Mother Teresa Doubted Her Faith

[Irvine511]

But we all think that our starting point is the best....which is fundamentally arrogant, isn't it? Your starting point may be your starting point, which is fine for you, but that isn't the best starting point for someone else. Judging someone else's starting point seems to be a bit judgmental, and surprising for someone who is passionately against judgmentalism.

And even if your starting point were the best, a starting point is one thing -- a sticking point is quite another.

and i'd disagree here, if we're talking about understanding the blueprints of faith. if we were to talk about the experience of faith, then i'd be in agreement, and we could also agree that part of the experience of faith, as exemplified by MT, is doubt. and a believer's account of the experience f doubt would be a valuable one no question. but if we're going to understand faith as a belief system, as something that operates by a set of understandable and, ultimately, predictable rules, then i would argue that a position of dispassionate agnosticism is a more "honest" position because it's one of neutrality.

what i take from your posts is that the starting point is the indisputable existence of a Creator, and a Creator with a clear Christian standpoint. simple talk of a "relationship" with said Creator is a specific viewpoint coming from a specific cultural context, and is expressed in human terms (what's more human than a relationship?) and is called for by a specific text (the Bible). and i think that when regarding the experience of faith, i agree, a relationship, which is to say an emotional and intellectual interaction with articles of faith is an important part of the experience, in fact, that is much of the experience, i would guess. and this would stand in opposition to the fundamentalist automaton, the fundamentalist who has the single moment of active engagement and then spends the rest of the experience being the best student in class and being able to spit back the "best" answers to the questions with the appropriately cited Biblical verse. and i can think of a mutually respected former poster who, in my opinion, was a brilliant example of this. it didn't seem, to me, like a faith that was experienced, but that all experience was mediated through the rules of faith.

the other issue i have in regards to the "blueprint" analysis is the weight you give to the Bible. i doubt the very foundations of the text itself -- writings done decades after the assumed events -- as having any more authority than a history text. this has been bandied about in FYM before, and i remain suspicious on Bible-based faith. it just doesn't seem like a solid foundation upon which to begin a discussion of the operations of faith.

as for "bad things/good people" -- i suppose i'd understand this as a bit more universal than you. why did two happy-go-lucky teenaged girls die in a car accident when i was a sophomore in high school? why did Edge's daughter develop lukemia? why does a bridge collapse in Minnesota? why does a tsunami wipe out 250,000 people?

i suppose i find the random death of innocents at the hands of fate to be a "bad thing," and i think we can name innumerable "good people" who've had unexplainable things happen to them. i'm one of them, and i seem to be quite lucky as all's going well. which begs the question of why, if there's a god who loves us, and a God who wants a relationship with us, and a God who wants us to be good and to do good things, and a God who controls everything, that it's all in his hands, that it's all his doing, that it's all part of his plan, then why, oh why, do these things happen?

i'll paraphrase something that i remember Bono saying, but i believe it was an Old Testament story -- i've had two glasses of wine, so name escape me -- but it was (Abraham?) who was told by God to bring his son to a mountaintop and to kill him in order to demonstate his faith. and so, he did, and just before he killed his son, God intervened, said it was a test, and let them both go, and thus, this is the faith we should have.

and Bono's reaction, and my reaction, is: what a fucking asshole.

it doesn't matter if we understand God on his terms or not. what matters is that we have to understand life on its terms and deal with it using our very human faculties. and as supposed Creator of said faculties, it seems rather cruel.

this reminds me of an example that comes up in abortion threads. we're presented with various "would you have an abortion if ..." scenarios. one category is horrible, horrible birth defects. and one of the worst that i can think of is what's known as harlequin-type ichthyosis. it's a horrible disease, and while there are a handful of stories where children survive to hit double-digits, and even one "success" where the child has made it to adulthood, the vast, vast majority of victims of this disease live short, painful lives and then die.

and my very human response is that, yes, i would absolutely have an abortion to prevent my child from entering a world where all they will know is suffering. and if this is God's will, or God's plan, to have a baby born to only suffer and then die, so that all of his human experience is one of suffering, then the only moral thing i can do is to protect this child from what God, apparently, wants for it. it would seem to me that to accept what is might be the cruel thing to do, and that i should thwart the Will, the Plan, and protect my child from God, if we are to believe that God is the author of such birth defects.

this seems like a bad thing that has happened to a good person. and to take your earlier thought of "perhaps we're not as good as we think,' would this imply that i've done something so terrible so as to deserve a child who will suffer, and that my suffering will be through watching the child suffer?

again: what a fucking asshole.

and so it continues. all questions, just food for thought, just hypotheticals, and i'm not implying that this is representative if your particular experience of faith, but that it is representative of one particular blueprint of faith.


[q]But even perception is not all of reality[/q]


but, maybe it is. does it exist if we do not perceive it? if a tree falls in the forest ...

 

[Irvine511]

As far as why there's so much evil in the world, the Bible is pretty clear about it, actually. It's because we let sin into our lives, therefore tainting God's perfect creation.

so ... my accident happened because i'm gay?

 

[coemgen]

No.

 

[Irvine511]

then why did it happen if it was due to sin in the world?

(i'm of the opinion that bad shit just happens, and that's what i took from it -- no one is safe, even though we probably are going to be okay, and we are alone, and that's okay as well)

 

[financeguy]

Also, I think he was more saddened by the tsunami than most of us were.

