if I'm not a member. Or something like that. ;]