I spent a long time as a Christian. I’m able to look back on much of that time very fondly. I loved my fellow brethren, and I truly wanted to learn more about God’s will and do my best to follow it. But there was also a deep fear tied to my belief. I think that’s fairly common among fundamentalists, but it may apply to more moderate Christians as well.
Where did this fear come from? There are certainly a number of passages that talk about God’s love for mankind:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. – John 3:16
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? – Rom 8:31
For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Rom 8:38-39
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. – 2 Pet 3:9
But despite his love, God can get angry too. And you wouldn’t like him when he’s angry:
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. – Heb 10:26-31
The scariest thing about this is that facing God’s wrath will be a complete shock to some people. There are those who think they’re doing what God wants, but are completely missing the mark:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” – Matt 7: 21-23
What if you believe in Jesus and love God, but aren’t doing God’s will? Is your sincerity enough? This was a thought that plagued me when I believed. If some people would get to Judgment Day only to find that they weren’t acceptable, then why couldn’t such a thing happen to me? How did I know my beliefs were the correct ones? My brother and I used to talk about this a lot. Through study, he and I both began to think that a couple of the doctrines we had always been taught in the Church of Christ were incorrect. Coming to that conclusion was extremely difficult. Were we reading and understanding our Bibles correctly?
As an illustration, consider a minor passage: 1 Corinthians 11. The beginning of this chapter says that women should have their heads covered when they pray. But the passage is confusing. Paul says that since women have long hair, they should also wear a covering when they pray or prophesy. He spends several verses giving reasons why a woman should cover her head, but then in verse 15, he also says that her long hair is given to her as a covering. So do they still need a separate one? Most confusing at all, verse 16 says:
If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
What does that even mean? Does it mean there’s not a practice of being contentious? That sounds like a crazy thing to have to say. So maybe he’s saying that the head covering is not supposed to be a practice if anyone makes a fuss over it. But that doesn’t make sense either. I mean, what other doctrines are given that caveat? Did any of the 10 Commandments have such an escape clause? The whole passage is confusing. What are Christians supposed to do? Either God wants the covering, or he doesn’t, but that passage can be read any number of different ways.
And of course, that’s far from the only vague passage. When you’re raised in a denomination, you’re taught to read the Bible a particular way. “Predestination” means something very different, depending on who you’re talking to. Who’s right? And what if you were raised in one of the groups that thinks they’re right, but to whom God will say “depart from me, I never knew you”? My brother and I realized how difficult it is to unpack all those preconceptions in order to clearly see the scriptures for what they really say. It’s scary.
Here’s the Point
But eventually, I realized that my fear was needless. The Bible says that God is fair, he doesn’t play favorites, he loves us, and he wants us to find the truth. Jesus said “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matt 7:7). If those things are true, then there’s no reason for us to be so worried about getting it wrong, as long as we’re sincerely seeking the truth.
It’s important to realize how significant that point is. If we’re really looking for the answers, then no question is going too far. So if we dig into the Bible and think “it doesn’t make sense to me that God would send people to Hell,” we shouldn’t run from that thought — we should investigate it. It’s okay for us to ask why God would command genocide in the Old Testament. It’s okay to wonder why he seems so hidden. It’s okay to ask why he would inspire people to write a message, but not protect the originals or ensure its accuracy. If God supports our search for truth, then all of these questions are valid. In fact, the people who pursue these questions obviously take the issue seriously. Wouldn’t that be more pleasing to God than those who never question what they’ve been told?
If you believe in God, then have faith in his character. Have faith in his promises. And take him seriously enough to challenge those who claim to speak for him (the writers of the Bible). Don’t let people tell you that you can’t question God whenever you express doubt about a passage. The Bible is not God. So show God the respect he deserves and critically examine the Bible before you accept the claim that he inspired it. If he’s real, he’ll be much more pleased with an honest seeker than with someone who’s too scared to ask the tough questions.
Finding Truth 
@arch
I don’t think you’re trying to be disagreeable at all, and I do think your questions are sincere.