One might have thought then, unless he is some kind of masochist, that he would have stopped it.

Your spirit isn't very omnipotent is he?

 

[coemgen]

Omnipotent, yes. He also respects the law of free will, out of our own good, and has thrown us a lifeline through Christ and interacts with us through his spirit to save us from ourselves. We just have to chose to be saved. Again, he respects the law of free will.

 

[coemgen]

then why did it happen if it was due to sin in the world?

(i'm of the opinion that bad shit just happens, and that's what i took from it -- no one is safe, even though we probably are going to be okay, and we are alone, and that's okay as well)

I didn't mean every bad thing is a trade off for a sin. I was saying that bad things in general came to be because sin came into the world.

 

[financeguy]

Omnipotent, yes. He also respects the law of free will, out of our own good, and has thrown us a lifeline through Christ and interacts with us through his spirit to save us from ourselves. We just have to chose to be saved. Again, he respects the law of free will.

I fail to see what that any of that has to do the tsunami.

If your spirit (and I will be polite for the time being, and not refer to it as a figment of your imagination) is omnipotent, then it was within his power to stop the tsunami.

As he choose not to, 300,000 people died - I'd tend to call that a bad thing - and I'd tend to call an entity which had within its remit the power to stop 300,000 people dying, but decided not to, an evil entity.

Therefore, if your spirit exists, he is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent.

It is logically impossible for a god as Christianity depicts him to exist (i.e., both omnipotent AND benevolent) - although, of course, that does not of itself prove the non-existence of ANY conceivable god or gods.

 

[melon]

First off, I certainly respect non-belief, so I'm not looking to change any minds here.

Nonetheless, I think the question of "why God lets bad things happen" or how an omnipotent and benevolent being that allows bad things to happen must be neither is tainted with "human" understandings of "perfection."

As I've said before here, I believe that the conventional human definition of "perfection" and the hypothetical definition of "true perfection" are very different.

For example, we know that the universe, Earth, and absolutely everything follows very defined scientific and mathematical laws--no exception. Now obviously, as advanced as we are, we don't know all of these laws, but what we know for sure is that what we're "discovering" is merely something that has been occurring for billions of years on it own and will occur for many trillions of years after us, the Earth, the solar system, the Sun, and even the Milky Way galaxy are long gone. As such, you could argue that science and mathematics, itself, is the defining definition of "perfection," inasmuch as it has allowed our planet to sustain complex lifeforms and has allowed us to exist.

As we all know too, those same scientific processes that have allowed Earth to be what it is today are not inherently benevolent either. We have tectonic processes that allow for destructive earthquakes and volcanism. We have weather patterns that allow for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, extreme heat and extreme cold. We have an ecosystem that thrives on the death of everything to survive, whether that be larger and/or smarter creatures eating smaller and/or dumber creatures. Likewise, we have tiny microbes that exist, whose "life" can mean our death (i.e., infectious agents, parasites). And all of this has meant that we have a whole number of things that can potentially kill a great number of people at any given moment....

...yet take away any one of these factors, and we would likely not be here at all. No tectonic processes? We'd be as dead as Mars. Extreme weather? Well, blame that on the Moon for putting us on an axis that creates extremes. However, it has been noted that cold weather, for instance, allowed for industrious cultures separate from agrarian society. As such, without the Moon that helps create weather extremes, modern Western civilization may never have been dreamed up; after all, what would have been the need for it?

But what about parasites and infectious agents? What could possibly make those things positive? Well, for one, they have been the driving force of the evolution of life. Without them, we would quite likely still be nothing more than single-celled organisms. It is called the "survival of the fittest" for a reason. And, okay, you could argue that human evolution has "ended" (although that's increasingly appearing to be wrong), so what's the purpose of it now? As awful and horrible as mass pandemics are, and, as a civilized society, we should be doing everything in our power and technology to prevent and/or stop them, the wealth of modern Europe, and, by extension, Western civilization would not have existed without the Black Death. Europe was overpopulated, with land being poorly managed and little room for agriculture before the Black Death. Although the disease plunged Europe into virtual chaos for well over a century, after the disease had subsided, Europe was then able to use large tracts of vacated land for better agricultural practices and economic opportunities, setting the stage for European prosperity. As we can see in some parts of our world today, overpopulation can be a huge problem.

So ask yourselves: why would a theoretically "omnipotent and benevolent" deity allow bad things to happen? Because the alternatives are worse. "Perfection" is not having everything that you want; it's accepting that everything is as it is supposed to be.

 

[melon]

I didn't mean every bad thing is a trade off for a sin. I was saying that bad things in general came to be because sin came into the world.

This ends up being a good extension to my argument of "human perfection" versus "true perfection." The original Greek and Hebrew words that we translate to be "sin" literally meant "imperfection."

Again, though, I ask how much of these "imperfections" are flawed human expectations of getting everything that they want as meaning "perfection." If we are to state that "free will" is, like science and mathematics, inherently "perfect," then to have a hypothetical world where people are flat out incapable of bending or breaking the rules means that we do not have "free will."

Alright, you might be asking yourself what's the point of "free will" if we're allowed to do "bad things" to each other? Call that an unfortunate price to pay for progress. If we merely sat down and did what we were told, unquestioningly, by our leaders, then we would still probably be living in primitive tribal societies that would be most certainly totalitarian in nature.

