This year I’ve tried reading the Bible, but to say I have found it hard going would be a an understatement. I feel like a teenager reading Shakespeare for a class they don’t enjoy. The language is hard, the context is harder, and for me the whole experience is about as enjoyable as going to the dentist.

One problem I have is that despite the fact I enjoy writing, I have never particularly enjoyed reading. I read dreadfully slowly and struggle to remember anything from the pages of a book. A paperback that might take you just a few evenings to breeze through could likely take me many weeks to complete. I often re-read chapters I have already read, sometimes because I need to remind myself of where I was up to, but often because I simply don’t realise I have already read the chapter until some key element reminds me.

In my adult life I am embarrassed to admit that I have read no more than five books from cover to cover. In truth I just don’t find the process of reading books an enjoyable and rewarding way to spend my time.

Another problem is that the Bible isn’t exactly a book you can just pick up and read. It’s not supposed to be fiction, but at the same time there’s a things in it that are hard to accept as fact. If you start in Genesis and just read you quickly become bogged down in some, if I may be blunt, really boring genealogical lifeless blurge which surely could sap the enthusiasm of even the most fervent Bible reader.

“In order to understand the old testament you need learn about it’s context.” One Christian told me. But wait a second, I need to read a book and become a quasi-expert on middle eastern history and culture before I can understand the Bible?

When I picked up Douglas Coupland’s ‘Girlfriend in a Coma’ I didn’t have to read another book to put the characters and places into context. I simply picked up the book and started reading it, the characters, scenes and essential background information quickly became apparent.

Another Christian told me to “ignore the old testament.” Ignore it? Hang on a second, the old testament makes up a significantly large and weighty part of my Bible. If it were simply meant to be ignored then why include it in the first place? Am I to understand that the old testament is something akin to your appendix?

I have a copy of ‘The Message,’ it’s a new testament Bible written in contemporary English. I’m going to try and read that, but what if that similarly doesn’t grab me? Is reading the Bible more like reading an instruction manual or unwieldy user guide? Right now you’re reading the words of a guy who tries to build Ikea furniture with only the briefest look at the simple instructions, so if the Bible is just a manual then I think maybe someone needs to bring out the Ikea illustrated version complete with pictures, numbered items, and left over screws!

I’ll give ‘The Message’ a try. I’ll say a prayer before I read it. It won’t be some big wordy ‘thee’s, thou’s and thy’s’ kind of prayer, just a quick word. “Hey God, you chose terrible authors for your biogrophy, if any book needs a miracle then I think it’s yours!” Maybe I won’t say exactly that, I might just skip to the miracle bit, what do you think? Perhaps if you believe in God you could say a prayer for me too.

—

Get ‘Who the hell is God?’ delivered to you by Email

Comments

• April 26, 2009, Shawn Meyer writes: Simon, Great stuff! I truly enjoy your style. Let us remember that the Bible is a compilation of writings. Each writing unique in its own right and many written by different people. A compilation of writings put together to form a book is not necessarily best read as a book. Based on what you've indicated, I would recommend beginning with either Matthew or John. The Old Testament makes up 77% of the Bible, and therefore must not be ignored in my opinion. However, there may be a better time for you to tackle that. A friend told me the other day that she read the New Testament twice before reading The Old Testament. She said that it wasn't until she read The Old Testament however, that she truly began to understand why the events described in The New (Jesus' death, resurrection, our salvation, etc...) were necessary. I love your quest! You are obviously an excellent "Thinker". May I suggest the attempt to understand with your heart? Proverbs 3:5 (NIV)" Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; " I think this verse is trying to tell us that our understanding alone, as humans, may not be enough. Could it be possible that if we allowed a slight bit of the "Feeler" in us to surface, our understanding may grow? Just a thought....Blessings!
• April 26, 2009, Existential Punk writes: i have been a Christ-follower for over 20 years and have never read the Bible all the way through. i have read alot of it but find it rather boring for the most part. It's not meant to be read or taken as Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (BIBLE) but rather i think as a story of G-D interacting with creation. The Message is decent for a paraphrase version. i am a slow reader too and my comprehension and memory is bad due to Chronic Lyme Disease affecting my cognitive abilities. Don't worry if you find the Bible boring. i imagine if most people were really honest, they'd feel the same way! G-D is more than words written on paper and formed into a canon by men with different political, cultural, theological, etc. motivations. All the best to you! Warmest Regards, EP
• April 27, 2009, Glenn writes: I've struggled with this my whole life. Different translations have helped...I enjoy The Message, but sometimes feel it is a more shallow reading than I might get otherwise. I have really enjoyed the TNIV (Today's New International Version) because it is written with a lot of original language study, but uses language that is more in line with contemporary uses of English (gender inclusiveness, modern words, etc). While I wouldn't suggest you skip the OT, geneologies are probably less "formative" for folks today. For me the stuff about Jesus is always the most challenging and most satisfying, whether it's the Gospels or OT prophet like Isaiah and Jeremiah. I always look for Jesus in my reading of the Bible. Keep writting man, love your insights. Peace.
• April 27, 2009, Mark Raggett writes: Unfortunately, as you said, the Bible is not a fiction novel like 'Girlfriend in a Coma'. It wasn't written by one man who's income depended on creating a book that included all the necessary context and kept the reader with the author all the way through. It is a collection of books written by different people, at different times, to different audiences for different purposes. For example Paul wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth. Wouldn't it be informative, or almost necessary, to have some sort of idea of the issues in that Church at the time? With that said I don't think it is a undecipherable as to require a degree in ancient near eastern culture to understand it. I think you can understand most of the Bible as a self contained book. Knowledge of the culture definitely isn't going to hurt though. And no, the Bible isn't a book you pick up and read from cover to cover. 3 years later, once you've recovered from the coma induced by Leviticus and made it all the way to the end of Malachi you'll only just be getting out of Judaism and reading about Christianity. I would recommend starting with a Gospel. Mark is generally thought to be the first written, and is also nice and short. John is generally more theological so if you want a little more about who Jesus is in relation to God and what what he did means to us, as opposed to straight recounting of events, that would be a good bet. Acts and Paul's letters are also good early reading. The relationship of the Old Testament is an interesting question. Generally any Christian will see it in the light of the New Testament. I can see why someone might tell you to ignore it. Some of it is quite difficult, heck an early sect of Christianity thought it was about a different, less than perfect god. If you're interested in investigating Christianity then the New Testament is going to be your first port of call. However, there is a lot of great stuff in the Old Testament that you'd be missing without it and it really sets the stage for the New Testament. What other bible versions do you have apart from the Message? The Message is really more of a commentary on the Bible by Eugene Peterson. Knowing you the little I do I'm pretty sure you want to read the thing for yourself and not one man's take on it. Translations run on a scale (something like http://www.themixkc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/translations1.jpg). On one end you just translate the original language word for word and mix the words round a little so they make some sort of sense. This normally ends up being pretty clunky English. The Message is the other extreme, vaguely stick to the original text but try to make it as readable possible. The choice is readibility or faithfulness to the original languages but there's lots of translations that give a decent balance. I think you might prefer a Today's New International Version (TNIV) or New Living Translation (NLT) which are still pretty readable but deserve to be called translations of the original languages instead of a paraphrase like the Message. Why not go for an audio bible? Or even try to find a Christian that you like and read it with them so they can give you their opinion (you can say you're interviewing a Christian on some portions of the Bible for your blog instead of calling it a Bible study if you like). It seemed to help a guy mentioned in the book of Acts (Acts 8:26-38).
• April 27, 2009, Shane writes: Simon, Mark gives some good and (I think) balanced advice here. Having said that, I truly enjoy The Message paraphrase and read it regularly. If that is what you think you would prefer, enjoy it to the fullest! It is good stuff. I would also encourage you to get a small bible handbook that will help with those basic context and culture questions. Suggestions would be Halley's Bible Handbook or Nelson's Bible Handbook. These are cheap if you buy used through Amazon. Don't worry, these are not books you need to read cover to cover in addition to the bible. They are just for reference when you have various questions that might be cleared up when understanding the original intent of the text and cultural context. I prefer the NLT for basic reading. Also, the audio book I suggested in my previous post, "Letters from a Skeptic" includes some great questions about the nature of the bible. I hope this helps. Shane
• April 28, 2009, Chloe writes: You have gained some pretty horrendous advice from christians you've spoken to, I shudder to think who could quote me on equally horrific lines...I'll have to watch that! In fact, the volumes of hefty emails i've sent you in recent months will probably contain evidence enough... Anyway, the Bible...I reckon every honest christian would agree that at times it's hard going. But being told to ignore the Old Testament is BAD advice. But it's not necessarily where you need to start. The apostle Paul speaks about milk and solid foods at various points in his letters to the churches. The whole process of weaning. God's Word is likened to bread and sustenance, so it follows that a food anology comes into play. I guess to start with, and then again at many points in your life, you stick to the milk - so probably the gospels...and acts...Then when you're coming to terms with that you break yourself into the rest of it. All i'd say, at risk of sounding like a patronising nice churchy person, is that it's worth persevering. Everyone will give you different instructions on where to start. Generally dictated by their favourite books. That's where i'd probably say John, because his philosophy and his poetry grab me. But there's no one best starting point. You'll figure it out. I laughed when i read your accusation that God chose really bad authors! Some christians are uptight about how we describe the Bible, they're immensely over protective, and i think sometimes their insistence on the literal historical word of God is more detrimental than they realise. The Bible is a human book - that's a beautiful thing isn't it? There can be such separation between human and divine - so much emphasis on our fallenness and general rubbishness. God made us didn't He? He became one of us didn't He? He affirms our humanity. And i think He did that with the Bible too. 1 Corinthians 1:27 says God choses the foolish things of this world to shame the wise. I reckon that goes for the Bible too. And that's sort of its beauty and its miracle. Everyday plebs were taken on and used by God to speak to His people, and their books aren't purged of their personalities, they're full of them! So probably when we jar with some passages, or yawn at others, it can be as much a personality clash as being in a state of theological error. I think the easiest way to look at it, and for me the most helpful, is to consider the incarnation. Jesus - the divine godhead took on flesh! God's Word is His Word so far as it speaks of Christ - no more no less. The 'truth' takes on humanity in those written words, and in that way God mediates His thoughts to us in ways we can begin to comprehend. Does any of that make sense? Sometimes the Bible is the most exciting book we can dream of picking up. Sometimes its dry, dull and unappealing. Kind of like a real human relationship i guess. This is a kick in the backside for me. I go through phases of loving the Bible and being a proper geek studying it, and phases like now of barely motivating myself to bother. Ridiculously, i know when i do, and when i press on through the pages with a humble heart and mind i'll be inspired again. Also, i know i need other people to be excited about it and talk to me about it, then that Bible fever sort of catches. I've got a busy busy day today. And reading my Bible was the first sacrifice i was going to make. But i reckon now i should pick it up, for at least 5 mins and give God a chance to speak. I hope some of these musings are vaguely sensible, perhaps even helpful.
• May 2, 2009, Rachel writes: Ha! Mark recommended Mark... no comment :-D You've got so much information here about the versions etc. I thought of just two things I'd like to add. :) 1. Audio Bible. As I'm sitting here thinking about it, I wonder if maybe, you're not a visual learner but Audio is better for you. I'm not sure... but I know you spend a lot of time listening to podcasts, music (an inordinate amount I would say...), and ted talks- so I think may audio might be the best approach for you. You've mentioned to me before great podcasts you listen to etc. and its never really inspired me quite like it has you because I just have a hard time learning and taking in chunks of information just by listening to it. Maybe audio is to you what books are to me? I could read anytime, any day, and just go on and on and on. Its just how I was made. Which leads me to point 2.... 2. I also suspect that you take in information by engaging with it... responding to it. Maybe if you did something like, write your own psalm or something like that it might help you interact with the text more. I dont take in information too well like in a lecture, but if I'm writing it, or if I'm dialoguing with someone about it- I understand everything very very well. I know you read a lot to prove your points, like for your blogs. Maybe if you read and respond somehow, or dialogue with someone about it, it will help you understand or learn from the text better. Its just my initial thoughts, and I certainly don't want to project what helps me learn on you- but as I thought about it- it made sense that this might help you given what I know about you. Hope that helps and hope your reading/ interacting/ listening time is a blast. :) Rachel
• July 2, 2009, Ralph writes: How is the Bible study going?
• July 3, 2009, Simon Jones writes: It's going slowly but surely Ralph. The old testament isn't good. I'll blog about that soon, just got busy these last few weeks is all. Thanks for asking though.
• July 31, 2009, Dawn writes: I have been a Christian for many years and confess to having not read the entirity of the Bible and have an appalling memory for chapter and verse. My preferred version is the New Living Translation, somewhere between the Message and the King James. It helped me - perhaps it will you too. Have to say Simon, I like your honesty. There are not many people around brave enough to stick their head above the parapet and talk openly and honestly about their understanding and struggle with faith. I think the OT is important and valuable but it is the NT that brings my faith and my relationship with God alive. The Bible's not God's biography but through everything that's written we get to know so much more of the heart of God and His love for everyone. We can learn that He is fair and just and true. He is not to be feared but reveared. He is loving and not a tyrant. I believe in God and, as requested, I will pray that as you read the true and real nature of God will become aparant and that the words you read will cease to be dry and boring but will radiate life and truth. God bless.

Jesus died for my sins. That was nice of him, but I am not sure I can understand why. I mean, to me that doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Jesus is God, and he is also God’s son. He came to earth to hang out with the nice folk in the middle east, and they killed him in the most awful way, but he was okay with that because he did that to save me? But hang on, what was he saving me from? God’s judgement? He is God though, so if he wanted to save me why not just not go through all the bother of getting nailed to a cross. Maybe I’ll again be accused of blasphemy when I ask this, but wasn’t that all just pointless theatrics?

Maybe I think too much. Maybe I just need to unplug my brain for a while and accept that there is some stuff I can’t get my head around. Like I don’t understand why suicide bombers strap explosives to themselves and detonate them on buses full of people they’ve never met. I don’t understand a lot of things that I willingly accept, like drugs, electricity, and sleep (and I like sleep!). Why don’t I ever question those things as much as I question God? What is it that motivates me to at least try and make some sense of God?

It’s not that I want to completely understand God. I’m not that arrogant! But we talk about God in relational terms, frequently using words like ‘father,’ ‘child,’ and ‘love.’ I like to at least try and understand those people in my life who I have, or seek, a relationship with. So surely it’s not unreasonable of me to want to try and understand God?

When I look out at a sunset I see God. I’m a creative person so it’s not hard for me to see God in his creation, to lose myself in the wonder of all that beauty; the magic of a leaf and its ability to photosynthesize, the delicate dance of a sea horse, or the near mystical power of the endless stars that put my size into context. These things I understand, if only in an abstract way. But to me these things seem separate to the religious works of man and God.

So Jesus died for my sins. Thanks Jesus. But dude, couldn’t you have just not created the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the first place, I mean surely that would have saved the both of us a whole lot of trouble, right? It’s not like you didn’t know how things would turn out!

A nice church person once told me “You’re too proud to be a Christian.” I’m sure what they actually meant to say was “How can I help show you the love of the Lord my dear friend?” and it just came out wrong. But really, at the risk of sounding proud, I think they were wrong. You see, I just struggle with the process of abandoning questions in favor of blind belief.

Belief without question, without intellectual inquiry and soul searching, leads to the kind of mindset that makes a person feel that it’s entirely reasonable to strap explosives to themselves and detonate them on a bus full of people they’ve never met. Granted, most blind believers never get to that place, but it is surely a dangerous road to be on in any case.

If God wanted us to all be as dumb as bricks, I think he would have made us bricks. He gave us brains and the power to question, the power to reason, the power to evolve our thinking. To unplug the basic functionality of our minds surely does God a disservice, it says “Thanks for the brain God, but I think maybe I’m better if I don’t use it, I think maybe you made a mistake in giving it to me.”