Let’s try this approach: How about we start by examining the things we both consider when we try to make sense of our lives? I may need your help to word this correctly, but I’m working from the assumption that we both believe in something that folks generally call “morality” and that, in large part, morality is about not hurting other people. Obviously, we both understand that — in an ordinary day — there are a thousand things a person has to decide where the proscription against hurting others provides very little in the way of specifics when it comes to figuring out what you should do — and “moral conundrums” abound. I’m not looking to create some kind of comprehensive philosophy of life here, I’m just trying to find a starting spot for a conversation that’s NOT disagreeable.
I’ll stop at this point. Please understand that I’m looking to fashion some sort of manifesto of understandings we can BOTH sign off on.
Paul
LikeLike
Darn! Guess I’m not trying hard enough – oh well, it’s been a long day, I’ll do better next time.
Yes, CC, we both agree that a system of morality is necessary for any two people, or any two groups of people to coexist equitably. I say equitably, because a slave/master system is one way of “getting along” without conflict, but it’s hardly equitable.
I, of course, would point to the fact that putting one’s self in another’s place has been around since groups first existed, as a taught survival trait, and is not related to any given religion, although the concept has been incorporated, by necessity, into many such religions.
It’s the age-old concept of walking a mile in another’s shoes, then you’re a mile away, and you’ve got his shoes!
What I’m not clear on, and you haven’t directly stated, is whether or not you ascribe such a social system to a religion, and if so, that brings us back to your original statement, regarding considering many biblical stories as just that, stories, and my original question – how do you (not one, in general, but you, with your stated, “I believe some, some others, not so much,” philosophy, determine which to believe, and which to consider as not being especially “holy“, or figuratively “carved in stone,” as it were?
LikeLike
@arch
I hope you think better of me than to imagine I am hobbled by the notion that Christianity is solely responsible for all of humanity’s discoveries and developments with respect to morality.
Frankly, I find it silly to think that the Ten Commandments (or any other formulation) form the BASIS for Law. Not just silly, but theologically bogus. The “Law”, or the “Truth”, or “God’s Justice” or call-it-what-you-will is — if you’re going to bother to be religious — eternal, and perfect, and immutable, and fully comprehensive. In other words, it can’t possibly be written down as a Golden Rule or as a list of commandments or as a Torah or as a Bible. Anything composed of human words is — of necessity — going to be partial, and flawed, and temporal and subject to amendment.
The “Law” — the perfect, eternal “Truth” which can’t be expressed or contained within the created universe is (we hope) the basis for whatever religion or scripture we human beings can manage to slap together. You make it seem as if the tail is supposed to wag the dog and that religion should be the basis of the Law. That’s not faith. In fact, it’s the OPPOSITE of faith. How does anyone fail to notice that nothing we’re capable of committing to paper is going to be any better than a caricature, or representation, or pointer to the Eternal Truth?
You’re asking much, much, much too much of the Bible. Your criticisms are valid, but your expectations can never possibly be fulfilled. Not at all.
A Bible that a person can believe “somewhat, but not entirely” is the best Bible any of us will ever be able to come up with.
Am I the only one who sees this?
Paul
LikeLike
That’s just it, CC, I’m finding it so difficult to determine exactly what you DO believe, that I can do little else but imagine. However, with the speed of grass growing, you are leaving enough information to gradually piece some of it together .
Possibly you can share with us (and further enlighten me) as to how this “eternal, and perfect,…immutable, and fully comprehensive” truth is to be revealed to us if “Anything composed of human words is — of necessity — going to be partial, and flawed, and temporal and subject to amendment.” Telepathy?
LikeLike
i might add (aware that i might be labeled as faith-less) that the conventional christian understanding goes something like this:
“Jesus loves me, this i know,”
how do you know? “for the bible tells me so.”
whereas your understanding, captain catholic, seems to be:
“some-vague-notion-of-Jesus loves me, this i know,”
how do you know? “some-vague-notion-of-Jesus loves me, this i know.”
does God want to reveal God’s-self to us in some way? if so, how has God done that, and/or how is God doing that?