In other words, our capability for both "greatness" and "badness" is tied to a similar trait: passion. Without passion, and, thus, competition, we would not be what we are, as a civilization. Granted, there are downright terrible and despicable things that people do to each other...but to change the laws of nature to make us incapable of "disobedience" thus eliminates free will, and we're back to an unquestioning tribal society. As such, it becomes an issue of "the cure" being far worse than "the disease" itself.

 

[Irvine511]

First off, I certainly respect non-belief, so I'm not looking to change any minds here.

Nonetheless, I think the question of "why God lets bad things happen" or how an omnipotent and benevolent being that allows bad things to happen must be neither is tainted with "human" understandings of "perfection."

As I've said before here, I believe that the conventional human definition of "perfection" and the hypothetical definition of "true perfection" are very different.

i take the points, and tend to agree with you, but this seems to go against notions that are often espoused of "God's Plan" -- which strikes me as a human invention, and it also doesn't explain why many faith experiences, which are so predicated upon creating a personal relationship with God, of seeking God's help in all things, in seeking God's reasoning in all things, in seeking God's help through difficult times, in praising God when things go well, really don't have a way to grapple with mass tragedy.

i know why tsunamis happen. i know why earthquakes happen. what i don't know is why the God that many people of faith priase so regularly for so many things allows such terrible things to happen when, according to this faith system, he's fully capable of stopping them.

why do people praise God when they managed to miss the flight that crashed, but not blame him for the 200 people that died?

it just seems to me that these attitudes, these non-doubting attitudes, these attitudes that tell us to praise God even when terrible things happen for it is all His will and who are we to understand, are products of a highly privileged Western society where bad things really don't tend to happen and tragedy is little more than anthropology and something from which to draw a bit of fortune cookie anecdotal wisdom.

 

[phillyfan26]

I personally believe in a God who doesn't intervene.

 

[melon]

why do people praise God when they managed to miss the flight that crashed, but not blame him for the 200 people that died?

Because that's what people do, I guess. People give credit and blame to God for all sorts of things. As for how much God has to do with any of it? Who knows, but it's human nature.

If I didn't make this clear before, let me say it here. If "God" was capable of creating scientific and mathematical laws of such immense detail and complexity, He's probably capable of intervening if He chooses. Yet, I've outlined why such "intervention," while conforming to human expectations of "perfection," would be less desirable than we'd imagine.

In terms of our daily lives, I'm not sure how much of it involves "intervention" of any kind. Most of what we do are the result of "stimuli" of some kind. And thousands of years of "collective stimuli," being the result of free actions of mankind, we have the society that we have today. That plane that crashed? It's the price we pay for having built the plane; we know every time that we fly that x% will crash and people will die. Yet, we fly with the knowledge that the benefits outweigh the risks. I'm not sure where "God" is present in any of this, directly. It merely is what it is.

As for how much of life, in general, really involves God's intervention and how much involves "folk wisdom"? I'm not here to answer that question, because no answer to that question is really based on anything conclusive. My point is to say that "God" can be all-powerful and knowing--and still let what we consider to be "bad things" happen. But, as I have explained, what we consider to be "bad things" might not be so "bad" in the greater scheme of things, which is why God would theoretically not intervene at all.

 

[Irvine511]

at the outset, let me say that i agree that God doesn't much factor into plane crashes. but that's my opinion, and others can and do disagree.

i guess i'm still concerned when we talk about suffering in aggregate -- i can't think of a more individualized experience than suffering, yet we tend to view mass suffering, be it tsunami or holocaust, as part of a greater learning experience for us all. and while i'd agree that there is much to be learned from *why* humans suffer, the experience itself is often brushed to the side and ignored because it's simply too unpleasant to actually deal with. and when viewed on a micro level, it seems incredibly cruel to view one indivdual's suffering as part of a larger process. others suffer so that i might make observations of human advancement towards perfection?

let me take something that i've talked about in the past -- this accident that occured when i was a sophomore in high school. to be graphic, since i think we have to be graphic if we're going to genuinely talk about human suffering, two girls were killed. one was decapitated, the other had her arms ripped off and bled to death in the street. are we really to imagine a God who is, in effect, standing over a dying 15 year old girl and saying, in effect, "i know this hurts and you're never going to grow up and graduate and get married and have kids and go to China, but trust me, it's all part of a process, lots of kids in your class are going to be more cautious drivers from now on, so i know it's a bummer, and i suppose i could have given you a quick 24-hour flu so you would have been too ill to go to the movies with your firends, but it will be over soon, and trust me, it's all totally worth it. and don't worry, i'll tell your mother that her only child is dead because i want it that way."

when all human beings have is their own experience, their own flesh and blood, the intense precariousness of that flesh and blood, their own limited capabilities of understanding, why torture them with this?