I can’t just accept something that I can’t resolve in some way. I accept suicide bombers because they’re nuts and there is nothing I can do to stop them. I accept drugs because they make me better and they’re backed up by clever people doing clever research. I accept electricity because I can see that it makes stuff work, and I accept sleep because I am a cranky pain in the ass without it. To some degree all those things resolve in some way, even if the resolution is somewhat open-ended and expandable. So Jesus, God himself, dying on the cross for my sins when he already possessed the power to forgive me of those sins in any case, I don’t get that.

To be clear, it’s not that I don’t believe, it’s simply that I don’t understand the religious aspects of God. So while the faithful church goers break bread this Sunday I’ll probably be at the beach watching the sunset, awestruck by the wonder of God because I can, to some degree, understand that much of him.

—

Get ‘Who the hell is God?’ delivered by Email

Comments

• April 11, 2009, Matt Whaley writes: "But hang on, what was he saving me from? God’s judgement? He’s God though, so if he wanted to save me why not just not go through all the bother of getting nailed to a cross." I went to a Good Friday service at my church, and afterwards we went to a coffeeshop/bar and were talking about this very question. One guy said something that made sense to me, by relating it to our legal system. He equated God's law to the laws of our land. If someone breaks the law here there is some legal punishment. If someone breaks God's law (aka sin), there is a consequence for that. According to the Bible that punishment is spiritual death - eternal separation from a holy God who cannot co-exist with sin. So the analogy of Jesus' death was like me being convicted of a capital offense but the judge allowing someone else to be put to death in my place since the law demands a punishment. If there were no punishment the justice system would be artibrary, and therefore null and void. It made sense to me, so I thought I'd share. "But dude, couldn’t you have just not created the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the first place, I mean surely that would have saved the both of us a whole lot of trouble, right?" I think this is the more difficult question. If God is truly God then he had to know how everything would turn out, as you said. But he chose to create beings that would willfully turn against the one who created them. You said, "If God wanted us to all be as dumb as bricks, I think he would have made us bricks." That made me think...if God hadn't have created Lucifer/the devil/the serpent/whatever you want to call him with the ability to freely choose to love him or not, he might as well have made bricks. Or at least robots that just did whatever he wanted rather than spiritual beings/humanity.
• April 11, 2009, Anne writes: I was going to say something similar. God didn't want us to be bricks, he wanted us to choose. Choose God or don't choose God. Real love is a choice. There is more but I have think on it. Real love is a choice. Where do I go from there?
• April 11, 2009, Bob writes: Great post SImon. I think I'm in Matt's ballpark though his explanation my not be perfect I don't know I could give a better one. I can add that love always feels better when you know a person is choosing to love you, not made to love. Then it's just superficial.
• April 11, 2009, marcie writes: i like this line you wrote: "I don’t understand a lot of things that I willingly accept, like drugs, electricity, and sleep" Keep questioning God and you will find the answers, slowly over time. if it all came easily, it wouldn't be worth garbage. and i can't explain it to you and neither can anyone else - you have to have it for yourself. i love it that you are out there searching. and don't accept any crap. get the good stuff. I think the only thing that's sacrilegious or whatever is to give up and just consume your life like it's a nice tall glass of milk. I mean, great - enjoy it. but dang it, save a drop so you can question and figure it out. that milk came from somewhere. someone got you that glass. don't be a dope and just take it for granted. that's why i like this site. you question the milk.
• April 12, 2009, Existential Punk writes: THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for your honest reflections. Christmas and Easter as ritual have no meaning for me anymore. My faith is one i wrestle with everyday and don't need two special holidays a year to make it more special. i am grateful everyday even in my doubts, questions, and uncertainties. Reading a GREAT book called 'The Christian Agnostic' by Leslie D. Weatherhead from the mid 1960's that still has much relevance today. He says, 'I am writing for the Christian Agnostic, by which I mean a person qho . . .though he is sure of many Christian truths, feels that he cannot "sign on the dotted line" that he believes certain theological ideas about what some branches of the Church dogmatize.' i too have similar questions about G-D and why G-D chose to do certain things. i really do not see the Adam and Eve story as anything other than a metaphor rather than a literal happening. Still truth to be found despite not believing it to be a literal happening in time. i also agree that G-D gave us a brain and abilities to reason and question. WE are not Stepford Wives for G-D's sake! We are not supposed to check our brains at the proverbial door. Enjoy your time at the 'beach watching the sunset, awestruck by the wonder of God because I can, to some degree, understand that much of him.' Warm Regards, EP
• April 12, 2009, Chloe writes: You want to take a look at Kierkegaard's 'Philosophical Fragments' fella...not an attractive prospect for someone who professes a dislike of reading...but he has an interesting idea of faith...a holistic idea i think...
• April 12, 2009, Tim Mills writes: The Biele says: But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8 NAS) The death of Jesus was God's (the Father's) demonstration of His love for us, that He would sacrifice His Son for us. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." God gave His Son so that we could have eternal life. Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 1 Cor. 15:3-5 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, [4] and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [5] and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Galatians 2:20-21 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. [21] "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; The Bible taks about this so much! God is good, but He is also just. The penalty for sin had to be paid. We could not pay it ourselves, we are tainted with the sins we try to expiate. Besides expiation only satisifes the demands of the Law, and does not provide propitiation. Propitiation was necessary to satisfy God. Sin is personal, so propitiation is required and not just expiation, which is impersonal. You expect God to just "write off" our sins, and not satisfy His justice? If God were to forego justice, then all the sins and wrongs of the world would simply not count, not matter; but they do matter. They matter very much; they matter to God. The woman raped wants justice, not just healing. The blood spilt by murderers cries out from the ground for justice. Yes there is a mystery to the way God does things, Isaiah 55:8-9 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the Lord. [9] "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
• April 15, 2009, Simon Jones writes: I understand the concept of wrong doings needing to be punished or at the very least addressed. But it's something of a head bender isn't it. I mean if you're a parent could you put your child to death if they did something wrong? I assume not, so why then could God, and that's the reality as I understand it. If you don't believe in Jesus then you're going to be sent to hell by God your father. You know what though, here's the thing... I am not sidetracked by this question. I thought about it a lot over the Easter weekend, I didn't pray so much as I just kinda mentioned it to God in my head in passing, you know like a kind of "Oh by the way, I'm sorta thinking about this thing." After that the whole question sort of faded from my mind like something that wasn't overly important. I don't understand it, but I kind of got this feeling that I'd be missing the picture if I stood to close to the painting to examine this small part of it. In fact, that seemed to dawn on me this weekend like something of a revelation, that I do stand too close to the painting sometimes and that I need to step back and remember to look at the whole picture more often. I feel like maybe I've been wandering around a gallery like an art critic who has forgotten how to just spend time enjoying great art.
• April 15, 2009, FreeThinker writes: Simon, I don't usually recommending books to people, but you sound to me like you would really benefit from and enjoy a book called 'A course in Miracles.' You can find it on Amazon but there is a website you can also check at http://www.acim.org. I think you would find the book very enlightening.
• April 16, 2009, Ray writes: Simon, I have a radical proposition for you. Why don't you drop all the confusion and start from square one? Your intuition and reason are obviously giving you warning signs; you can't make sense of these things and are looking for answers. That's good, but my friendly advice would be to take a deep breath, take a step back and be 100% honest with yourself. You will then notice a few things: - Although you're skeptical, you're still willing to believe things blindly, such as the basic assumption that the Bible is in any way significant in describing reality. Ask yourself: Is there any proof to support that? Why should the Bible be true? Why not the Quran? Why not any of the countless other scriptures of other countless religions? Why do you buy into the existence of the Christian god? Is he any more probable or is there any more evidence for that particular god's existence than for any of the thousands of other gods that human mythology has provided? - Many people who are offering you their answers are actually not helping you because they are simply making assertions and re-phrasing the very claims you're having difficulties with. Do their explanations really convince you? - Some people are criticizing you for the very act of questioning. They might call you a blasphemer or "too proud to be Christian", etc. But what does that really mean? It means: Shut up, don't think, blindly follow the claims of this religion without asking for evidence. It means: You're a bad guy for using your brain and trusting your reason and intuition -- you better feel bad about yourself. My advice: You can do without these people who have nothing better to offer than trying to make you feel guilty. Look at the core of the matter. Don't accept any assumptions. Don't build on any unsubstantiated claims. Be brutally honest with yourself. If you're really trying to make sense of it all, you owe that to yourself. I guess what it comes down to is: Why are you struggling with details of a theology which is almost entirely certain to be man-made?
• April 16, 2009, skye writes: I have to agree to some extent I dont think that the details particularly matter if we spent time pndering every detail we would never make any decisions to follow God. I find theology mindbending but aside from all those arguements I have found God and I know that this can be true of anyone else. He's not looking for theologically correct people He's looking for us to come as little children not knowing all the answers just trusting that God is our Father and that He has our wellbeing on His mind. It was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross because no other sacrifice would do to save mankind from His sin it says that He could swear by no one greater than Himself to establish His plan in the earth Hebrews 6v13. Jesus isour example of how we should live our lives on the earth, a servant, afriend, a son, and a child. He had to come as a man so He could sypathise with our weakness and show us how we can walk aside from our weaknesses Hebrews 4v15+16. We are to be obedient even to the death of ourselves which is our own will and lusts Romans and find out what is the good pleasing and perfect will of God Romans 12v1+2. He is good and He has a plan to prosper you give you hope and a future He doesnt want to harm you Jeremiah 29V11. God just wants you to have faith and come to the cross as a little child and accept that this is just the way He has chosen to do things and He will make known to you the details along the way Revelation should be apart of every believers life and we need to put the books and intellect down and allow God to speak to us directly, dont make faith complicated it doesnt need to be. Look upon the child and act like the child and God will make Himself known to you, A child doesnt know anything except simple faith
• April 16, 2009, Rodney writes: Simon: You're being bombarded with a lot of information. I pray you don't end up confused. Easter falls on various dates because it is based on the Jewish calendar, not our Roman-based solar calendar. The Jews celebrated the passover, which falls on the first full moon after the vernal equinox (the first day of Spring). Jesus died on the Friday of Passover, before the Sabbath, and rose again on the Sunday, the first day of the week. It's ironic that I just read today, there were two reasons for Christ's death, one-for us, most obviously, but two- for Himself. What He got out of Christ's death was a people that would be cleansed from sin so that He could be in relationship with them. Titus 2:14 verifies that by saying "Christ died to redeem us from sin, and to set aside for Himself a peculiar people, anxious to do good works."
• April 16, 2009, Rodney writes: I'm going to add to my earlier comments by saying, you're doing the right thing. Apostle Paul wrote in Romans (chapter 1, verse 20) that "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." The light of creation should lead you to seek God, and as you have been told by many people before, when you seek Him, you will find Him. That's what He wants you to do...and when you find Him, you'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt, like the rest of us Believers, that God is real. You'll then be able to share your knowledge with other skeptics and unbelievers. You absolutely should ask questions, because scripture admonishes us to "get an understanding," and the only way to do that is to ask sincere questions.
• April 16, 2009, Ray writes: Rodney and skye: I'm not trying to be difficult, but how exactly does someone know they've found God? Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking but please describe exactly how this happens. Because it seems to me that anyone who is religiously inclined or has a desire to "find" God will at some stage convince him-/herself that they're at that point, even though it could be nothing more than wishful thinking. What I'm saying is, anyone could reach a state of peacefulness, confidence, feeling uncaused love for the whole world, you know, that kind of thing. Great and sublime experiences certainly, but why call it "God" and specifically, why associate it with the Biblical concept of God? Does He actually then speak to you and say, "Yep, it's me!" ? If so, do you hear voices? Do you physically see a being in front of you? The reason I'm asking is that most of the responses to these questions are very vague and unconvincing, along the lines of "it's an inner feeling". Well, any delusion is an inner feeling. My other point remains, too: On what basis do you think the Bible is telling you the truth? You have no way of verifying anything in it directly. Don't you see the problem with trying to justify anything when you're using mere claims and assertions as the basis of your whole worldview? Certainly, some of the teachings of the Jesus character are wonderful (some of it not so much). Why can't you find inspiration in a virtuous life *without* buying into the whole other story, like virgin birth, original sin (a disguisting concept), redemption through divine suicide/murder etc? At least be honest enough to admit that there is no way you can claim these things to be true.
• April 16, 2009, Rodney writes: Ray: Okay, so you mean to tell me after years of trying, nature finally figured out the water cycle? After years of trying, nature finally figured out people need earwax in their ear to protect the ear canal? You mean that after millions of years, nature finally figured out that bisexual reproduction is better than asexual? You want to talk about deluded? Would you ever believe that the wind blew through an airport hangar and after years of blowing, an airplane developed? Obviously no one would ever believe that. So why do we believe that years of evolution brought about this cosmos, and the systems in it? Why can't we believe that a God designed the human body and other fascinating systems in this world? Evolution IS falling apart, but yet, people still continue to believe it. There is no 100% proof of evolution, but its "validity" is not questioned. In terms of how does one know when they've found God, I know that I have "found God" because my life experience remarkably resembles that of scripture. For example, I see the hand of God in the events of my life, which underscores what the bible tells me that "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord." Then, as I study the bible, I find where a scripture in the old testament is clarified in the new, and vice versa. The package comes together and makes complete sense. Yes, I acknowledge there is a lot of feeling involved, but the majority of times I have to operate by what I know is contained in scripture. Which leads me to this point, I am inspired by scripture because subjective man cannot give me objective truth. To illustrate, there are some preferences that are up to me, such as determining the color of the car I want to buy. But I cannot take that same car and drive 100 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. There is a way we are supposed to live to best enjoy life, and in order to find that out, why not discover that way from the one who created and designed life? Man cannot truly determine what is truly ethical, because the nature of man makes him subjective. Truth has to be objective in order for it to be truth, and its source has to be objective. That source has to be above the fray, and must be able to see all sides in order to be objective. That, remarkably, resembles the God of the bible.
• April 16, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Thanks for your comments Ray. I have actually asked the question about how someone hears God and how they don't know they're just insane :-) Go have a read of that post. As for committing "divine suicide/murder" I have to say I haven't really ever heard of those things, but rest assured Ray, I'm not about to strap explosives to myself or seek to kill myself or anyone else. You make some good points though Ray, and believe me, they're not new to me,. However, I appreciate you making them nonetheless. I'm no scholar, but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that "evolution is falling apart" as Rodney suggests (perhaps you would like to cite some evidence for us Rodney?) and personally I have no problem with the concept that God could use the evolutionary method to be creative. If I think of the way I design stuff much of those ideas evolve so evolution seems entirely reasonable to me. I'm still exploring this, and I appreciate hearing peoples opinions. That's partly the reason why created this blog.