LikeLike
@arch
“Telepathy?”
I don’t believe in telepathy and I’m of the opinion that the claims made by folks who promote telepathy are entirely specious; but even at that, it’s more credible to me to imagine that God reveals Himself via telepathy than that He reveals Himself through a book (written, I suppose, by ancients who’d received telepathic communiques from heaven)
So put me down for “I can’t explain it because I don’t really know”. Perhaps I’m not convinced that I NEED to know.
How about YOU help ME figure it out? (I’m serious. I’d rather us work together than work against each other.)
Consider this: at the start of the 19th Century, very few Christian preachers in the North were preaching against slavery. Quite the opposite, in fact, abolitionist preachers (we’re talking North, here) we’re regularly losing their jobs for “disturbing” their congregations.
Jump ahead sixty years. Virtually every church in the North was anti-slavery, and practically every Christian in the North believed GOD was opposed to slavery.
What happened? Certainly there were no changes to the Bible, but people had a significantly different (and better!) idea of who God is. If it wasn’t revelation what was it? I can’t explain. Maybe you have an idea.
In any event, I’m quite certain that what a person believes about slavery matters.
…and what you believe about Mary’s sex life DOESN’T matter. Not really. It certainly isn’t going to influence your day to day behavior.
Paul
LikeLike
Yes! That’s how I feel as well! 🙂
I agree with you that if God were going to communicate with us, using a book seems like one of the worst possible choices. Telepathy (for lack of a better word) would probably be one of the best.
I suppose you feel moved by God in some way? You have very specific ideas about him and what he would find pleasing, so are these kind of like intuitions? I’m honestly asking these, by the way, and I mean them respectfully. Hopefully they’re coming across that way.
To your point about the changing notions on slavery, I think the most likely explanation is that society was changing and the churches followed. I don’t think there was any divine revelation required at all. When Galileo talked about heliocentrism, the Catholic Church was initially opposed to it based largely on scriptural concerns. But as time went by and the science became more irrefutable, lo and behold, the scriptures also confirmed the idea! Of course, no additional passages were added — people just read into the Bible what they needed it to say. I think the same was true of slavery.
We probably have the Enlightenment to thank more than anything else when it comes to the advancement of human rights. Once people began to really believe that “all men are created equal,” the old social barriers between classes began to crumble. It’s only natural that the barriers between race would fall as well. Once you see a slave as a fellow human being who should have the same natural rights that you do, slavery becomes a huge (and obvious) problem.
But back to your original point, if telepathy (or something like it) accounts for your feelings about God, why doesn’t everyone believe the same things about God that you do? Wouldn’t he communicate with the rest of us as well?
LikeLike
FINALLY, a revelation! Let’s hear a rousing chorus of “Getting to Know You,” from The King and I!
I don’t know how that’s possible, CC – essentially you’re asking me to help you arrive at a conclusion that I personally believe would be false, much like asking me to help you prove that black is white.
Regarding your slavery analogy, one first must ask a question that I realize is unanswerable: how much of the reasons behind justifying slavery was actually based on economics – the idea of obtaining free labor – under the guise of religious justification? How much was based on the lack of scientific knowledge – i.e., the belief that Black Africans were sub-human, much as any other farm animal one owns, and whose permission one doesn’t ask in order to demand work from them, not realizing that a Black African, traced genetically back 90,000+/- years, was the father of us all?
“What happened?” We grew up! With mechanization, the North wasn’t as dependent on human labor as much as was the South, the last stronghold of Slavery. The education levels were higher. Darwin’s Origin of Species had been published in 1859, and for the first time since Galileo, 200+ years earlier, there was confirmed evidence that parts of the Bible may not be true. There were a myriad of factors involved, yet not one in particular to which I can point as the tipping point, though ultimately, it was Abe Lincoln’s (a confirmed atheist: “The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.“) personal conviction that ruled the day, but I have no reason to believe that there was any supernatural involvement.