 

[melon]

at the outset, let me say that i agree that God doesn't much factor into plane crashes. but that's my opinion, and others can and do disagree.

i guess i'm still concerned when we talk about suffering in aggregate -- i can't think of a more individualized experience than suffering, yet we tend to view mass suffering, be it tsunami or holocaust, as part of a greater learning experience for us all. and while i'd agree that there is much to be learned from *why* humans suffer, the experience itself is often brushed to the side and ignored because it's simply too unpleasant to actually deal with. and when viewed on a micro level, it seems incredibly cruel to view one indivdual's suffering as part of a larger process. others suffer so that i might make observations of human advancement towards perfection?

let me take something that i've talked about in the past -- this accident that occured when i was a sophomore in high school. to be graphic, since i think we have to be graphic if we're going to genuinely talk about human suffering, two girls were killed. one was decapitated, the other had her arms ripped off and bled to death in the street. are we really to imagine a God who is, in effect, standing over a dying 15 year old girl and saying, in effect, "i know this hurts and you're never going to grow up and graduate and get married and have kids and go to China, but trust me, it's all part of a process, lots of kids in your class are going to be more cautious drivers from now on, so i know it's a bummer, and i suppose i could have given you a quick 24-hour flu so you would have been too ill to go to the movies with your firends, but it will be over soon, and trust me, it's all totally worth it. and don't worry, i'll tell your mother that her only child is dead because i want it that way."

when all human beings have is their own experience, their own flesh and blood, the intense precariousness of that flesh and blood, their own limited capabilities of understanding, why torture them with this?

It's not about "human advancement towards perfection," because we, inherently, have nothing "to advance to." The "perfection" is not in the goal, but in the laws and rules that allow us to reach that arbitrary goal.

Let's look at a black hole, for instance. As far as we're concerned in our daily lives, this is as useless as it gets. We know it exists, we can observe some vague properties of it, but as to "why" it exists? Who the fuck knows, and the fact that no "information" can ever escape a black hole, we will forever be forced to conjecture. So would I say that a black hole, in itself, is "perfect"? No, but the processes that allow black holes to exist are "perfect" in that they are bound to the same scientific laws that permit everything else, including ourselves, to exist.

So, using those graphic situations as the example here, are they awful? Yes, no question. Did God stand up there and directly order this to happen? No. Did God create everything that allowed humanity to create these situations? Yes. God created us with the free will and high intelligence, so that we could create the cars that allowed those girls to, most unfortunately, die. But everyday that we drive, we know that x% of cars each day crash, and people are maimed and killed; we drive anyway, because, again, the benefits outweigh the risks.

Think of it this way. If all creation was like this website, God would have created HTML, PHP, MySQL programming languages to create this website. And those languages, for purposes of this example, would be "perfect" in that they allow us to create whatever we can possibly imagine within the built-in constraints of computer hardware (laws of nature; i.e., you can use programming languages to create whatever you want to work in your computer, just like you can create what you want, as long as they stay true to the laws of science and mathematics). So if God "created" the programming languages of life, humans did all the programming, and we're responsible for all of our grand successes and huge failures collectively. Certainly, with the "programming languages" that "God gave us," you're going to have some people creating "computer viruses" or "e-mail spam," but you don't blame the language; you blame the human manipulating the code.

Does this make sense at all?

(If I had to guess, probably not, but, at least I can say that I've probably written the geekiest thing that I've ever written right here and now. )

 

[Irvine511]

it does make sense. but i think we're mixing two different things. i understand your understanding, and it makes sense to me. what doesn't make sense to me, and what i'm trying to hammer on, are these sentimental notions of "God's Plan" and how we're to have what seems to be an intensely personal relationship with him, and how individualized human suffering is part of said "plan."

basically, if you think God controls everything, and that nothing happens that isn't part of his Will or Plan, then how do we confront evil and suffering and the whole WBTHTGP phenomenon? and i think the answers become less pat when we confront genuine suffering at it's most basic and grinding level.

it seems to me that there's a cruelty embedded in the very condition of being human, and i'm wondering why it's there to begin with, if we're supposed to be all "in his image" and stuff, and if he loves so much and wants us to chat with him everyday though some sort of celestial IM.

having both been through a relatively mild trauma and working on projects where i come very, very close to massive trauma, death, gore, etc., and deal with individuals who deal with this on a daily basis like police officers and EMTs (though they seem to have trained themselves to not get so reflective), i am genuinely troubled by the human capacity for suffering. we talk about the human capacity for good or for evil, but there's something about being constructed of flesh and nerve endings and the existence of pain that i find incredibly unsettling, almost a big, sadistic joke. like we've been set up, somehow, and i don't think we really deal with this horrible reality.

and i'm babbling. i should wash up and go to bed.

 

[yolland]

This is a really rewarding exchange to watch. I don't have much to add right now, but this discussion exemplifies the kind of thing I look forward to coming here for.

it just seems to me that these attitudes, these non-doubting attitudes, these attitudes that tell us to praise God even when terrible things happen for it is all His will and who are we to understand, are products of a highly privileged Western society where bad things really don't tend to happen and tragedy is little more than anthropology and something from which to draw a bit of fortune cookie anecdotal wisdom.