• April 16, 2009, Ray writes: Rodney: I'm not sure why you bring the "evolution vs. Design" subject into this. It does not answer my question. Anyway, creationism in all its forms has been so clearly disproved over and over, forgive me for not having the patience to go into that anymore. It's simply not an argument worth having for any adult human beings endowed with average intelligence and a minimum of honesty. Your second paragraph is more to the point of answering me. Thank you. But I'm sorry to say, it's still too vague and inconclusive. Anyone can claim they see the hand of God in the world or their life. The fact that you think the things you observe in your experience "remarkably resembles that of scripture" is hardly proof for anything. I can pick any piece of literature, philosophy or whatever and then notice certain correlations between that and my experience. And it is still a) selective and b) does not provide evidence for the claim that it's a divinely inspired/revealed source of information. "There is a way we are supposed to live to best enjoy life, [...]" Says who? You can't prove that, it's just something anyone can claim. "[...] and in order to find that out, why not discover that way from the one who created and designed life?" Again, you presuppose that *someone* created and designed life. It's alogical fallacy to argue from that. I'm sorry but it just doesn't hold up. "Man cannot truly determine what is truly ethical, because the nature of man makes him subjective." The idea that man cannot be ethical or have functioning morals without religion is an ancient claim that also doesn't hold up to scrutiny: Remember, for instance, that *every* advancement in human rights has been made *against* the will of religious institutions. Think of the abolishment of slavery and serfdom, the right to free opinion and speech, and a host of others. As a species, we have an innate and intuitive sense of what is "right" and "wrong". If morals only came by way of the Judaeo-Christian God, then humanity would not have made it that far in the first place. If the first 100000 years of humanity could not have depend on its own sense of ethics, there would have been wholesale murder, genocide and mass theft, rape etc. The human race would have lasted a couple of centuries, at most. In conclusion, you've not really offered anything new and convincing. I don't want to abuse Simon's blog for a long, useless, debate here, so I'll just leave it at that and sincerely wish you all the best. From my subjective :) heart.
• April 16, 2009, Ray writes: Simon, ah looks like we posted in parallel.. "As for committing “divine suicide/murder” I have to say I haven’t really ever heard of those things, but rest assured Ray, I’m not about to strap explosives to myself or seek to kill myself or anyone else." No, I'm not referring to suicide bombing by believers. I mean the idea that Jesus was murdered for our sins. And since he's God in human form and knew it would happen, it's therefore also suicide. I've explained the whole original sin/salavation/atonement thing to various people who've never dealt with Christian theology and the unanimous reaction was "That's totally sick." Well, I'd have to agree.
• April 16, 2009, Rodney writes: Simon: I find this site quite useful http://www.icr.org/. The phrase "evolution falling apart" is my terminology, based on much information I have read and heard which seems to effectively refute evolution. I believe in MICROevolution, but not MACROevolution. I believe there are small changes in species over time that allows them to adapt to their surroundings, but I do not believe one species became another. My understanding is that the fossil records do not show transitions between species. Theistic evolution seems contradictory. You'll have to explain that concept to me.
• April 16, 2009, Rodney writes: Sorry Ray. I guess I brought in the evolution argument because I misunderstood your first question. And creation has not been disproved. But, as you stated Ray, I won't use Simon's blog to argue.
• April 16, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Evolution is a whole different subject. It's one that is a great deal of fun to throw around in the pub over a few beers. "So where did the molecules that made life come from then?" and "It's an interesting theory, but at this stage it's still just a theory" are the kind of things you hear a lot of in those conversations. The thing I like about any scientist that really respects science is that they are happy to have their theories disproved. As yet nobody has disproved evolution just as nobody has proved creationism. But as you chaps both point out, we're heading off subject here :-)
• April 16, 2009, Mark Raggett writes: "Remember, for instance, that *every* advancement in human rights has been made *against* the will of religious institutions. Think of the abolishment of slavery and serfdom, the right to free opinion and speech, and a host of others." Don't forget you're on the blog of an Englishman. William Wilberforce. Yeah we beat you to that one, all because of a religious man. I'm pretty sure there are other examples but one will do to contradict your "*every*".
• April 16, 2009, Ray writes: Mark, I seem to recall that Wilberforce wasn't quite representative of the Church's stance at the time. Why didn't Christianity think of rectifying the slavery situation *before* the 19th Century? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd never deny that single figures or dissenting groups have managed to do good. But as far as I know, the Bible is still the de facto standard work for Christian orientation. And in there, slavery (amongst other things) is expressly encouraged, both in the OT and NT. Universal secular values always had to be fought through a wall of religious "backwardness". "Yeah we beat you to that one, all because of a religious man." Who is 'you'? I assume you mean Americans. I'm neither American nor English, but I see what you're trying to say. The idea that morailty and ethics can only come from God is still absurd.
• April 17, 2009, skye writes: God resists the proud and gives Grace strength to the humble and He will not reveal Himself to you just to prove a point. He is not a man like us and we can not understand His ways until we have been saved and born into His Holy Spirit. When you meet God you know it because you walk away changed forget the rest of the arguements about getting the world saved God is interested in you being saved and changed so that your life your opinions and your ways change and dont resemble the life you lived before. God works in Faith and He heals people who have faith, saves people who have faith and reveals Himself to people who have Faith. God is the rewarder of Faith and of them that diligently seek after Him not arguements and debates these things never change anyone you can not convince someone that God exists they have to find Him for themselves otherwise its manipulation. I cannot convince you that God exists I can only show you by the example of my own life. Gods people lead by example not fine sounding arguements. I know that the life I live now doesnt resemble the life I lived before and it is changing the lives of those around me and Im sorry Ray or anyone else for that matter if you are waiting to be conviced by man through debate that God exists you will be waiting along time because that is not faith. You must believe that He is God and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek after Him. God gives us the Faith that we need to be saved and come to Him in the first place this is not a manmade effort.
• April 17, 2009, Rodney writes: Thank you Skye, for correcting me. You've reminded me of the scripture that says "the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those of us that are saved, it is the power of God." Apostle Paul then went on to say (quoting something God had said before) "it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Simon, as I thought about your blog, I thought to myself you can keep asking the questions "why," but I'm afraid there will never be a good enough answer for you. Some things you just have to accept that "it is what it is." Not saying that you can't ask any questions, however, you've already said you accept electricity, I think you should come to a point where you say the same thing about God. Either you believe that He is, or you don't; accept it and move on. Christ died, either accept it or don't. Some things you'll learn if/as you pursue a relationship with Him.
• April 17, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Skye: "Im sorry Ray or anyone else for that matter if you are waiting to be conviced by man through debate that God exists you will be waiting along time because that is not faith. You must believe that He is God and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek after Him. I don't agree with that. The "You must believe" bit of that statement reads as a command which if I am honest is deeply off-putting. I think that perhaps what Skye probably meant was that first you must be open to idea that God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek after him. The problem with saying things like "You must believe" is that it puts a barrier where a bridge should be. If I don't believe but I am open to the concepts of your faith I am still an outsider when demands like "you must believe" are made. Language like that creates a exclusivity that sets a divide, creating a 'them and us' situation. People find it easier to walk across bridges rather than scale walls.
• April 17, 2009, Ray writes: The Great Pumpkin exists and will pumpkinize all those who do not believe in Him. Salvation is only possible by standing on your head for exactly 7.5 minutes every morning (except Thursdays) and uttering "Puuump" on the in-breath and "Kinnn" on the out-breath. I am completely serious. This is true because I know it in my heart. Don't ask me why and don't dare question it. Repent now and convert to Pumpkinism, ye wretched heathens! If you don't you'll be damned to being forced to listen to an Everlasting Loop Of Jason Donovan Records. In all eternity! Some things you just have to accept.
• April 17, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Ray, you're a Pumpkinist too! That's great! I'll see you at the Pumkinist conference this year in Hamburg! I'll be in the traditional dress of an Orange robe with the green bobble hat. Mind you I guess all of our brothers in Pumpkinism will be dressed the same to won't they. Whatever, I trust in the great Pumpkin that we will find one another and embrace as brothers. ;-)
• April 17, 2009, Rodney writes: Okay. Bring the Pumpkin pie! Don't forget the whipped cream! We can also talk about how the pumpkin evolved from elephant droppings!
• April 17, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Rodney wait, I can't agree with you on that. I know it's a minor thing, but come on, I think it's fairly clear in the book of Cucumber that The Great Pumpkin evolved not just from the elephant droppings, but the dung beetles that ate the dung and fertilized the ground that from which our Lord Pumpkin grew forth.
• April 17, 2009, Ray writes: Hey Rodney, nice to see you've glimpsed the Mysteries of the Pumpkin. A slight correction is in order, though: The Great Pumpkin is in fact the First Squash, nothing existed before Him. He only incarnated into mortal fruit flesh form by way of evolved Elephant droppings. His real, formless form still remains unaltered. Hence, the Holy Duality. But don't worry, that's a little subtlety that trips up a lot of Believers in the beginning. Simon, I'm exalted to have found a Pumpkin Brother! Looking forward to the conference, and, more importantly, to be united with your Squashy Essence in the Eternal Patch once we leave behind our mortal shackles. Cucurbita in eternam!
• April 17, 2009, Rodney writes: Well Ray, thanks for the clarification. I believe now!!!! While we're on the way to the Pumpkin festival, let's stop at the airport and wait for the wind to blow through the hangar and watch an airplane develop, because the Great Pumpkin knows they're not engineered, the just develop by natural processes. Silly, deluded people who think they're designed. Oh, and I probably shouldn't throw out the jello in the back of the refrigerator that has mold in it, because again, the Great Pumpkin knows it might be the start of a new cosmos!!!
• April 17, 2009, Ray writes: Rodney, the Pumpkin just revealed to me that you're still struggling with a slight misconception, and that I am to guide you. So he inspired the following writings: http://xrl.us/747rodney
• April 17, 2009, Rodney writes: I'll read that after that airplane comes into existence. So you'll have to wait a couple billion years before we can discuss the Great Pumpkin writings. Have fun at the Great Pumpkin conference.
• April 17, 2009, Ray writes: "I’ll read that after that airplane comes into existence." Umm.. you're already sitting in the plane, so to speak. Refusing to face facts is even more fun than going to conferences. I envy you for the way you make life so simple for yourself. I can't bring myself to do that, though. Bummer.
• April 18, 2009, Lisa Joy writes: LOL! I love how these posts can lead into the ridiculous. I am not going to go into the reasons for my disbelief here. They are many and varied but as a scientist I suppose I am never going to believe in something I see as illogical. I spent many of my teenage/early 20s researching and thinking about it and have come to my conclusions irrespective of my Catholic background and my friends who at that time were all religious people. Not going to go into my opinions on Evolution here as it is off the subject but even most churches accept evolution, albeit as an instrument of god. Anyway on the subject! I have no problem with forgiveness and if there was a god him/her forgiving sin etc. I just think more personal responsibility is required. The biggest issue I have with forgiveness is the belief that IF there is a heaven and hell, I as a non-believer automatically go to hell no matter how I try to live. However somebody who has committed all sorts of atrocities but then accepts god back into their life and is forgiven can therefore go to heaven. I think I'd rather go to hell!
• April 20, 2009, Ralph writes: Simon, great questions, so some basic concepts. Why did God allow man to sin? The answer is that he knew it was for the greater good. If man had never sinned, then we could walk with him like Adam and Eve, but we'd never need faith, and unless we have faith we never learn to love him in a deep way, thus God allowed man to sin. Why did God have to die? The answer has to do with the concept of covenant. God made a covenant with Abraham and Abraham's descendents. A covenant is like a strong form of a contract in which the two parties are bound to the terms of the covenant until one of the two parties die. God's covenant was with the people of Abraham, i.e. the Isralites who later became the Jews. So in order for the covenant to end, God had to die, which is what he did on the cross. He ended the covenant for a greater good, and that is to begin a new covenant of grace and to bring in the whole world to that covenant. So that is why Jesus had to die, to fulfill the old covenant and to begin a new covenant that you could be a part of.
• April 20, 2009, Ray writes: @Ralph: I know your answer was directed at Simon, and I don't want to interfere, but allow me to add some input on what you said. "[...] and unless we have faith we never learn to love him in a deep way [...]" That's plain nonsense. I don't need faith to love someone. If I love someone and have that love reciprocated, then I'll develop faith (trust) in that someone. But the order is: First, I know there is someone (because I can see him/her). Then, there might be love. Then, only after that, faith comes in, so it's not "blind" faith. Anyone can verify this in their experience. Did you have faith in your parents before you were born? Can there be love of or faith in a girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/etc before they actually first show up in your life? Of course not, and for any personal god the rules can't be different. It's pretty condescending and, frankly, stupid when religious people say you have to have faith in and love for someone/something when you have no evidence at all that he/she/it even exists. I know that especially Christians like to make a big noble thing out of this "struggle". They'll say it's a "test of faith", that everyone goes through it at some point, bla bla bla. Which is circular argumentation. I can't see anything great about people getting guilt complexes because they're having a hard time to believe in something without reason. What a waste of time. The existence of Abraham is far from certain, according to real world research. Don't take my word for it, study some unbiased sources. There are good reasons for the conclusion that he was an idealized, archetypical figure uniting various historical figures. Independently of that: The whole story of the Old and New Covenant is just that: A nice-sounding story, which I might actually enjoy in a fantasy novel. But you have absolutely no acceptable reason to simply assert it as literal truth. As always, you owe us the evidence for your claims, not vice versa. Simply citing the Bible as evidence is like citing The Lord Of the Rings as evidence for the claim that Sauron really existed and bit the dust because a hairy-footed little guy chucked a ring into volcanic mass. @Lisa: You make some good points, especially about forgiveness vs. punishment for unbelievers.
• April 21, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Thanks for the comment Ralph, and to everyone for their comments. The whole "you have to have faith" thing is a tough one. I completely see both sides of that discussion, Ralph's and Ray's. I think it's the "having to" bit that I struggle with. How does someone come to have faith? Ralph would probably quickly dismiss a lot of what I think is God as something else. Like when he says there is no evidence of God, I don't agree. I see God in many things, but this is because I am willing to accept the concept of a creative power. The God I believe in fits around the science we understand, by that I mean I don't think the world is a 6000 year old place that was populated by Adam and Eve and flooded when Noah built the arc. Faith is a leap I am prepared to make, but in doing so I don't want to abandon my ability to test, question, and doubt.
• April 21, 2009, Ralph writes: Hi Simon, Just a quick reply, as I'm on my way out the door. I think when you said "Ralph" in paragraph 3, you meant Ray, because I would absolutely agree with you about what you say when you see God in creation. This is nearly exactly how I came to believe. And there are even passages in the Bible which talk about what you are experiencing, which is called the "Natural Law". Romans 1:20-21 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. Simon, you don't have to abandon your ability to test, question and doubt. That is what I do constantly. I don't think that you will find a better combination of faith and reason than you would in the Catholic faith. I grew up in an agnostic family and I went to college and have studied a scientific background. I am a critical thinker. And I have found this faith to be true. God has already started nudging you, Simon. Just the fact that you are looking for him is an urging from God. God knows how to help you find faith. You just have to be patient about it, patient with yourself. If you start looking for him, he will reveal himself to you.
• April 22, 2009, Ralph writes: Hi Ray, There is a God, and you know what? He loves you very, very much. And he longs for you to return to him. God Bless. Ralph