I can only suggest you ask Bill O’Reilly – “Tide goes in, tide goes out – you can’t explain that —” I’ve little doubt he has an answer for you.
I DO understand, CC, that yours was a sincere request, and that I’ve responded somewhat frivolously (shrugs – it’s what I do —), but it’s hard to seriously entertain the idea.
LikeLike
@arch
“Let’s hear a rousing chorus of “Getting to Know You,” from The King and I!”
Yes. I’ve always been able to depend on Oscar Hammerstein to put words to ideas and feelings I have trouble expressing. I like the way he’s always “putting it [his] way, but nicely”
I really hope we are getting to know each other.
I think, from my end, I’ve learned what it is you mean when you use the word “God.” I’ve always known that it was something different than what I meant when I used the word, but I had trouble putting my finger on what it is, exactly, that you were talking about…
As you may know, I work as a mental health clinician. My clients aren’t folks with garden variety neuroses — they all suffer from severe and persistent mental illness. You get into discussions (on line, anyway) with people who believe in Jesus. I get to talk things over with people who believe they ARE Jesus.
Many, perhaps most, of my clients talk to me about God, and angels, and devils. I believe they’re talking about real things — I just use different words. What they call “the devil” is what I would call a suppressed part of the psyche they’ve been unable to integrate into their personality. I’ve learned, though, that it would be nothing short of cruel to insist that they use my vocabulary. My job is to learn how to use theirs. They need, and deserve, respectful attention from other people and I can’t give them that sort of attention until I adopt their language.
In other words, I’ve reached the point where the word ‘God’ doesn’t mean anything to me until I figure out how the other person is using it.
If I’m not wrong, you use the word ‘God’ to refer to the initiator of science-defying supernatural events brought about at the behest of an elite group of ‘supplicants’ who refer to their delusion as ‘faith’.
I’d be happy to use your vocabulary; but in my vocabulary, your ‘God’ is something I’d call “Spiderman” or the “Incredible Hulk”. Maybe “Superman” or “Zeus”. Trouble is, I don’t know your word for the thing I mean when I talk about God.
As I’ve said before, the god you don’t believe in is the god I don’t believe in .
Paul
LikeLike
I really don’t see that as being me, rather I think it likely best describes those whom I address. When I speak of things, I can usually visualize them, but when I refer to god, whether Zeus or Mazda, I simply see a blank space – absolute zero.
But it’s good to know you’re offering me the same consideration you would the rest of your mental patients!
Actually, I referenced Superman in a discussion with a Muslim, as we were chatting about Big Mo zipping around, from Mecca to Jerusalem, to heaven, and back home to Mecca in a single night on Pegasus, but he didn’t seem to catch the reference.
Just envision a complete and absolute blank, and by George, I think you’ve got it!
LikeLike
Hey Nate! It was good seeing you the other day! I still check in every once in a while still and wanted to say as a believer I actually love what you say at the end of this blog and agree with it. I have always asked those tough questions and it almost led to me being an atheist myself but I got a lot of my questions answered and don’t share the beliefs you had before either, of course I never really did. I have always fallen somewhere in between but luckily I am in a Sunday School class now where we can openly discuss some of these questions and do. I also found a preacher Jay and I both like who has a PHD and knows a lot about history and ties it to his lessons. Even those going to church should be going to seeking answers anyways, I do, but they should also be cautious like you said of worshipping the Bible itself or the preacher, etc.
LikeLike
Hi Amanda — it was great seeing you too! Thanks for the comment. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Nate,
I like this post. As you know, I completely agree with the idea that the truth shouldn’t fear scrutiny, and I’m glad to see some Bible verses that support the idea, too.
However, I’m not convinced that the Bible makes a coherent and consistent case for such questioning. I think Daylight Atheism’s post “Thoughts in Captivity” is relevant on this note.
LikeLike
Howdy ratamacue0,
I agree with you. The Bible stresses questioning… but only to a point. I’ll check out that post you linked to — thanks!
LikeLike