I think that may be a bit harsh--I have known people who lived through 'mass suffering' and nonetheless believe more or less the way you describe, and it's not because someone handed them a fortune cookie or some clerical equivalent of a used car salesman gave them some pretty speech telling them just what they needed to hear, and they were simple people so they lapped it up and poof! problem fixed. Rather that after months or years of living alone in their heads with forms of anguish and torment I couldn't begin to comprehend, they 'simply' concluded that this is truly what they believe. I think maybe as much as a reawakening of faith in humanity as in God really; finding accountability to the one within the other. If someone wants to say, "Poor things, if that's the crutch that helps them, let them have it" then that's their right, but I don't say that; to me that's in its own way as aloof and callous as beating back the questions altogether with an easy "Ah but that was man's doing, not God's" or "Someday all will be made clear to us". I'm not saying I understand it, or suggesting anyone else should--it doesn't work for me either; my view of the universe is more like melon's, if maybe a bit more agnostic about God's connection to the 'laws' governing it. And I do agree there seems to be something discomfitingly wrong with anyone who, as one who claims God exists and that that means something wondrous, can look at footage from death camps, flood zones, trauma centers or the like and not be chilled to the bone by the absence of (abandonment by?) God in what they're seeing (though when it's thrust at them as "Justify THIS!" that almost invites it, and perhaps the 'benign' naïveté you described comes in here also). Because what's that all-important relationship worth in moments like that, really? For the sufferer, probably pretty much nothing, and I can't imagine God reaps too many rewards from it either. Part of what intrigues me about this MT book is that I gather it addresses the idea that the despair occasioned by repeatedly contemplating profound suffering, the rawest of vulnerabilities, and the devastating isolation which accompanies all that is itself a form of experience of God as 'direct' as any associated with joy and intense feelings of interconnectedness. It's an idea which has always fascinated me--if that's the appropriate word; I don't say that it's a good or wise experience to intentionally immerse yourself in perpetually.

 

[nathan1977]

it just seems to me that these attitudes, these non-doubting attitudes, these attitudes that tell us to praise God even when terrible things happen for it is all His will and who are we to understand, are products of a highly privileged Western society where bad things really don't tend to happen and tragedy is little more than anthropology and something from which to draw a bit of fortune cookie anecdotal wisdom.

If we go based on this logic, then the places where there is no privilege and plenty of tragedy would be actively fleeing God. But how then do you explain the explosion of faith -- specifically Christianity -- in places like sub-Saharan Africa? On a missions trip there last year, witnessing miracles on the order I've never seen, a child said to one of the doctors there, "You people in the West want God. Here, we need Him."

 

[nathan1977]

basically, if you think God controls everything, and that nothing happens that isn't part of his Will or Plan, then how do we confront evil and suffering and the whole WBTHTGP phenomenon? and i think the answers become less pat when we confront genuine suffering at it's most basic and grinding level.

I agree with you -- the answers become less pat because they become more profound. The nature of free will means living with the results of decisions I've made, which means that -- in some insane way -- I have been invited to become an active partner in human history, for better or worse. Which makes the pain we inflict on each other each day -- whether psychological, spiritual, sexual, or emotional -- all the more intense.

there's something about being constructed of flesh and nerve endings and the existence of pain that i find incredibly unsettling, almost a big, sadistic joke. like we've been set up, somehow, and i don't think we really deal with this horrible reality.

What's the old saying -- only those who love deeply hurt deeply. Our sensitivity to both pleasure and pain is what makes us human, I suppose -- and would we really sacrifice the promise of pleasure for the threat of pain?

As an aside, a book I read in high school, when I was going through the first of several spiritual crises, was really good on this subject -- "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis. Read in conjunction with "A Grief Observed," it paints a vivid portrait of a believer who experiences among the deepest pain anyone can.

 

[BonosSaint]

I think the message I take home from these exchanges is that while belief in God may be beneficial, God himself is useless.

Entitled to maybe some grudging respect for past laurels, but vulnerable to the challenge What now, Old Man?

That's not a challenge to those who believe, but a challenge to God himself.

 

[nathan1977]

I think the message I take home from these exchanges is that while belief in God may be beneficial, God himself is useless.

Actually, I rather think the opposite -- for me, following the Scriptures without knowing the Author is useless, since so much of (Christian) belief centers on the identity of Christ, the Personhood of God, and His desire for relationship with us. The whole book is less a book of rules (although there are certainly some) than it is a love story to His people, and love needs both a lover and beloved. I think this is one of the reasons why there is so much hypocrisy in Christianity -- people take the book without the Author. When that happens, you can apply whatever truths you want -- and unfortunately for a lot of Christians, that leads to self-righteousness, pride, and judgmentalism.

Entitled to maybe some grudging respect for past laurels, but vulnerable to the challenge What now, Old Man?

Given how much suffering we humans inflict on each other every day, and given that there are more opportunities than ever for us to completely annihilate ourselves at any given opportunity, I would hesitate to imagine a world where His hand was stayed completely.

 

[Irvine511]

The whole book is less a book of rules (although there are certainly some) than it is a love story to His people, and love needs both a lover and beloved.

i don't have the time to get into anything in-depth (will get to that later tonight) but this struck me. i can see the Jesus "story" as something of a love story, but do you see the God of the OT as loving his people? the angry, wrathful, smiting, petty, jealous, genocidal God who doesn't think twice about wiping out the planet with a flood if he is displeased?



[q]Given how much suffering we humans inflict on each other every day, and given that there are more opportunities than ever for us to completely annihilate ourselves at any given opportunity, I would hesitate to imagine a world where His hand was stayed completely.[/q]

but how much suffering is inflicted in "His" name? i guess i think, as Yolland mentioned, we can only go so far with the whole "God doesn't kill people, people kill people" refrain. many, many look at the blueprint of their religion and see it as not just an excuse, but a justification for hatred and suspicion that can turn murderous, and they can just as easily point at you and call you something akin to a false prophet because you take a different approach. and, i think the question still stands -- if you do think that His hand intervenes in the world, where is he when we most need it? where is it in Darfur? in Iraq? on the beaches of Sumatra or Sri Lanka? in Chechnya?

the other thing i'll add to this is that i recommend everyone check out the website, and perhaps order the video, of an oustanding PBS Frontline documentary, "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero."

it addresses much of this. and it's superb.