• April 22, 2009, Ray writes: How exactly does one see God in creation? I'm fascinated by "creation" too, i.e. the physical universe, as well as my "inner universe" (the nature of consciousness et al). It is truly amazing to observe the sheer variety of phenomena, the way everything (well, almost everything) seems to "work together". that's one thing. But the idea that this has anything to do with, say, the god described by Christianity, has no basis in reality. Imagining that it's all due to such a personal superhuman entity is probably an attractive conceptual model. For primitive man to do so is, in a way, excusable and understandable. But it's the 21st Century, folks, and we know just a tiny little bit more about why things happen. I'm still waiting for someone to please explain how exactly God/Jesus reveals himself to believers, and how exactly one can "see" God in creation. Being in awe of the universe is fine. Inferring the existence of a specific supernatural entity with suspiciously human features seems -- no offense intended -- seriously problematic.
• April 22, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Ray: "It is truly amazing to observe the sheer variety of phenomena, the way everything (well, almost everything) seems to “work together”. that’s one thing. But the idea that this has anything to do with, say, the god described by Christianity, has no basis in reality." Come on Ray, that was a slip up. You did exactly what you criticize religious folk for doing, stating an assumption as a fact. If you are able to prove that God (any God) did not create the world, then you are the first person in the history of the world! But you can't, as we both know. I'm not going to argue with you on this because there's little point, but the "no basis in reality" takes your 'no God' argument to a place that quickly gets as close minded and ugly as all the things I find detestable about religion. How do I "see God" in creation? I have mentioned this before on my blog, but I see God in the sheer diversity, complex, and beauty of it all. I'm not saying science and molecules are wrong or anything as silly as that, I am just saying that I just think that something created this stuff. I guess it's somewhat similar to the way beauty is different for different people. So where I might look at a girl and be blown away by the depth of her beauty, you might think she's an ugly ol' trog :-) You see, I didn't choose to see her as beautiful, that's just how she seems to me. So I can respect that you don't see God in creation, but I can no longer respect your claim that there is no basis for God in creation anymore than I could accept a claim that only your standard of beauty is beautiful. I don't know how else I could explain that, so I hope that helps :-)
• April 22, 2009, Ray writes: Simon, thanks for the reply, and I'm sorry if I seem to be harping on the same point like a broken record player, but this is a point where religious people can never give me a clear answer. All I want is to understand what exactly they mean. Just to make it clear: I don't claim that it's 100% certain that Yahweh (or Shiva, Ganesh, Zeus, Apollo, Thor etc etc) don't exist. As you say, I'd be contradicting myself by doing so. It may be entirely possible that these gods, or some of them, exist. But for countless reasons, it's highly improbably. But to claim with 100% certainty that they do exist is not feasible, either, especially since the "proof" believers cite is no real proof. It's usually just claims made in books written by other humans, or personal opinions ("I feel that way" etc). So when you say "I am just saying that I just think that something created this stuff" that's exactly my point. You think that something created the universe and then you infer the existence of a particular God. Question: Why specifically the Biblical God? Why not Zeus? Why not the trio of Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer and Shiva the Destroyer (these were written about millennia before Judaism/Christianity/Islam) ? I hope you're seeing what I'm getting at :)
• April 22, 2009, Ralph writes: Simon, I found some podcasts that may be interesting to you on your faith journey. In particular this one: "God" http://media.podcastingmanager.com/0/7/6/7/1/126067-117670/Media/God.mp3 and also this: "Faith" http://media.podcastingmanager.com/0/7/6/7/1/126067-117670/Media/Faith.mp3 They have a little bit of a stilted feel because the narrator is reading from a book, but on the other hand what he is saying is very clear and I think this will make a lot of sense to you, Simon.
• April 22, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Thanks Ralph, I'll check them out and I'll also correct that comment where I got yours and Ray's name muddled around. :-) Ray, you and I agree on this to an extent and I am of the opinion that people who want to believe in God so be free to believe in whatever God they want. Where it gets into bad territory is when people start wanting to make sweeping rules or start wars because their God is right and my God (or lack thereof) is wrong. As you point out, without any resounding evidence to prove that Jesus is God and Thor isn't, then nobody should consider that murder in the name of Jesus or Thor is righteous. People are guided by their feelings. So, as in my beautiful girl example, nobody but the saddest geek looks to disprove the beauty of one girl over another on some scientific beauty scale. People (thankfully) find different features beautiful and in their attractions they are willing to look beyond other aspects that someone else might not be able to overlook. I guess maybe the same is true with God and the God's people choose. So choose one, don't choose one. It's up to you, it's your choice and I would respect you either way. Where I think I would begin to feel disappointed is when a person (and this is not aimed at you) seeks to bash someone else over the head in an effort to prove their is no God, in the same way that some people bash others over the head in an effort to prove their is one. I'm asking questions, I like to ask questions. I've been annoying people for years by asking questions and I am not about to stop asking questions. I will be seeking answers until the day I die, because I believe to questions drive us forward, and I think you and I probably agree on that too.
• April 22, 2009, Ralph writes: Ray, you said "Why didn’t Christianity think of rectifying the slavery situation *before* the 19th Century? Correct me if I’m wrong. " You're wrong. http://users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html Slavery was condemned by popes, and this was recorded as early as 1435. Keep in mind that there are many kinds of slavery, some which are actually valid (read the link). The kind that most people think of when they hear the word "slavery" (racial slavery) was not really used until that same 15th century, and Christianity (apparently) immediately condemned it.
• April 23, 2009, Ray writes: Ralph, thanks, that's an interesting read. I did say in an earlier comment that I won't deny that certain figures or groups within the Church have always managed to do good. Yet usually in opposition to the mainstream. Now the point remains, why did it require Papal Bulls and other edicts to let Christians know that slavery is not good? If it's true, as Christians claim, that moraility and ethics come from God and the Bible, then surely Christians wouldn't have needed those orders from Popes and words of admonition from a few selected "progressives"? Surely they should've known that it's wrong via their God/Bible-induced morality and acted accordingly? Okay, let's adjust the time frame by 400 years -- 19th century to 15th century. That still leaves us with ca 1400 years of Christianity in some form or another. In which no unified attempt at abolishing slavery was made. In which it did apparently not occur to Christians that it's wrong. Which contradicts the claim that morality and ethics are attributes ascribed to belief in God and adherence to the Bible. The distinction between various forms of slavery is valid, and I agree that there are degrees in how "just" (and thus, how despicable) a particular form is. Yet in the end, the notion that a person loses all personal rights and becomes the posession of another person (or group/intitution) is morally not justifiable. Serfdom and even voluntary slavery as a debt-repaying mechanism or as punishment is not acceptable. The comparison with modern criminals who work while in captivity does not hold for the reason that the modern prisoner -- at least, in Western democracies -- does not surrender all personal rights to the State/government etc. A prisoner is not a slave. That's a fine but important distinction. The article also tries to justify the situation by saying that the Church was "politically weak" and that it couldn't influence the political and cultural customs of the time that much. This is plainly wrong. The strong ties between the Catholic Church and politics in Europe for many, many centuries contradict this claim. The church and political leaders, and aristocracy in particular, cultivated an alliance that served both sides well. Again, usually at the expense of the lower classes, who suffered exploitation at the hands of this opportunistic alliance. This is documented history, so I won't need to go further into that.
• April 23, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Okay guys, I don't wish to be rude, but as we're now WAY off the original topic of the post, perhaps you might want to exchange email addresses or something? It's not that I don't enjoy a lively exchange, I just think that as this seems to be an exchange between just the two of you, maybe there are better ways for you to do this?
• April 23, 2009, Ray writes: Hehe, somehow I saw this coming ;) It's notoriously difficult to stay on-topic when discussing religion or philosophy because sooner than later the foundational assumptions of the philosophy or religion need to be referenced, which in turn leads down many roads... So, no, you're not being rude, it's your blog after all. Thanks for your patience and thanks to the others for a civilized discussion. It's all too often that differing opinions just lead to ad hominem attacks. Extra respect for my religious "opponents" for not threatening me with eternal damnation :)
• April 23, 2009, Rodney writes: Simon: I've always known there is no absolute tangible proof that God exists. We're thousands of years removed from the writings of the bible, and therefore, it is easy to question whether it is even real. My belief in God is mostly by faith, but I do believe the evidence of nature points to a Creator, and not the product of mere random chance. However, I think you and Ray are right...I should never beat anyone over the head that chooses not to believe, just like I don't want evolution forced on me. You have asked the questions of why we Believers believe what we believe, and we have attempted to answer. I think that's all we can do is defend why we believe it, you do with it what you will. And Ray, no, I will not "threaten" you with eternal damnation :-). That is a part of our faith, but if you don't believe it, it's no threat to you. Somewhere, we'll figure it all out. Simon, I wish you the best in your pursuit.
• April 23, 2009, Ray writes: "Somewhere, we’ll figure it all out." Hear, hear! Wise words, Rodney. At the risk of sounding cheesy: Even if we disagree on the "little details" (understatement intended) now, we can all rest assured that the truth, whatever it is, will remain unaffected by all our human ignorance and confusion. And since we all are in the same boat, we should respect each other in our search, even if the search for truth takes us on different paths.
• April 23, 2009, Simon Jones writes: THE END [Roll credits] :-)
• April 27, 2009, Shane writes: Simon, I am just trying to catch up here because my life has ben a little hurried lately. But. I hope you are doing great! I am smiling as I have read your post and the comments because you certainly have created a quite a community here. I have enjoyed reading all the comments. As for me, I'm not sure what I should add to the abundance of brainpower here; my head is spinning from all the different angles of thought. However, Simon, because I know you don't like to read, I might suggest a book you can get on audio as well as hard copy. It is called "Letters from a Skeptic" by Gregory Boyd. I sure enjoyed it. It reads similar to this blog as a dialogue between someone who believed and trusted in Christ with a biblical world-view and his father, a long-time skeptic who thought it was all nonsense. I thought it was thoughtful as well as honest! Anyway, Hope you are well. Shane
• April 27, 2009, Simon Jones writes: I'm all about the audio books, so I will certainly get that one. Thanks Shane.
• February 16, 2010, Ron writes: I am with Simon in my search. I thought that I would try and find a Jew that converted to Jesus to see what made him do it? This thought came to me one Sunday morining as I was driving. I tuned into a religious radio program and there it WAS. A Catholic priest (Jewish birth ) was just explaining why he made this conversion........a commercial broke in and he would return later to explain.......Anxiety filled my brain. The program resumed and He went on to explain that he was driving around one day and suddnely he (a Jew) saw an apparition of the Virgiin Mary. And from that moment he was re-oriented. Here I am a poor Catholic boy and I do not get such visions . I would certainly scream to the world. Again the thought is why go through all of these theatrics to get some human attention. Why do we not all get these visions. Do we not all crave them.
• March 7, 2010, Sadie writes: I stumbled across this post quite on accedent. Thank you for posting it. It helps me better understand some of the questions that some of my friends have about God. I see you have attracted a large number of comments. A very contriversial topic in any Christian society. I think you make exalent point and am glad you are questioning. I think it comes out of a desire of wanting more understanding and truth and every where you turn people just say "Just love the Lord and things will be okay." Obviously you do love God, possibly more than many declared christians. Your points are valid. "Why did Christ come to earth and hang on a cross when he ultimatly declares who is worthy?" Justice. He loves us. He is merciful, but justice trumps both love and mercy. Christ is like our parent. When we get really really stuck with no way out of a situation we can turn to our parents and they will help us out. We thank them and are grateful, but we don't have the means to pay them back. No matter what we do we can not repay what has been done. By Christ coming to earth He lived his life in a way that he didn't need a parent to 'get him unstuck'. He is like the loan officer giving us a loan on righteousness. We are not perfect. We can not do it. He loves us enough that he came to earth to show us how to live, but when we fall we can turn to him, ask him for help, and he will help us. We can not return to live with God without being perfect. Christ is the only perfect one. He suffered and died for us to pay for our sins. Justice must be paid. Christ's sufferings pay for our sins on the scale of justice. God allows that because of his love and mercy for us. Other wise we would all be doomed to a punishment like Christ to pay for our imperfections. Blind belief isn't safe. Thank you for questioning. As we question we can learn through the insights of others. But, with all out questions we can as God. James 1:5 and 6 clearly states that when we don't know God will give us the answers when we have faith, exercise it, and ASK GOD. As we pray things happen to help us understand. I don't know that this has helped at all. Ultimately I believe the answer to your question is Justice commands even the judgements of God. As for why the serpant was put in the Garden of Eden I love that question. Without the serpant, and the tree of Good and Evil how would Adam and Eve ever left the Garden? The serpant was the initial opposition that began what we now face. Opposition is neccessary. Think about it. If you hadn't had a bad day how would you know what a good day was? If you weren't healthy how would you know if you were sick? If you never suffered how would you know the joy of peace? Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, they didn't have lust or sex because they didn't have those emotions they didn't know how, without that they never would have had children. Had they not had children where would you be now? How would you have gotten to earth? If you have any questions with what I have said please email me at sadie_aveline@hotmail.com. I would love to hear from you and I hope that you understand God beyond just his love through his creations.
• March 8, 2010, Sadie writes: I'm reading some of these other comments and I'm amazed at the confusion. Finding God is recongnized by a change of character....a change of heart as the bible puts it, but you don't seem quite as keen on believing the bible. Before we came to this earth something happened. All the spirits (including you and I) were gathered around God and Jesus Christ(who are two different people) and Lucifer who is Satan. God presented a plan that we come to earth, gain a body, have trials, make CHOICES, and return. However, he knew that we wouldn't be able to return so he said that he needed somebody to help provide a way to return. Lucifer said he had a plan that would help make sure everybody returned to live with God. In several of the comments there are things like 'we are not robots'. Indeed we aren't but, what if we were told what to do so that we would return and be able to live with God again. What if we were forced to only do good? This is the plan presented by Lucifer. God said that he didn't want people to be forced. He wanted people to choose their way and prove that they desired to live with God again. Christ stepped up and told God. "I will go. Send me and you will have the glory. I will do Your will" As for not believing in God and being sent to hell I 100% believe that EVERY person is given a chance to understand him. It's not the believing in God that condemns one to 'hell' but it is the going against what he has set forth as right and wrong. What is hell to you any way? Is it a physicall place or and emotional state of being? I believe it is both. Couldn't hell be where we as individuals suffer as Christ suffered because we did not accept his atonement? If in the end ultimatly there is one God, the christian God, I believe we will suffer for not accepting Christ's payment because the payment has to be made in order to fulfill the punishment of the rules that were previously set forth just as disobedience to what a parent set up as the rules is punished with a predetermined consequence. "we can all rest assured that the truth, whatever it is, will remain unaffected by all our human ignorance and confusion." You said that and I think it is the ultimate answer to Ray's questions of why the Christian God. Ultimately the truth is what comes forth and lasts. Christianity has been around and lasted much longer than many other religions. It is also, in my oppinion, what makes the most sense, which is why it's followers are much greater. It is a religion of choice, you can choose to believe or not just as you can choose to follow God or not. Back to your original question. Why was Christ crusified for us? 1 Corinthians 15 verses 19-22 read "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. " Granted you'd have to believe in the bible for this but his death was more than just to take our sins upon him. It had a second part, it was to allow us to live agian. We are not punished by Adams sin. He took of the fruit and now we all come to earth. We all live. We all die. But that was because of Adams choice not ours....sort of(it'll take way too much explaining) Because we didn't choose a physical death we will not be punished with one, or we will, but only temporarly. Christ came to earth, died, and was ressurrected as the first one to be ressurrected but just like we all live and die we will all live in our bodies again.
• March 9, 2010, Ray writes: Sadie, don't you think it's rather offensive to threaten me with eternal torture for not accepting something that some guy -- who in fact may or may not have existed -- did thousands of years before I was born? ("I believe we will suffer for not accepting Christ’s payment...")