 

[Irvine511]

and because i can't resist, let me toss out one quote from Ian McEwan that gets to the heart of what i think i'm trying to get at, though i don't share his atheism:

[q]But I think my cumulative experience of life suggests to me that the distribution of misfortune is completely random. Children die of cancer and bad people live a long time. Good people get crushed by a truck. ...

In other words, if there is a God, he's a very indifferent God. The idea of prayer seems to me almost infantile, this appeal to an entity who could intervene -- who clearly hasn't intervened. Or if he has intervened, he's done so malignedly. It sort of makes me rather feel sad when I heard priests talking about Sept. 11 and reminding us that God moves in mysterious ways. Well, spare me this God, I say. I prefer to regard this in human terms.

When those planes hit those buildings and thousands of innocent people died and tens, twenties, hundreds of thousands of people started to grieve, I felt, more than ever, confirmed in my unbelief. What God, what loving God, could possibly allow this to happen? I find no resource at all in the idea, and it saddened me to see, hear, listen to priests tell us that their "sky god" had some particular purpose in letting this happen, but it was not for us to know it. It just seemed to me sort of irrelevant, at least. And I could probably think of stronger words for it -- an offense to reason really. We have to understand the events of September the 11th in human terms. ... The healing process, too, is one that's in our hands. It's not in the hands of the "sky gods." It's only for us to try and work it out.[/q]

 

[nathan1977]

i don't have the time to get into anything in-depth (will get to that later tonight) but this struck me. i can see the Jesus "story" as something of a love story, but do you see the God of the OT as loving his people?

I do, actually. Throughout the OT you can see incredible promises of blessing that stem from a relationship with God, and consistent human unfaithfulness. Yet no matter how unfaithful we are, how willing we are to engage in patterns that ultimately lead us into bondage and slavery, God always brings us back. He does not spare His people the results of their wandering (if He did, we really would be mindless automatons, wouldn't we?), but He always tries to move them towards a future filled with hope. Jeremiah is an amazing book filled with both God's heartbreak at how far His people have wandered from Him, to the point where they have become captives in Babylon, but also incredible words of love and promise that He will bring them home again.

but how much suffering is inflicted in "His" name? i guess i think, as Yolland mentioned, we can only go so far with the whole "God doesn't kill people, people kill people" refrain.

Two thoughts on this. I'm not sure how much of the suffering inflicted by God's name can actually attributed to God himself. I don't think humans need much of a reason to kill each other. Tribalism, money, religion -- people will use whatever reasons they can to subjugate each other, and have throughout time. Again, it's my belief that when people live outside of relationship with the Author of the Scriptures they're quoting, those verses can say pretty much whatever anyone wants them to say, and can justify whatever base human desires they want to.

The second thought is that I think we are naive to assume that God is the only force working in the universe, and if we accept the existence of a Being devoted to working for good, then it's only logical to assume there must be an opposite opponent.

i think the question still stands -- if you do think that His hand intervenes in the world, where is he when we most need it? where is it in Darfur? in Iraq? on the beaches of Sumatra or Sri Lanka? in Chechnya?

You brought up 9/11. I remember on that day how newscasters repeatedly talking about how no one knew how many tens of thousands of people were in those buildings. And in the weeks that followed, as story after story came out about people who should have been in the office that day and weren't, for one reason or another, it struck me that perhaps that is the measure of God's grace -- not that bad things don't happen, but that bad things are not as horrible as they could be.

Have you seen "God Sleeps in Rwanda"? It's an incredible documentary, Oscar-nominated a couple of years ago, and includes stories from women who were affected by the genocide whose faith should have been eradicated, but wasn't. And the stories of God moving in Africa are profound. And knowing missionaries who are on the ground in Iraq and Chechnya and Darfur, trying to feed and house and clothe refugees and those in poverty, I can say that He is there too -- oftentimes having to work against the darkest excesses of our own broken humanity. For better or worse, He has given us agency in our world, and it's frightening to see how we have used it.

I don't recall the interview where Bono talks about how in essence it was us who threw God out of the Garden at the start of time, but I think that sets up an interesting prism through which to look at the relationship ever since.

 

[Irvine511]

I do, actually. Throughout the OT you can see incredible promises of blessing that stem from a relationship with God, and consistent human unfaithfulness. Yet no matter how unfaithful we are, how willing we are to engage in patterns that ultimately lead us into bondage and slavery, God always brings us back. He does not spare His people the results of their wandering (if He did, we really would be mindless automatons, wouldn't we?), but He always tries to move them towards a future filled with hope. Jeremiah is an amazing book filled with both God's heartbreak at how far His people have wandered from Him, to the point where they have become captives in Babylon, but also incredible words of love and promise that He will bring them home again.

and when they disobey, he kills them all?





[q]Two thoughts on this. I'm not sure how much of the suffering inflicted by God's name can actually attributed to God himself. I don't think humans need much of a reason to kill each other. Tribalism, money, religion -- people will use whatever reasons they can to subjugate each other, and have throughout time. Again, it's my belief that when people live outside of relationship with the Author of the Scriptures they're quoting, those verses can say pretty much whatever anyone wants them to say, and can justify whatever base human desires they want to.[/q]


this, i think, dances around the earlier question of just how much we can blame on people, and how much we can actually blame on God/religion/The Bible. if it's invoked so often as a means of justification for all sorts of horrible behavior, isn't there something about the source material that makes it such an easy rationale?




[q]The second thought is that I think we are naive to assume that God is the only force working in the universe, and if we accept the existence of a Being devoted to working for good, then it's only logical to assume there must be an opposite opponent.[/q]


this seems to me to be a contradiction of your earlier assertions of free will -- for if the Devil makes us do it, does that mean we have free will?








[q]You brought up 9/11. I remember on that day how newscasters repeatedly talking about how no one knew how many tens of thousands of people were in those buildings. And in the weeks that followed, as story after story came out about people who should have been in the office that day and weren't, for one reason or another, it struck me that perhaps that is the measure of God's grace -- not that bad things don't happen, but that bad things are not as horrible as they could be.[/q]


we can all look at the bright side of a plane crash or a car wreck (hey, there were four girls in the car, but only the two in the back were torn to pieces), but that seems like we're making excuses for our abusive spouse. he only threw me down the stairs, at least he didn't hit me with a baseball bat! it just seems terribly co-dependent and automaton-humble when the end result is you still had 3,000 people incinerated and crushed on a random Tuesday morning.



[q]Have you seen "God Sleeps in Rwanda"? It's an incredible documentary, Oscar-nominated a couple of years ago, and includes stories from women who were affected by the genocide whose faith should have been eradicated, but wasn't. And the stories of God moving in Africa are profound. And knowing missionaries who are on the ground in Iraq and Chechnya and Darfur, trying to feed and house and clothe refugees and those in poverty, I can say that He is there too -- oftentimes having to work against the darkest excesses of our own broken humanity. For better or worse, He has given us agency in our world, and it's frightening to see how we have used it.[/q]


i haven't seen the film, but i have heard of it, and i'd need you to be more specific when you talk about how god is "there" in these places, or the "miracles" you've spoken of -- it seems to me that if something not-horrible happens, it's possible to take it as evidence of God's love for us. it becomes very horoscope-like. we take events and work them so that they fit the narrative we've already decided is correct -- that God loves us and is working on our behalf -- and it's less that i think that is incorrect (it could be, as an agnostic i won't dismiss the idea) and more that i don't think it holds logical water because it becomes incredibly subjective.

and for every person who's been through the fire and found God -- and i know there are many -- there are others who've been through the fire and decided that, no, there's no there there. i wrote a journal entry on this a while back, and not that i'm at all comparing my experience to the greater calamities of human history, the experience of physical trauma left me more alienated to notions of a supranatural force and more in touch with the precariousness of the flesh, and how it is the flesh that produces consciousness and self-awareness, that it is all biologcially based, that nothing is external.

but that was my experience, and it was thankfully not as serious as it could have been.

and as a counterpoint to the Rawandan documentary, here's a quote from Dasha Rittenberg, a Holocaust survivor who had a different reaction to human savagery:

[q]I can only describe evil by giving you what I remember. Not what I read in books, but what I with my own eyes and ears heard and saw. Evil. What happened to my parents? They were the last people to leave the ghetto and they were taken to Auschwitz. I know that they were burned into ashes. My mother, my father, my three brothers, my younger sister, my uncles, my aunts, their children, burned into ashes. That's all I have seen in humanity is evil. I have seen hangings. I have seen shootings. I saw one man, his name was Mischka. He was a Ukranian. He was drunk. He would just go killing every single day. He had to have his blood on his hands -- Jewish blood. Evil. You want to hear more? So? All the ghetto life, the hunger, the poverty, the lice that were crawling on my body. Evil. Evil people just patting their dogs and then killing a child because it was Jewish. Evil? OK? Hitting, slapping, for no reason, because you were not even in line with the next person. Being hit by dogs and bitten -- the blood running out of your feet. Evil. People would go to sleep every night and get up in the morning and eat and drink and be evil. Were they too created in the image of God? I don't know. What does it say about God?[/q]

I don't recall the interview where Bono talks about how in essence it was us who threw God out of the Garden at the start of time, but I think that sets up an interesting prism through which to look at the relationship ever since.

so, again, bad things happen because we are bad? Grandma gets cancer because she's been bad? because others have been bad?

 

[coemgen]

Wow. The discussion continues.

I just read this great blog at www.relevantmagazine.com on this subject. Here it is.

Doubting Teresa
Posted on August 30, 2007
Filed Under Jason Boyett |
I read with great interest the recent news about Mother Teresa’s battle against doubt and uncertainty in her faith. In a new collection of her letters called Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (which releases on Tuesday, Sept. 4), readers will apparently get an intimate, transparent look into the emotions and spirit of one of the most revered religious figures of the 20th century. Most of us have been pretty surprised at what these letters reveal. The famed nun — a woman who dedicated her life to serving the poorest of India’s poor in the name of Christ — tells of her nearly lifelong struggle with spiritual emptiness and the silence of God.
There’s been plenty of bloggy commentary about the contents of the book, most of which hit news cycles a few days ago to ramp up the book’s publicity campaign. Some have criticized the publisher for exposing these obviously private (and pain-filled) letters to the public — Teresa apparently wanted them destroyed, but the Vatican held onto them as the potential relics of a saint-to-be — but I’m thrilled to read them, because they give me hope. Here’s an excerpt:
If there be God – please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul… How painful is this unknown pain – I have no Faith.