  Granted you’d have to believe in the bible for this

  Thanks for admitting that. Your whole house of cards is built on the premise that the bible is true. For which there's still not a shred of evidence.
• March 9, 2010, Sadie writes: I did say that it was MY belief. I did specify that because I know that not everybody believes in that. I know all my assuptions are based on the bible, it is what I believe. After all, it has been accepted as holy scripture for an awefull long time by millions of people from a variety of walks of life. It's true there is no hard cut evidence for this claim, but it is still my belief and millions of others. A very good friend of mine said "I don't know why people look for evidence of religion because there indeed is none" Religion, or more specifically, God, is not seen, felt, known and especially explained by logic. Although we have a brain, we aren't able to comprehend all that he can comprehend so he doesn't give it to us logically. My arguments do rest in the bible which you seem to be unwilling to accept so I will not bother trying to convince you. But think about it. If in a home parents set a 'commandment' that nobody was to stay out past midnight and if they did they would have to pay $100. The punishment is the fee. If the fee is not payed another punishment is afixed, lets say more money. A child stays out until 4am and the next morning the parents ask where the money is. This child is given time to collect the money , lets say 3 weeks, a good amount of time, but not too long. At the end of three weeks the child only has $58 dollars. This child's older sibling offers to make up the difference. the younger child accepts, however if he didn't he would then have to make the other $42 dollars in addition to the new fee. This, I believe is an example of our suffering if we don't accept. We are given the opportunity with plenty of time to accept if we do something wrong. It may not make sense or be agreeable but indeed the law was set and MUST be fullfilled, once again my belief based off the bible. I know you probably won't agree. It's not us suffering for not accepting but rather us suffering for what we did wrong because we wouldn't allow somebody else, Christ, to pay it, suffer it, for us. That's what the suffering is, our own punishment, not our lack of faith or belief.
• March 9, 2010, Ray writes: Sadie, thanks for elaborating. But what you did is explain cause and effect. Yes, we usually suffer the consequences of our negative actions, whether through those actions themselves bringing about unfavourable circumstances, us getting punished by the law, getting backlash from others, or simply having to live with a bad conscience. We know all that, they're universal principles. What you're doing, however, is bringing in a supernatural dimension, which is redundant. It does not add anything useful to what I described. It actually confuses matters since you're talking about things for which there are no evidence. The mechanisms of cause and effect do not need Jesus or any gods. You point out that millions of people believe in the bible. So what? That does not make it true, or even more credible. Millions of people belive in the Qur'an, in the Baghavad Gita, various Buddhist sutras, the Book of Mormon, and so forth. By your logic, they must be true, too. Obviously, they all conflict with each other or downright exclude each other. So what is the truth, then? By what right do you claim your scripture is true and deny other religions' scriptures as presenting the truth? There's no foundation for that and if you're honest, you know it. There's an unfortunate tendency in our culture to give any idea credence, along the lines of "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as X believes it is, it's true for X, so let's not criticize it." Well, it's the 21st Century and that doesn't fly anymore. Doesn't it embarrass you to cling to a belief for which by your admittance there's no evidence, is outside of logic and the content of which is "beyond our capacity to understand"? The time where believers could just concoct whatever they imagined and get away with it is over. You are no more sane than someone who keeps repeating, "I believe that Santa Claus exists, I can't show him to you and nobody's ever seen him, but I know that he exists. And I know what he thinks and why he does this and that." There's nothing admirable, courageous or noble about irrational "blind faith".
• March 9, 2010, Ron writes: Everything (everyone) explains the Bible except the Bible. Mohammed re-wrote the Tome because it was such a hodge podge. It was wriotten very simplistically to keep the desert people engaged so that they would not get in trouble....idle l time is a tool of the devil. what better time killer then to memorize the Bible. Belive me it keeps a lot of people occupied....they are believers...you gotta have faith....that is the bottom line. I am still looking for the answers. Maybe at the next life.....if there is one ? Some one who has just converted must surely have the majical answer....hsare it with all of .IT MAY BE THE ONE. from a respectfully quizzical , fence staddling Catholic Boy (man)
• March 9, 2010, Ron writes: Sorry for the TYPOS, God Help me.!!!1 I do have a great job in this economic climate , but only because I have a statue of St Joseph facing out in my window. SEEEEE I can believe. I have a majic cure all ....more later....unbeatable.
• March 10, 2010, Sadie writes: Ray, I'm glad for your comments and your opposition. They are good points and hard to fight against. It's hard to convince one who is unwilling to Feel for truth that it is there. Whether what I have is truth or not is beside the point. Have you ever read/heard of the book '1984' by George Orwell. It is about a society that controlls its citizens making them believe and see only what the government deems is right. The main character tries to fight against the controlling government because he believes that it is wrong...according to what I know as society it would be deemed wrong. But right and wrong are subjective. Ultimatly despite his beliefs he succumbs to societys rules because of the consequences of opposition. Despite his way of living he still knows what he knows. He still believes what he believes. Despite what society says, despite what the logic shows and despite what has been presented to the citizens the main character is right according to the imformation presented to the reader. Logic shows that he is wrong, very wrong. But he isn't and he knows it. I feel like I am in this argument with you. You are unwilling to bend you ideas and I believe I have the truth but I recognize that most don't recognize my religion as being the 'right one' "There’s an unfortunate tendency in our culture to give any idea credence, along the lines of “it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, as long as X believes it is, it’s true for X, so let’s not criticize it.” Well, it’s the 21st Century and that doesn’t fly anymore." Why doesn't this fly? Why can't we accept each other for having different beliefs and knowing that others have different beliefs and they are entitled to believe what they believe if they allow us to believe what we believe. I'm not trying to convert anyone to my religion, although I whole heartedly believe in it I recognize that not everybody does or will. I like presenting my beliefs and my ideas because if they ring true, if somebody does have a feeling that they are true I'm ok with it. I accept that God is found only by feelings and although they may be conjured up within us if it is leading us to do good what is wrong with it? If religion is just invented for us and gives us a group to assosiate with or a reason to go on living or a way to make us feel better about ourselves what is wrong with it? I believe that there are strong positive emotions that lead us to God. That is my belief. I do not believe God can be found purely by logic. These are my beliefs that I've posted. Nobody has to believe them, but I'm declaring them becuase they have helped me progress in life, perhaps they can help Simon or somebody else. I have a friend that said "people become religious because they either want it or they need it." I agree with that. I think that ultimatly we all need religion...or at least God, but we need it for different reasons. You'll like to argue that won't you. Once again these are my beliefs I never claimed them to be fact. I know them because of the feelings I've had. But that comes from my belief that feelings also come from God. Religion isn't fact. I think it's something more than that...it's a truth that lasts and continues to come back like Christianity has. As for other religions I know very little about them so I don't know their history. Just like others can believe them. I think a large contributing factor in what people believe is determined by what they have been exposed to. Just as this blog is based mosltly on christianity because that is what Simon has had experience with. That is a large reason why I believe what I believe. I don't know the history and many of the beliefs of other religions. They are likely to be as right as various sects of christianity. I don't know. I don't know them, I haven't been exposed to them and I'm very comfortable with my religion and have not had doubts or questions that have not been resolved from my religion so I see no need to explore other beliefs.
• March 10, 2010, Ray writes: Sadie, Thanks for a very honest reply. A few main points to clarify: I believe in religious freedom, that means people can believe what they want and nobody should be discriminated against or even persecuted because of their beliefs or lack of belief. I fully understand that religion makes people feel good, gives them comfort and hope, etc. Fine. However, I'm more interested in whether religious claims are true in the absolute sense, not how they make you feel. I disagree with you that there are "different" truths and that each person can have "his(her own truth". Nope, in reality there is only one truth. A fact is a fact, a thing can't be different things at the same time, ultimately. Either Jesus was literally born of a virgin or he wasn't. Either there is a supernatural being who knows what we think or there isn't. There's nothing in between. It can't be true for some people and untrue for others. Either it's simply true (for everyone) or it's simply untrue (for everyone). You say you're not really familiar with other religions. How then can you dismiss them and stick with yours? Remember, not all of them can be right -- they completely exclude each other. Either ONE of them is right or they are ALL wrong. I have a suggestion: If you're interested we can continue via email so we don't clutter up Simon's blog (and stretch his patience), especially since much of this is probably not on-topic for this entry. Send me your email address to zendak [AT] hushmail.com (a "throwaway" address of mine) and I'll reply privately with my real one. That way, we'll keep the spambots away. Regards, Ray
• March 11, 2010, John writes: First of all I am really glad that I found a site where people discuss religion without abusing each other. I have been thinking about a lot of stuff given in the Bible and some of it doesn't make much sense to me. Some of it is related to sin. I see that God reacts to sin in different ways during different times like the following. There are a couple of instances where God punishes the sinners directly as in the two cases below: 1. Major flood that annihilated everything during Noah's time due to sin 2. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins Then there is the whole crucifixation of Jesus to atone mankind of its sins. In this case God didn't directly take it out on the human race. Instead he used a sacrifice. I can't seem to understand how a supreme entity like God changes with time. If Jesus had come earlier, maybe the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah could be avoided. I have many many more questions which I am trying to get answer for, but I don't want to spam Simon's blog.
• March 13, 2010, JustMe writes: Hello, Simon. I am so happy that I found your website. You have many of the same questions that I have had for years! This statement/question: "So Jesus died for my sins. Thanks Jesus. But dude, couldn’t you have just not created the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the first place, I mean surely that would have saved the both of us a whole lot of trouble, right? It’s not like you didn’t know how things would turn out!" is exactly how I feel. I feel that the bible makes "God" out to be selfish and cruel. I don't see how a loving God could create humans if he knew that there was the SLIGHTEST chance that EVEN ONE of us would die and go to a place where they would BURN FOR ETERNITY. A loving God would rather be alone than to take that chance! Surely he knew that at least one of us would not believe in Christianity. And how can Christians so easily have babies knowing that there's a chance their child or children will grow up and have a mind of their own and not believe in Christianity? They are taking a chance of that child going to hell, right? Why the fear factor? It seems to me that God would want us to love him for who he is and not because we're afraid of going to hell. Why give us brains and FREE WILL if the only correct choice is Christianity, or burn in hell? That is not much of a choice, is it? It's not that I don't believe in God or even Jesus, it's just that I feel that something went wrong somewhere in history and someone in power decided that we have to put fear in the people to make them act right - and there was born organized religion. Simon, I commend you for being openly able to express your views online because some of us (like me) are too afraid to tell people how I really feel. I feel that my family will not like me and make me feel like an outcast. They are very very religious.
• March 13, 2010, Simon Jones writes: First off, let me just say that I do not consider any of the discussions and/or questions above to be spam and you are all more than welcome to continue your discussions relating to this subject right here. Sadie, thanks for your comments. I have a few questions and points which I'll throw out there for you and others to ponder. Addressing your first comment, I'm still confused in much the same way as I think the recent commenter, John, is. The whole Christ thing is a little confusing for me. The God of the old testament is a malevolent jealous God who frequently flies into a rage enacting gross acts of vicious hateful cruelty upon people and a world that we're supposed to believe he loves. If this character were actually a parent in the flesh today he would likely be incarcerated for the protection of his children and the threat he poses to society as a whole! However, thanks to Christ, Angry spiteful God is somehow appeased by the fact that his 'son' came to earth and died a violent sacrificial death at the hands of humans. Somehow this death, which he knew wasn't really a death because "Jesus is alive" now atones for mankinds sins and angry God chills out and become this far more laid back, chilled out, and distant father from afar who now chooses to talk to his people through their feelings rather than in the bold, inescapable, and dramatic ways of the old testament. Well as you can tell, that's something of a leap of understanding for me, and in some respects it seems like a cop out. Gods anger and wrath, and his close communion with mankind, the very subjects of his own creation, is somehow calmed by the appearance of his son who 'died' for us? And thanks to his sons pseudo death we now have to guess what God is saying through the minefield of human emotions, seeking out feelings and listening to Gods voice 'in our hearts' somehow knowing that this isn't just us? I don't know about you, but I kind of wish God would, at least a few times, go back to the direct methods he used to employ before he became such a chilled out, loved-up, peace and love God. You wrote "Adam and Eve didn’t know good from evil, they didn’t have lust or sex because they didn’t have those emotions they didn’t know how, without that they never would have had children. Had they not had children where would you be now? How would you have gotten to earth?" Thats an interesting perspective. So sex is inherently evil then? That actually explains why some religious people are so utterly screwed up when it comes to the question of sex and sexuality. I mean here we are, sexual beings, commanded by God to go forth and multiply, biologically created to become aroused for the purpose of procreation, but cursed with the use of organs that were put there for the sole purpose of sin by a God who doesn't want us to sin. That's very interesting. Again, that reaches back to the rather interesting question of why, if God knows the beginning and end or all things, did he deliberately build in a flaw that would cause such imperfection, pain and destruction? You wrote "Opposition is necessary" for us to understand, but I disagree. A team of engineers charged with creating an engine to get a spacecraft into orbit don't build in flaws to their machine in order to appreciate their achievement that much more when it gets to space DESPITE the problems it was created with! You wrote "If you hadn’t had a bad day how would you know what a good day was? If you weren’t healthy how would you know if you were sick? If you never suffered how would you know the joy of peace?" I get what you're saying but lets say that you went your entire life without knowing of the existence or taste of chocolate. Would this somehow spoil your enjoyment of fruit or other tasty foods? I put it to you that it would not. In fact I am quite sure there are many things I have not yet experienced and may never experience that might well enrich my life. But I base my understandings in the context of that which I know and while I may poorer in some respects for the things I have not yet experienced, how would I know this? Lastly Sadie, you wrote "I don’t know the history and many of the beliefs of other religions. They are likely to be as right as various sects of christianity. I don’t know. I don’t know them, I haven’t been exposed to them and I’m very comfortable with my religion and have not had doubts or questions that have not been resolved from my religion so I see no need to explore other beliefs." I find this to be one of the most fascinating things about all religious people. The ability to believe unswervingly without knowledge of other religions, that yours is 100% right and that others are wrong is a quite amazing thing. For me it seems to walk a fine line between admiral devotion and willful ignorance. If someone refused to give up the notion that Santa Claus was not real then that person would be dismissed as a fool. However, rebrand Santa Claus as a deity and all of a sudden the whole thing becomes a different issue. Back to Jesus though, I still don't get it. The entire notion that someone who may or may not have been around a couple of thousand years ago, actually pays some debt that I haven't been presented with seems entirely bogus to me. To use the examples of a financial debt is fair enough, though it relies on me accepting that I have some kind of outstanding debt in the first place. Right now the notion of God seems plausible to me but to apply religion to this is where, if you ask me, we start getting into the realm of Santa Claus.
• March 14, 2010, Sadie writes: I feel as if I'm being attacked more than many that have posted on this sight. As I've studied the scriptures I see how one may see God changing from rough to loving, however I think it is because of the different tone of the New and Old testement. The punishement of God is still in existance today, the tsunamis the flood in New Orleans, the earthquakes around the world. There are a variety of things that we now call natural disastors that the Bible depicts as punishments from God. Because the Bible was written by prophets they see the distruction of a nation, whether it be by 'natural disastors' or wars with other nations they are a form of punishment from God. However, the New Testement is written of the ministry of Christ and the apostles not as much the history of the people and their dissenting characteristics. As for communication directly with God even in the Old Testement, as near as I can recall, this is given to the prophets. Does that mean it doesn't happen to others? I dont' believe it has ceased, however I believe it is ONLY in accordance with our faith that we are able to recieve more inpressive confirmation. Does that mean because you believe you suddenly see everything as a sign and an answer from God? I don't think so. But for some, maybe. It is only as I am more faithful, more obedient, more firm that I recieve a power that is unexplainable and greater than any feeling I could conjure. Sex is not inherintly evil, it is sacred. We have choices. It isn't like we were given this flaw to apreciate all else, rather we were given choice. You wrote we are, "cursed with the use of organs that were put there for the sole purpose of sin by a God who doesn’t want us to sin." Sex and lust aren't sinful, the misuse of them is where the sin comes. They are there for procreation and in the world today, in my oppinion, they are largly misused which is why religion links sex with sin. It isn't in the minute opposition that is as important as the larger opposition. If you hadn't tasted sweet you wouldn't know salty yet if you eat an orange you know sweet although you may not know it as well as if you had tasted chocolate or pure sugar. It is the major opposition that I am talking about here, not the minor details of opposition. Certainly the greater diversity of experiences one has the better one is able to appreciate what they have, however associating with what has been experience is the way to live. The point is, Adam and Eve hadn't had experiences. They didn't know even the most general, basic opposition which is why they had to be tempted by the serpant and partake of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. As has been pointed out my claims are christian and based on the Bible, there is no solid explainable proof for the validity of the Bible, yet I know of it's truth because of the great power that I have felt that I can not explain with words. It is not with 'blind' faith that I follow. I do have faith in what I can not see, but as you said there are many things you don't understand that you accept, they have come to some resolve for you. My religion, God, is better resolved for me than my own emotions. Although I use the term 'I feel something' it isn't an emotion. As I said, it is something I can't explain with words. As I've said, these are my beliefs. I fully admit I am not as knowledgable as many of the other commentors, but I know what I know. You said, "For me it seems to walk a fine line between admiral devotion and willful ignorance" This is not the first time I have heard similiar words. I'm not ignorant about what my religion teaches. I know it's doctrine, although I have to continue learning it becasue there is so much to know and there are different levels of knowledge and faith. I don't quite know what to say. I have always been surrounded by people who believe in God and have some form of religion, or else don't care about it at all. Until recently I haven't delt with people who are so conflicted and questioning about one or both subjects. It's always been a part of my life. I know myself well enough that even if I were born in a place that had a different religion or no religion at all I would have searched out the religion I now have. I am that sure of it being the right religion for me. I do believe there is only one truth, one religion. I don't believe it is my place to declare that as mine no matter how devoted I am to it especially when I know so little about the other religions, yet, for me it is the 'right' one. Perhaps that is why there is such a variety of religions, the teachings and requirements are different and different people react to them differently. For some Santa Clause and Christ could be synonimouse in their reality, but Santa is a symbol of Christ...another conversation. You said of Christ's death, "Somehow this death, which he knew wasn’t really a death because “Jesus is alive....” I'd like to address this. Because he had power from God and lived a perfect life unlike anybody else has or will (once again relying on the Bible) he was able to break the bounds of death. He was able to raise from the dead and never will die again, a ressurection. This is something that everybody who has come to earth will experience. It isn't reincarnation, it is coming back to the same body in the most perfected for it is able to be in and never departing again. It is a state of immortality that will be given after our death. Recently I read an article on the atonement. It talks about how Heavenly Father(God) has mercy for us, but Christ had to come down and gain mercy from the other 'intelligences' or spirits that will be demanding justice. Both the earth and the other inhabitants of the earth will be demanding justice. Like one of the early commentors stated, the raped will want justice. These victims will demand justice as well, i believe, as so many others. Christ came to obtain mercy from the victims for the perpetrators. That the victim may say, "well, after all you have suffered, after all you have done, If you ask for that perpetrator to come, okay" I don't know if that makes much sense. I feel like I don't explain myself very eloquently and I stumble over words. All the same, I still believe in God and Christ. I know they live. Thank you for letting me share.
• March 14, 2010, Simon Jones writes: Hi again Sadie. It's my pleasure to let you and others share your thoughts and opinions, and I am delighted that you have taken the opportunity. Of course, when talking about religion to people who are not entirely in the same place as you, there is the risk you might feel attacked, but as yet I can't see anyone attacking you here which refreshing as religious discussions can often become very heated indeed. I'm glad you have such a solid belief. That is admirable in so many ways. For you to claim that you would have found the very same faith even if you were born somewhere else is also a bold statement to make given that religion is often situational. For example, if you were born in Indonesia the chances are you would find Islam, if you were born in Italy you would probably find Catholicism, in India you would likely have found Hinduism, and Utah, USA, you would likely become a Mormon, proving that the kind of God you find often depends on what your nearest religious influence is. You wrote something interesting about Gods punishment still being evident today through natural disasters. That's a striking statement to make and one that is perhaps for another time, but I'm curious, do you this all natural disasters are Gods punishment? You mentioned the tsunami (of 2004 I assume) which killed well over a quarter of a million people, and the devastating Hurricane Katrina which lead to the collapse of the poorly maintained flood protection in New Orleans. So I assume you also believe the earthquake in Haiti, the forest fires in South East Australia, the famines in Africa, and the floods in India and Pakistan are also acts of holy punishment? I suppose my point was that in the old testament, God seems to speak audibly to a significant number of people, and wonders that could only be from God (for example the parting of the red sea) are far more obvious than the subtle things people now attribute to God. Today God seems to have taken much more of a back seat, though I suppose if you believe that every natural disaster is an act of righteous rage then for you God is indeed no less active, and in some respects, thanks to 24hr global news media, he might indeed seem like a very busy (and angry) God indeed! Lastly, for me Santa isn't a symbol of CHrist and I doubt many would look at fat Santa and see Jesus shining through. He seems like a very secular deity from where I am looking, though people have seen the face of Jesus on the underside of their clothes iron, in a naan bread, and even on a banana peel, so who knows ;-) (Note: I did write about 'signs' in an earlier post.)
• March 14, 2010, Ray writes:

  I do not consider any of the discussions and/or questions above to be spam and you are all more than welcome to continue your discussions relating to this subject right here.

  Thanks Simon, I wasn't sure what your policy is and I prefer to err on the side of caution. Sadie and I did have a friendly exchange of rather long emails. But I'd just like to point out a few things in light of the new comments. Santa Claus (or Father Christmas in much of the non-American English speaking world) is based on a legendary figure who appears in different cultures. Although the earliest roots are Christian, the emphasis is on his altruistic behaviour; the idea of him as a symbol for Jesus is a minority interpretation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Origins Simon, your thoughts on the Old vs. New Testament change in God's character/role and the twisted logic behind Jesus' sacrifice/"death" as atonement are well put and happen to be some of the earliest things I remember that launched my process of doubting as a child. The whole "atonement for our sins" and vicarious redemption thing is absurd and immoral when you really think about it. Christopher Hitchens has a good analogy:

  I don't see what's moral about Christian preaching, for example, apart from the horrible idea of vicarious redemption; I'll say it again in case I missed you the first time what I mean by that ... I can pay your debt even if I don't know you. If I was a friend I could say, "You're in debt? I'll pay!" In extreme cases people have been known to say, "I'll serve your sentence in prison", I could do that for you. But what I cannot do is relieve you of your responsibility; I can't say, "Throw your sins on me and they'll melt away." Immoral! You're not allowed to be, you're not entitled to be relieved of your responsibilities. And vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is a very primitive and horrible scape-goating idea that belongs to a barbaric period of human history.

  I did not ask for Jesus to be murdered for my "sins". If I do something wrong it's up to me to make amends. Nobody can forgive a perpetrator except the victim. Some guy being tortured to death (voluntarily perhaps, maybe on orders of his dad, or maybe it doesn't matter since they're supposed to be the same anyway) 2000 years ago does not absolve anyone of their responsibilities. It's a rather sick idea. Christian apologetics find ever more creative ways to justify this but it all fails in the light of reason. And it fails in the light of ethics. Next, you can't argue rationally with someone who says they're aware that there are contradicting religions but who cling to their own brand, come hell or high water (it's a figure of speech, not meant literally). Which brings us to the misanthropic, utterly disgusting phenomenon of calling natural disasters, diseases and other natural horrible things "acts of God's punishment". What an insult to basic decency. Do these people actually know what they're saying? Hundreds of thousands of people suffer pain and loss, become homeless, starve, lose loved ones or die themselves because of a tsunami, hurricane, earthquake, a virus, or whatever. And the religious are saying that they deserve it. All of them, no matter what kinds of people they are, including those who've never hurt a fly in their lives. Usually in areas of the world where poverty and harsh economic/political/social conditions make life pretty shitty in the first place and daily survival is no piece of cake. Your "punished" sinners include every innocent child and baby (including the unborn ones -- mass abortion, so to speak) who dies or is mutilated or crippled as a result of your oh so merciful and just God's wrath. It's when adult people spew forth such unadulterated contempt for humanity that I get angry. This has nothing to do with philosophical debate or mere differences of opinion anymore: They're telling good people (the majority, who get lumped in with murderes, rapists, child molesters and other "not good" people) that the horrors they suffer are their own fault. This is the kind of stuff where my gloves come off. I come from the country with the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence in the world, have lost friends to it, and am always stunned when that's called God's punishment. No, I'm sorry, there's no excuse for this kind of hatred for human beings and not having a shred of respect for the unbearable suffering in the world by implying that it's the victim's fault. Shame on you. And fuck you, courtesy of those who can't defend themselves against this hateful shit anymore. Of course, there are forms of suffering that result from human mistakes instead of random natural events, but that's not what we're talking about here. Although, no surprise, I have heard of people who claim the Holocaust was God's punishment of the Jews for killing Jesus. Granted, very few Christians will drop that low, but think about it: If you have the twisted sort of mind that has no problem with God killing a quarter million people via a flood wave, you shouldn't really have a problem with the concept of God killing six million people for getting his son nailed to a cross. But this is what happens when you don't think things through. When you feed your mind with religious doctrine uncritically. When you "rationalize" everything to fit into the little comfortable bubble you've chosen to stay in. As I've told Sadie via email, in my opinion -- based on many discussions and religious writings and speeches -- the fundamental difference between believers and nonbelievers is that there are two extreme opposite ways of what each think is a valid approach to reality: For the nonbeliever/atheist/agnostic, what we know about reality and the nature of reality/truth is based on honestly examining evidence, using reason and logic to draw conclusions from what we observe, and to admit that while we don't know everything (and make mistakes) these are the only reliable tools we have to get nearer to the truth. For the believer (whether in religious theism, New Age woo, or any other supernatural/metaphysical-based belief), all bets are off. Logic and reason don't matter. Evidence has no objective standard; it is whatever they want it to be. They're convinced of the absolute certainty of their belief. "Feelings" are taken as evidence for whatever they want to believe. They say there's a "presence" or "power" that can't be explained, can't be demonstrated. Worst of all, many admit this. While that is at least honest, it leads to one conclusion: As long as we have different modes of approaching and describing reality, and even determining what it is, it's completely useless talking about reality or the truth with dyed-in-the-wool believers. If it seems ironic that people like me engage in so much discussion despite that conclusion, it's because there may be fence-sitters who're not completely lost to their isolated world or the rare case of a believer who has doubts and deserves to hear that it's okay to have doubts (instead of being made to feel guilty). Also, I personally am interested to hear why people believe the things they believe, it's interesting and educational, although often disheartening to hear the "anything goes" arguments. Simon, to bring this back to the ideas you explore in your blog, and the question this entry asks: All these questions about doctrinal details and trying to piece a coherent understanding together are based on a whole bunch of underlying assumptions that actually don't hold water. I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone else, it's good to have this discourse and anyone has the right to question, doubt, reply, give their opinions, disagree, etc. But in the end, if you have a rational approach to reality, a specific question like "So Jesus died for my sins? What does that mean and how exactly does it make sense?" only works on the premise that 1) Jesus as described in the Bible actually existed and experienced the things written there, 2) there is a god as described in the Judaeo-Christian systems, and 3) the religious concept of "sin" is based in reality. So far, there is no evidence for any of that, contrary to what apologetics with their self-serving definition of "evidence" claim. In order to have a meaningful discussion about the question we have to pretend that these things are true. To date, we have no reason to even think it likely that they are true, so why are we pretending? It's what we do in literary analysis: Why did Mr. X in novel Y do this and that? We speak of Mr. X as if he were real, for the sake of the literary discussion. But we know it's fictional. In the case of religious discussion, I think it's healthy to make it very clear that we're talking about hypothetical entities and concepts. Matters are confounded by religious people who twist, turn and bend their own multifarious interpretations and claims any way they like, all the time. They even disagree radically amongst each other. We should stop pandering to that road to insanity and make it clear that the onus of proving religious claims is on the religious. It's not up to normal, rational people to refute their claims. --- To end on a light note, for those who confuse their own ideas what constitutes natural sexual behaviour with reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexual_behavior#Sex_for_pleasure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
• May 31, 2010, UncagedCardinal writes: Yes Simon, lots of Christian 'theology' is a rare puzzle. Ive been a born again, tongue-speaking fundi, read the |Bible more than oncwe, and yet STILL there is something I don't get: One thing I still just cannot understand. .... if our 'punishment' for sin was that we be ETERNALLY separated from God and sent to hell (FOREVER, nashing of teeth etc) then why, if Jesus has FULLY 'paid the price of our sin' isn't Jesus now FOREVER seperated from God (the 'Father' bit of himself that is) whilst FOREVER having his teeth nashed' ? Why was Jesus raised after only 'three' days? ? Did God change his/her/its mind and reduce our 'Forever' punishment ? If you got a 50year sentence for murder, and i offered to spend a mere five days in a cell in your place, would 'Justice' have then been served? I just don't get it. Oh yea, as well as being ‘born-again’ baptized (full dunk) glossolalia, ’slain in the Spirit’ etc, I was also a prof. musician for 35 years. (Cathedral Organist too). So, with regard to the ‘can’t appreciate a good day unless you experience a bad day’ argument. (which I once believed as True) I’ll use a musical parable/allegory to expose the falseness of this argument. I was booked to play Tchiakovsky Piano Concerto at two venues with a Northern U.K.Orchestra. Once in March. The other later in the year. (September) At the March concert, at the last minute, I decided to play half of the notes in the wrong order. The cacophany was painful. At the end, there was no applause from the few who remained in the audience. After the concert, the conductor, who was, (someone said) ’seething with righteous indignation’, asked me why I had ‘destroyed’ the Tchiakovsky piece.To which I explained that I had played all of those notes wrong, on purpose, so that when I play it correctly the next time (at the forthcoming September concert) the audience will enjoy it all that much more. I have since, always wondered why I got my face slapped that day and why they asked someone else to play the September concert. Some people are just sooo strange.
• January 27, 2011, Keith writes: It's way deeper then you think, Before, If you read the old testament, There was *Law* And under that law if you sin you would surely die, There wasnt no getting on your knees and asking for forgiveness for certain people, You had to have the preist of God go into the church and do it for you, and if they were of sin also, when they got in the church they would die, God would kill them, The law was to be followed,If you came against them you and your thousand generations after you, would suffer because of your sins, Back then it was crazy, Because God just wanted *Man* To be faithful and love him and do his will, But most people denied him and went astray so forgiveness wasnt really given sometimes, This is was he took a part of himself and put it into a woman so that he would be the one to DIE for all the sins man have commited and save us all, So that we can have a gateway to God, Back in the old testament there was no getting close with God and getting forgiven because of all the sins they would have committed but Jesus came to stop ALL OF THAT law, and now instead of living under law, we now live under grace, and we are given so many chances, and we are able to cry out and be forgiven by Jesus. JESUS is the gateway to God, although he is God, But Just like these words have to get to your eyes before they get to your brain, same thing with Jesus and God, God split himself up, GOD THE SPIRT , GOD THE SON, AND GOD THE FATHER, Jesus said he is the way and the truth, he came to die for us, and BRING US THE REAL TRUTH... He came us to tell us to show love, and told us many other things, such as, Us having the power to trample on snakes and serpants, such as demons and devils.
• April 24, 2011, Vincent, India writes: Nice reading the post. I was born in a Catholic family in India. I really never understood as to how Jesus died for my sins. I am still searching for some understanding. Perhaps, it is a myth created by the Church to keep followers feeling guilty for having crucified Jesus.
• May 24, 2011, Elise, New Mexico writes: What's a sin?!! The whole thing makes no sense! It works itself into a big circle! There has to be more to Jesus dying on the cross than SIN. I don't know WHAT exactly.....

I was criticized by a friend recently for not being more open and honest on this blog. She told me that, while interesting, the two previous posts read more like articles than the writings of someone who was trying to confront the most searching questions of God and faith.

At first I was a little disappointed at her appraisal because I had written both those posts hoping to engage readers, genuinely interested in their responses and how those responses might steer my thoughts. But I see what she meant. Neither post was written in a delving personal way that revealed anything of my search. They scratched the surface, but they didn’t particularly bleed truth.

The problem is that truth is hard. I’m writing this from where I am in life, and where I am feels further away from God than ever before. My belief hasn’t swayed but my understanding and my faith are in tatters and I’m not entirely comfortable revealing that I feel the question of God is now more murky for me than ever before.

In a little while, as it’s Sunday and I feel like I should make some kind of proactive stride in ‘God’s direction,’ I am going to attempt to go to church. I did a little research yesterday on what church I could go to, but even that process left me feeling somewhat bewildered and confused. I don’t understand the different denominations and how they relate to me. As an average non-church person I’m puzzled as to what all these different versions of the same thing mean and how they differ from one another.