“Thrilled” is probably the wrong word to use in relation to someone’s private spiritual pain. No one wishes spiritual emptiness on anyone else, particularly those of us who struggle with it from time to time. I don’t rejoice in her suffering, just as I don’t rejoice in my own doubt and spiritual dryness. But I have hope because “I have no faith” is a statement I can identify with. It tells me that Mother Teresa, the super-Christian, was just as human as me.
Mother Teresa has always been an inspiration to me, but she was so high up on a spiritual pedestal that I could hardly relate, a living icon of sacrificial love and the simple life of a Christ-follower. Say what you will about the canonization process and merits of sainthood, but she had serious credentials. Decades of sacrificial service, selflessness, and heart-breaking work on behalf of the “least of these.” Wisdom. Compassion. Simplicity. Perspective. All things I aspire to, and all things she seems to have had in spades.
And yet we have this one thing — this spiritual darkness — in common. My darkness comes and goes. Some days I trust completely in the life and resurrection of Jesus and am deeply committed to the radical fullness of life in the kingdom of God. But some days I find myself…wondering. Wondering why some people seem to have a broadband connection to the voice of the Almighty when all I’m getting is the crackly static of some distant AM station. Wondering why some people are overcome with emotion during what they consider to be a Spirit-filled worship time, while I’m just thinking, “Boy, the worship leader sure knows how to use a good key change and drum crescendo to good effect.” Wondering why some days my prayer life consists of little more than a mumbled recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or the Shema, while others are not content unless their prayers are also accompanied by shouting and weeping.
My doubt and uncertainty have been constant companions ever since my college days, when I started reading more widely and studying more theology and breaking out of the Southern Baptist bubble in which I grew up. But it seems that Teresa dealt with her doubt from as early as 1953. She died in 1997. That’s nearly 45 years of crackly static.
Does this darkness cast any doubt — pun, unfortunately, intended — on the possibilities of her sainthood? I’d be surprised if it did. Because as impressed as I was with her before these letters were made public, I’m more impressed now. She worked and lived and suffered for God for decades, even though the felt presence of God was virtually absent from her life. She gave and gave and gave — pouring herself out on behalf of others — with almost nothing available to fill her back up. She felt abandoned by the God who had called her to such a difficult ministry, and yet she continued in that ministry for the rest of her life.
Abraham dealt with God’s absence for large periods of his life. Job asked hard questions of God with few answers (at least, until the whirlwind). David wrote psalm after psalm bemoaning the Lord’s hidden-ness. “How long will You hide Your face from me?” he asked in Psalm 13. In Gethsemane, Jesus questioned God’s plan — I’ve always read “take this cup from me” (Mark 14:36) as a statement along the lines of “isn’t there any other way?” — and notably dealt with God’s absence on the cross. The disciples even doubted the risen Christ when he appeared to them post-resurrection.
And now, we learn that Mother Teresa doubted, too. A lot.
So why are we so afraid of doubt? No one ever seems to talk about it at church. We put on our happy Best Life Now (TM) masks and shiny spirituality and sing our way through another couple of verses of the latest victorious praise song and don’t tell anyone we’re struggling with uncertainty. Why? Probably because it scares us: we think maybe our faith is unraveling. It’s messy: we’re not willing to admit we don’t have it all together. It’s socially unacceptable: I’ve been to churches that publicly ask you to “leave your doubt at the door,” because a doubting spirit can, according to their theology, mess up the effectiveness of prayer.
But the story of Mother Teresa — along with the stories of Jesus and David and Abraham — gives me hope. It lets me know I’m not alone. It gives me the freedom to be real, to admit I’m not always tight with the Almighty. And it reminds me of grace. I’m not saved because my theology is rock-solid. I’m not saved because of the certainty of my faith. I’m not saved because God always feels real to me. Nope. I’m saved because of Jesus.
So was Mother Teresa, the patron saint of doubters.

 

[Irvine511]

i still don't get the "saved/not saved" obsession.

do people realize how patronizing that is to non-Christians?

 

[BVS]

do people realize how patronizing that is to non-Christians?

Some people just don't care.

It sickens me.

 

[coemgen]

i still don't get the "saved/not saved" obsession.

do people realize how patronizing that is to non-Christians?

What don't you get about it? That's the whole point of becoming a Christian -- to be saved from your sins. That's why Christ came.

Also, keep in mind the article I posted was written for a Christian magazine, so of course the audience identifies with the saved part. So in this case it's not an "obsession." Does that make sense?

And actually, what the author says toward the end is incredibly beautiful and he's right. The promise of salvation isn't made based on our feelings, or theology, lack of doubt or anything else. It's based on the work of Christ on the cross and our acceptance of that. That's it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

i still don't get the "saved/not saved" obsession.

do people realize how patronizing that is to non-Christians?

Is there supposed to be an expectation that they shouldn't be?