To be honest, the prospect of even walking through the doors of a church is daunting to me; no it’s more than that, it’s terrifying. I’ve had terrible experiences at three different churches in the past and I’m currently thought of as some kind of relation to Satan by one small group of misguided happy clappers, many of whom have never actually met me or spoken to me!

Sadly, in my experience church people are among the most intolerant judgmental and impatient people I’ve ever met. They delight in your questions for a short while, but soon tire of you if you don’t quickly sit the fuck down and shut up with all your damn stupid questions. They come off as arrogant know-it-all’s who think they have the answer for everything, and if you don’t hurry up and get with the program then they would sooner you just took your doubt some place else thank you very much.

For me churches feel like clubhouses for the converted. They’re not welcoming, they’re not warm, and they’re not safe. They are by their very nature buildings full of religious people and that’s a problem when you’re someone who has an inherent distrust of religious people!

Walking into that kind of environment is about the single most uncomfortable thing you could ask me to do, yet ‘churchy folk’ just don’t seem to be able to get that through their thick heads. Asking me to come an sing songs to God then listen to some boring suit drone on for way too long while I sit on an uncomfortable chair is not the way to engage me. Sadly though, this seems to be the only way that Christians have to relate to me and the rest of the world. “Come to my church.” “My church is different.” “My church is friendly.” “You’ll like my church, the people are great.” – NO PEOPLE, I WON’T! DON’T YOU GET IT?!

The problem is that no, they don’t get it. For the religious people out there (and yes I appreciate many dislike the term ‘religious,’ but you are what you are) church is great. It’s their community, their safe haven, somewhere they like to go because it’s where they get to hang out with like minded people who all feel comfortable closing their eyes when they pray, wobbling their hands while they sing, or speaking in gobbledegook that is supposedly the language of angels or something?

For someone who isn’t used to this environment the whole thing seems a bit strange and not entirely comfortable. Jesus went out into the world and spoke with fishermen, hookers, and the everyday people on the street. I’m no expert, but I don’t think he went to church that often and one of the few times that I can recall he did was when he smashed the place up!

Jesus was controversial, outspoken, not religious, and unpopular with the church leaders of the day. I think I would get along with a guy like that.

So yeah, I don’t like church. You probably get that by now. But what else am I supposed to do? I believe in God but I want to take that belief and turn it into something more visceral, more real, something that I guess would qualify as a real faith. Honestly, as much as I am repelled by religious people who put their lives into the hands of an unseen God, I envy their ability to do so. I wish that I had the faith to be so fantastically brave. So as much as I despise and deplore the experience of stepping into a church and standing among people who have time and again rejected me, I’m going to try and do it again.

It’s Sunday evening and I’m going to church.

—

So how did it go? Click here to find out.

Comments

• March 15, 2009, Anne writes: Hey, you're right, this does help me know more where you are right now. Thanks! I'd ask how the church thing went, but I don't know, maybe that's not the right question. I guess if this was before you went, I'd have a suggestion or two. But I know that whenever I've gone to a new church I've felt awkward and out of place and it takes me a while to remember that God's my focus, not the pews. But, anyway, how was it?
• March 16, 2009, anna writes: Simon, I would say this post is pretty revealing. sadly, I can't really disagree with a lot of your assessment about churches. Most really are pretty church-y. It's not really the right approach to reach out to people who aren't steeped in the tradition already. I know I've put my foot in it around here before, speaking too off-the-cuff on politics. But I felt like I would respond here to let you know that I appreciate your thoughtful posts on the topic. I don't find your discussion offensive at all -- It seems to me that it's a good thing when anyone genuinely is trying to figure this whole thing out. (p.s., I hate visiting new churches too.)
• March 17, 2009, Simon Jones writes: I failed. I went to the church, parked my car and then sat there watching people walk in. I was waiting for there to be something of a lull, but then when there was one I sat there and waited for something else. I don't know what. I didn't help that I saw a couple I recognized from that church that think I'm in league with Satan. They would recognize me, I knew that much, how would they react to me? Who knows. I decided to wait another couple of minutes until they were inside. Maybe I could slip in at the back late, then slip out early? But come on, what would be the point in that? I might as well not bother if I'm going to do this 'incognito' I thought to myself. So I got out of my car walked up the path and then stopped just short of the main entrance, my heart beating fast in my chest. You want honesty? Well okay then... I was nervous. Churches are bad places for me, and while I appreciate that this isn't true in all cases I never saw the bad stuff coming the last three times so why in the hell should I feel anymore confident this time around? A girl came walking down the path, and it struck me that it's dark, there are overhanging trees and I am a guy in a dark jacket loitering at the door of some ancient church. This probably looks suspect, I thought to myself, so I put my cell phone to my ear and pretended to be listening to someone. She walked past and into the church without so much as glance at me. A lady was stood by the door. She's was the greeter I guess, probably nice enough, but not very helpful for me who was looking to slide into the building like James Bond on a mission for her majesties secret service. I stood there for a while, just out of sight of the greeter lady and the late comers who were sat along the back row. Then as a piano started to play everyone stood to their feet. A perfect opportunity for me to move in unnoticed so I strode a few steps toward the door then retreated like a kid playing dare with the waves on a beach. The people inside the brightly lit church began to sing, and I just stood there outside walking back and forth, pacing like the accused waiting for a jury to come to a decision. This is so shit, I thought. I've come to church and I can't even walk through the damn doors! I waited a few more moments then retreated back to my car where I sat for a couple of minutes feeling crappy that I had failed. How do I find God without becoming religious? Are the two really inseparable? The Christians I know always seem to object to being called religious, but they are religious because it goes with the territory. Religious people hang around churches like drunks hang around bars, and while not everyone who regularly goes to a bar is a drunk, could it really be claimed that the people who regularly go to church aren't religious? I'm confused. I feel utterly conflicted about this, really embattled about the whole thing. What makes this all the harder is that there is nobody I know and trust that I could go to a church with either. Nobody to bounce these feelings off. I feel unsupported like a cop going to some kind of call without backup. It's a pretty lonely experience for me, and I won't be repeating that again anytime soon.
• March 17, 2009, Todd writes: Thanks for your comments... i confess that I am a part of the religious establishment. I am a "worship leader" at a large church. I am even a pastor. In fact, my church is one that focuses on the "un-churched" to try to connect and relate to them. Some regulars complain about it but it's one thing we don't feel we can compromise on. It puts me in a hard place though as the worship leader. How does one lead folks in an experience that is for believers and at the same time tries to connect with un-believers and seekers? Tall order. Simon, if you were to design your own church service in the context of a Christian church or any church for that matter what would it look and feel like? What would they talk about? Who would be there? Would there be music or singing? If so, what would they sing about? Would it be like a family or community or a rock show with dim lights? I have another question for you... What's to stop you from taking what you HAVE found to be true about God and putting them immediately into practice in your life? It seems that you have this need to accept whatever it is that you are looking for in it's entirety. Why not just start with what you know NOW and build upon that. Maybe you do. I have many doubts and unanswered questions about a lot of things, but I still mostly believe in them. I see all kinds of things wrong with the church in general and also my home church, but I realize that a perfect church just isn't out there anymore than a perfect family is. I am reminded of what someone said in scripture that was said directly to Jesus. "I do believe, but help my unbelief." Also, just for the record, Jesus was raised going to the temple (Jewish temple) very regularly apparently from an early age. He amazed the priests with his knowledge at the temple when he snuck off from his parents age of 12. The gospel accounts have him actually teaching in the temple and his followers called him "rabbi" or "teacher". He also tore the place up with a whip when people turned church into a money making venture instead of a house of prayer.
• March 18, 2009, Matt Whaley writes: Even as a Christian who has warm fuzzies about church, I've always hated going to new church by myself. It must be that much harder for someone who doesn't have the same positive past relationship with the concept of church. Any chance of you finding a tolerable Christian friend to aide you in your quest?
• March 19, 2009, Simon Jones writes: You know Matt, would you believe I don't have any Christian friends who live anywhere near me and the one person whom I would trust to come with me has already refused. So in this regard I find myself absolutely alone and therefore absolutely unlikely to try a stunt like that again for quite a while. I can't tell you how frustrating that is for me. I feel like I am never, and will never, be a member of 'the club.' Most of the time I'm okay with that, but it's hard to take when you're trying to be bold you know? Todd, to answer your question "If you were to design your own church service in the context of a Christian church or any church for that matter what would it look and feel like?" I've often thought about this and I've yet to come up with a church service that feels like anything other than a church service but I don't think that's the problem. Making church cool isn't the answer. Church for church people is fine. You go there, you sing songs, pray, listen to a suit, then greet all the people you know before going home. It's a nice experience but it's pretty alien to anyone who doesn't do church. When else would we sing, pray, and listen to some suit drone on for too long? I think that 'the church' needs to find a way to build a bridge between the clubhouse and the community it serves. Rather than expecting and inviting people to come to church why can't the church maybe come to them, and I don't mean in the usual tired old format of songs, prayer, and some suit talking for too long. I mean why not get out into the community and engage people, just talk to them. So rather than meeting at the club house, maybe have regular informal meet ups in coffee houses or wherever where you just hang out and get to know the people. I'm not a churchy person so you'll have to forgive my ignorance, but didn't Jesus say "Go out and make disciples of all men." I think the key phrase there is "Go out" and, if you ask me, I don't think "make disciples" means "sell Jesus." I think it means go out into the world and be different, be Christian, 'represent.' The Christian principles of truth, love and forgiveness are attractive, so couldn't it be argued that the "make disciples" bit could just be a result of what happens when you're out in the world being different, being -dare I say- Christian? I like to meet people and bounce ideas around. I like to discuss and test things. In my experience Christians often misinterpret this as an attack on their faith. One Christian I know used to become very uncomfortable and combative whenever the subject of God and faith came up between us. Because of this we eventually ceased talking about the subject and sadly a wall was built where a bridge should have been. This isn't uncommon, but unfortunately when you start building walls instead of bridges you create a them-and-us situation which doesn't lead anywhere good. I am willing to step onto a bridge, I'm less willing to start scaling a wall!
• March 19, 2009, Shane writes: Simon, I really feel for your dilemma and wish that you did not feel so intolerably uncomfortable in church. I think that many of us can relate to what you are describing because we too have been "new" to a church at one time or another. I know that I have anyway. Simon, I guess you perplex me a little bit, to be honest. We have spent time together outside the world of blogging and I would consider you my friend. Also, I genuinely don't have any harsh judgmental feelings toward you no matter what you choose to believe or not believe. And yet it would appear, I am one of those religious folks that you seem to be so desperately frustrated with. For me, it begs the question, what makes me (as an example) religious from your point of view? I do agree with much of what you have said about the institution of the church (church as an organization) and frankly do my best (humanly speaking) to follow Jesus example about "going out" beyond the walls of our community of faith. For example, I have many non-believing or diverse friendships that so not share my faith in Jesus Christ; and they really are friends, not projects or prospects. But here is the thing, I am not that unique as a follower of Christ. I know many people who have faith that also genuinely believe, feel, and act with the same convictions I just described of myself. Again, I would ask, what makes us religious from your point of view? Now, please do not misunderstand, I am not asking you this because I am personally offended nor am I fishing for you to affirm me in a superficial way. I am simply using myself as an example because you know me and I can only speak for myself. Also, I am trying to meet you where you are with the same measure of candor and vulnerability with which you have initiated this dialogue. Maybe, I will start with that and see how you respond. Then maybe I can better help you (with others also) think about your faith journey with better perspective. Please understand, I am only interested in giving opinions because you seem to be genuinely asking for them. Shane
• March 19, 2009, Anne writes: Simon, Now you are totally amazing me with your honesty. Somehow I really do feel that baring your fears and letting them into the sunlight is a step towards...something. And now I wonder something else...are you looking for a God who brings healing to a wounded soul? Oh, that sounds funny. But in my pledge to post more, I will press "submit comment" anyhow, rather than not posting anything :-)
• March 20, 2009, Simon Jones writes: It's funny to me that religious people often seem to get a little irked by the term. I'm using the word 'religious' as a term of fact. As in if you are a follower of a faith believing in a God then you are by definition a religious person. This is NOT an insult, but a simple use of the word as it is defined... Definitions of the word 'Religious' on the Web: * concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order" * having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude" * of or relating to clergy bound by monastic vows; "the religious or regular clergy conducts the service" * scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care. * pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order. However, I do understand that the word has an air of negativity to it, and I guess that to some extent I may have been using the word to make a point. If you don't like the word religious then ask yourself why. Now apply that to someone outside of your religious community and imagine how they must feel. I will add that I am NOT trying to insult anyone here. I deeply admire, to the point of envy, those who have a real and meaningful faith in God.
• March 21, 2009, Shane writes: Simon, Thanks for the response. This helps me understand your perspective a little better. And don't worry, I am not "irked" by the use of the word "religious". As I said in my last comment, I am not offended by the word. I am only asking for clarification because I want to understand a little better. My goodness, in many ways I welcome the label. For example, one place in the scripture, it reads that "pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows". So for me, if we defined it by that standard, I'd welcome you calling me religious any day of the week. You see, for me, the word's meaning is only as legitimate as the context in which it's used. Unless I am misunderstanding, the context in which you use the word is included with other interesting words; words like "intolerant", "judgmental", "impatient", "arrogant know-it-all’s", etc. This of course is why I said that you perplex me. Because if the religious are all people who have faith in a God then by default I'm included in the "intolerant, judgmental, impatient, arrogant know-it-all" group. Then I wonder to myself, "boy, i sure didn't mean to leave that impression on my friend Simon when we hung out the last time" Do you see my conundrum? Simon, You have used experience with "some christians" in "some churches" to define your entire experience. But it's hard to swallow (as someone who knows you a little bit) because I know that you have had far more experiences with church people (religious people) then what you have represented in your post. That of course is your prerogative as the author and creator of a blog I suppose, but let me ask you a question. If you are genuinely searching for God and using "church people" as a reflection of who God might or might not be then shouldn't you share the entire experience? Again, let me be clear, I'm not writing this because I feel offended. I am writing this because I want to challenge some of the presumptions being made here. I challenge the presumptions because I think that they may prevent you from finding the faith that have said you are seeking. I think that if you start choosing to see a distinction between the people that you think are legitimately more like Jesus and those that are not then you will be better for it and may even find what your looking for. I know that some church people have offended you. Others have not. Make a distinction between the two and search out the God of the ones that you think best fits the scriptures you are quoting. I hope this helps and I truly want the best for you Simon! Shane
• March 21, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Hmm... Disclosure. You know Shane you got me thinking maybe I need to write a post about my experiences with Christians, good and bad. Maybe full disclosure is a requirement here if I am to write honestly from where I am today. But then here's my issue with that - I don't want to! :-) In all honesty despite the context of my experiences with Christians I am not sure I want to write a post about it, not least of all because I don't want to carve the future out of the past. I will say that I know many truly great people who happen to be Christians, people I count among my friends, people who also happen to be pastors, worship leaders, and the such. These people have provided a balance to my experience of religious people, and their influence has played a very big role in keeping me from simply abandoning any desire to seek God. My good experiences with religious people far outweigh the bad ones. However, with my religious friends there is an element that is absent with those religious people I do not know, and that element is trust.
• March 21, 2009, FreeThinker writes: Simon, my dear I am not in the least bit surprised that you couldn't walk into that church. If others here agree that it is difficult to walk into a new church when you're a Christian then I can only imagine how hard it must be to walk into a church when you have had painful experiences relating to church. I know you question the idea of 'signs from God' but could the fact that you felt so "utterly conflicted" and "embattled" actually be God speaking directly to your soul I wonder? Forgive me for repeating what I have written before, but have you ever considered that the reason why you were uneasy about church is because your spirit knows that you won’t find anything there but more emptiness, confusion, and condemnation? I commend your bravery at trying to go back to church, but Simon I think maybe you should try to listen closer to the messages that were being sent to you while you stood outside the door of that church. I am very happy that you didn't venture inside because I believe if you had then your focus would have become confused and the message from God would have become muddled with the instructions of man. I think your search for God is a great idea Simon, I really do, but I think you are confusing it with a search for religion. I would suggest that maybe God was speaking to you on Sunday, only you didn't realize.
• March 21, 2009, Rachel writes: Simon, I recommend going to a smaller church. There are churches that meet in houses and I think that's a setting you've expressed to me before you may be able to handle better. If you would like a list of such places, I am happy to give them. :-) Freethinker, I think one thing I disagree with in your response is this idea of God leading him to not enter the church less he be confused by the instructions of man. Its possible God lead him to not enter the church, but I disagree with this on principle- I don't believe that God would limit him in searching things out if he's searching for the truth. I think that if someone is genuinely searching for God, then the teachings of man aren't a threat to that search. I believe in one truth, and wherever that is gleaned or held there is value- even if its in a church. So there's my thoughts on that... would love to hear yours as well.
• March 24, 2009, FreeThinker writes: Well you know I only suggested that because there were some interesting responses to Simon's previous post about how people hear God. As for the question of God leading Simon away from a church, well I don't see that as entirely inconceivable. If God is all knowing then is it not possible that God could lead a person out of the way of danger? Who's to say that there wasn't some kind of danger in that situation? I hope Simon won't mind me changing the scene of this post a little when I ask you this. Imagine that he had experienced the very same feelings outside of a mosque that he was about to walk into. Do you suppose in that case God might be speaking to Simon?
• March 26, 2009, Cory writes: You know Simon, I think your observations about church are pretty accurate. The funny thing is that the church IS supposed to be a Christian clubhouse! You see the church is meant to be the place where Christians go in order to get help, teaching, and support from other Christians. Some people might tell you it's a place where Christians go to worship, but that's not correct because the Christian life itself is supposed to be an ongoing act of worship everyday in everything. You hit that nail on the nail on the head when you wrote about 'representing.' Maybe FreeThinker and Rachel are both onto something when they suggest that a [big] church isn't for you. Jesus said, 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst." So maybe you should ask God to help you find one of those people who is out there, as you put it, "representing."
• March 30, 2009, Rachel writes: Freethinker, I think there's an important distinction I need to make. I'm not sure if in your comments you are suggesting that he was drawn away from that particular church because that particular church may have been a little off, or that he may have been drawn away from all churches period. To me, that really changes the tone of the above two comments- and what I'm comprehending from your comment is that you meant it individually and then globally- ie. that particular church and then churches as a whole. Correct me if I'm wrong on this interpretation :). I guess in general I think if someone is looking and honestly searching for God, God isn't threatened by how or where someone looks. I think God respects people who really search to know Him. I actually suggested to Simon at one point to maybe try a synagogue or mosque first... it might be easier for him. To answer the above question, if he felt incredible fear about entering a mosque- I would probably first conclude that it was his own fears and not God leading him away. I think these are all things he needs to do and I don't believe God shies away from the process that someone needs to go through to come to know Him. To be clear, I will say that it is of course possible that God was leading him away from that particular church, but I think that would have more to do with maybe that particular church being hurtful than God leading him away from looking into the church as a whole... which is more what I picked up from the tone in your comments- but please correct me if I'm wrong. Ha, So Simon thanks for allowing conversations like this to occur on your blog... as we somewhat analyze your situation and God's designs on it... :-/ (something to think more about later...). Definitely appreciate your willingness to be open here. :)
• April 1, 2009, Mark Raggett writes: Hey Simon, I find it interesting, understandable, and very unfortunate that you associate the church with the Pharisees and the religious institutions of Jesus’ day. Surely one would expect the religion based on Jesus’ life, ministry and teaching and named after him to, at the very least, heed the criticisms he had of the religious people of his time? Jesus really shook things up and made waves in his society and the church is suppose to be the realization of those shake ups. Yet the criticisms of the Pharisees still seem incredibly relevant and Jesus’ message seems just as revolutionary. My hope would be that people like yourself would read the gospels and associate Jesus and his disciples with the Church more than the Pharisees and the corruption in the Temple. That’s how Jesus decided to do it: him and twelve close friends, hanging out, learning, fishing, eating together and bringing the world some good news. Of course things get a little more complicated once Jesus heads back home but the New Testament is full of glimpses of the Church looking very little like the Pharisees. NT Wright has a vision of the Church which I quite like: “For many, "church" means just the opposite of that negative image. It's a place of welcome and laughter, of healing and hope, of friends and family and justice and new life. It's where the homeless drop in for a bowl of soup and the elderly stop by for a chat. It's where one group is working to help drug addicts and another is campaigning for global justice. It's where you'll find people learning to pray, coming to faith, struggling with temptation, finding new purpose, and getting in touch with a new power to carry that purpose out. It's where people bring their own small faith and discover, in getting together with others to worship the one true God, that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. No church is like this all the time. But a remarkable number of churches are partly like that for quite a lot of the time.” – Simply Christian Personally I feel blessed to be part of a Church that does look like that sometimes. But, like you basically said, if there is one thing worse than trying to sell Jesus it’s trying to sell your church. My perception is that the path you are trying to take is: unclear belief in God -> a church (or mosque, synagogue etc.) -> nice clear idea of God. I think this is looking to the church for something it just isn’t capable of providing, even at its best. I would say the next step, at least on the Christian path, is Jesus: working out what you think of the accounts of his life, who he was and what his relationship with God was, what he said and what he challenges us to do. For me that gives me a better idea of who God is. Jesus then leads us to the Holy Spirit who gives us the grace, patience and motivation to try and put up with the Church. Now I don’t think this is something you have to necessarily do alone in a, “Come back when you agree with us” kind of way, instead perhaps you could include others in the journey. Talk to people who claim to have a clearer idea of who God is and work out where that idea comes from and why. The disciples were mostly fishermen who hung around a lot with a guy who claimed to have a clearer idea who God was and it seemed to work for them. Unfortunately you don’t have Jesus around but As to the question of denominations: well I’ve waded in a little and I know a bit about the differences and where they come from so I can attempt to answer any questions. As to how it relates to you, well I guess the number of denominations should say that being a Christian doesn’t mean believing everything the guy next to you believes, but mostly they are just a distraction. Anyway, I really enjoyed your post. Struggling to write the truth of where you actually are and how you actually feel is far superior to writing to try and engage people (and ironically more engaging) and I think the same principle can be applied to all “entertainment” included films, music (particularly Christian) and maybe even Churches.
• April 12, 2009, wookit writes: "Honestly, as much as I am repelled by religious people who put their lives into the hands of an unseen God, I envy their ability to do so. I wish that I had the faith to be so fantastically brave." Yesterday I got a phone call.. The caller ID said it was my boyfriends number, but when I answered it it was a strange voice who introduced herself as the medical examiner... Brain hemorrhage and my life is shattered. People who love me and mean well keep telling me to "Find strength in God."... "He's in a better place"... "You'll be with him again someday." As much as I want to.. I don't feel the loving arms of the God that I've tried so hard to have faith in.. I really wish I did. I want to.. But I just can't believe anymore.

The other day I was talking to someone about a recent event in my life that I thought was perhaps a sign, and maybe even a sign from God. I’d found something on a beach that seemed to clearly communicate a course of action to me. It had to be a sign, I thought to myself, and encouraged by this I embarked on a course of action.

It wasn’t until I was talking to my friend when they suggested that rather than the item being a sign, it might just have been a random happenstance around which I created the ‘sign’ telling me to do simply what my heart desired.

I’ll admit that I felt somewhat deflated by this interpretation of my ‘sign.’ But looking at it from a stone cold sober and logical perspective, I could see that there were indeed a number of ways I could have otherwise interpreted the ‘sign’ or ignored it all together. I was at the time caught up in the emotion of the moment and therefore was highly suggestible to such ‘signs’ and guidance.

This got me to thinking about the question of ‘signs and wonders’ sought out and revered by religious people who believe that God ‘talks’ to mankind in this way. The Bible is full of signs from God, all of which are far more pronounced than the random playing card I found on a deserted beach!

It seems to me that in recent times God hasn’t quite lived up to his former glory days when he empowered Moses to part the red sea, or had Jesus feed the 5000 with only enough food for a few men. These days, it would seem that we look for signs and wonders that are often times ambiguous, and sometimes just downright suspect.

If God understands that mankind is imperfect and willful, then how come he is willing to leave the fate of our eternal soul to such precarious devices? We’re constantly bombarded from all sides with information and misinformation. The world is more connected now than at any other point in history. So wouldn’t it be more helpful if the almighty could perhaps speak up a little?

Looking at my ‘sign’ from clinical and purely scientific perspective I would have to conclude that I was merely searching to find confirmation of what I wanted to believe. In essence it was no different to the masses of religious people the world over who have seen the Virgin Mary appear in all manner of strange places, or the way in which most of us can pick out a face on the surface of the moon. But then if this is the case, then how is one supposed to hear from God if his preferred method of communication is so perilously prone to failure?

If you pray then wait upon God to ‘speak’ to you, how do you know if what you ‘hear’ is actually from God, and not simply from your subconscious?

Some people have told me that they actually hear the voice of God in their heads, audible and clear speaking beyond any doubt or uncertainty. But if this is the case, then how come God doesn’t speak as clearly to everyone who speaks to him? Should I be concerned that I’m not hearing God’s actual voice, or should I be more concerned about the people who are?

—

Get ‘Who the hell is God?’ delivered by Email

Comments

• February 28, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: You make a legitimate point that I might summarize like this: "If you claim God speaks to you, and someone else claims that God spoke to them, what happens if they disagree?" The answer logically would have to be that at least one of them is lying, or just delusional near the point of insanity. The better question might be, "Who gets to speak for God?" The answer, which may or may not be helpful is whoever God chooses. Of course this opens up a new problem: How do you know who God has chosen? The writings of scripture are supposed to be guaranteed, but beyond that you don't know. So if someone tells me, "God told me..." I generally smile and nod. It is not authoritative. In the Old Testament, prophets spoke with authority. Sometimes they would show supernatural signs to verify themselves, but other times it was unnecessary, for example, if you've witnessed God part the Red Sea, drank water from a rock in the desert, and eaten mana from heaven, it is not difficult to believe that Moses is a prophet when he comes down from Mount Sinai with his face glowing. For the New Testament, the question can be addressed with an even more basic question: is Jesus God? If he is, then who did he send to speak on behalf of God? The answer is the apostles. You can see this in John 14, where he guarantees the Holy Spirit to give the apostles perfect recall, and in John 17, where he declares that people will come to faith in him through their teaching. As for the rest of the Old Testament we can see Jesus and the apostles quoting from it everywhere, so Jesus apparently believed it was legit. The only question now is: Is Jesus God? How could this be proven? If Jesus actually did rise from physical death, then we would have reason to believe that indeed Jesus is God. Well, there were 12 designated disciples during Jesus' life. So that the OT would be fulfilled, one of them betrayed Jesus and hung himself (Judas). So there were 11. Jesus gave them authority to speak on his behalf, making them apostles. The apostles then cast lots to fulfill the scriptures to determine who would replace Judas. So then there were 12. Paul was called to be an apostle miraculously after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, so he would be in question, except Peter, who was definitely an apostle, wrote at the end of 2 Peter that Paul's writings are scripture. So you've got 13 apostles. All of the apostles had seen Christ resurrected (Paul's was in a vision, everyone else's was in person). 12 of them are martyred after lives of intense suffering. Paul was beheaded, Peter was crucified, others were used as human torches, others were wrapped in animal skins and fed to hungry lions. Yet not one of them recanted anything about Jesus including the claim to his resurrection. One interesting thing to see is that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 17, that there were over 500 witnesses at once, and most of them were still alive at the time of that writing. This would be pretty silly to write if the apostles were making this up. So Jesus did rise from the dead. Therefore Jesus is God as he claimed to be. Therefore his word is authoritative, as well as his apostles' as well as the OT authors he quoted and affirmed. All this is to say that the Bible is how you can be sure you are hearing God. From anything else, it lacks authority.
• March 2, 2009, Simon Jones writes: You know Ben, it made me smile when you changed my question to your "better question" then answered that one instead :-)
• March 2, 2009, David writes: 1) If you pray then wait upon God to ’speak’ to you, how do you know if what you ‘hear’ is actually from God, and not simply from your subconscious? -One must test what one believes they have heard, for we are subjective about such things. A good starting place is the scriptures themselves. Additionally there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors; not that each will speak wisely, but in hearing from many you will gain objectivity. 2) Some people have told me that they actually hear the voice of God in their heads, audible and clear speaking beyond any doubt or uncertainty. But if this is the case, then how come God doesn’t speak as clearly to everyone who speaks to him? Should I be concerned that I’m not hearing God’s actual voice, or should I be more concerned about the people who are? -Neither. One must also test to see if what others are 'hearing' is indeed in line with 'the rest of the message' by similar methods above. Let's face it; there are lot's of examples of people saying they've heard from God, or have been instructed by God to do something. If someone says "God told me..." I listen respectfully, but I 'take it with a grain of salt' as the saying goes. Rather, I more like to hear someone say "I am thinking God may be saying to me...and I'd like to know what you think; I'm trying to see if I'm hearing his spirit accurately or not." The scripture say we see through a glass darkly, which is to say without a lot of clarity. We understand in part. We hear faintly. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth are joined in places, if you will, but are not fully integrated. There are demonic strategies in place to muttle the communication (If you were a devil, wouldn't you try to jam communications?). And the 'heart is deceitful above all things...' There are many factors skewing our perceptions of what God is saying. He may be speaking quite clearly, but I suspect the pillow we've buried our face in may be muffling his voice. The kingdom of heaven has established a beachhead on earth in the advent of the Christ, just as the Allied forces did that day at Normandy, but V Day is still ahead with many battles to fight in between. All is not as it shall be. But since the ressurection of Jesus, God has been reconciling the earth to himself...we have a ways to go yet. Many who claim they have heard from God have committed great atrocities. Political pursuits have been given credance by religious rhetoric, and sometimes thousands have died as a result. Knowing this, maybe we should heed the scriptures that exhort "You shall know them by their fruits."
• March 3, 2009, princess1505angel writes: Hey! Thanks for commenting on my post at ReveLife. I admit I'm glad to see you searching for God. In response to your comment "I'm not saying you're one of those jerks, but hey, you belong to their club! (Sorry)" I must facetiously say, "If I'm in their club, they definitely aren't following the rules!" :-P In regards to signs. Yes, perhaps it is all a coincidence. But why was that card lost? Why that specific card? Lost at such a precise time as to land on that beach? And why had no one found it and taken it before you saw it? Again, could be coincidences, but it could also not be. I find the world much more fascinating if nothing is coincidence. I may be wrong. I believe God still exists, even if He allows coincidences. And I have no proof that there are no coincidences...it's just a personal thing I like to believe.
• March 3, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: Haha! I didn't mean it that way Simon. :)
• March 6, 2009, Simon Jones writes: David wrote "Rather, I more like to hear someone say 'I am thinking God may be saying to me…and I’d like to know what you think; I’m trying to see if I’m hearing his spirit accurately or not.'" Well I guess that answers my question then. God isn't as involved as he once was. Christians like to say the world is 4000 some years old, so in the space of that time it would seem that God has perhaps gotten bored with us all. From the unmistakable miracles of the old testament to the signs and wonders of the new testament to today, where rather than seeing unquestionable acts of the Lord, the faithful are left to flounder around in darkness clutching at straws and seeing how the feel about some possibly random unrelated sign that may or may not be a sign from the almighty. How utterly and completely frustrating. Just three responses after a week. Hmm... I think that might well be a sign don't you?
• March 6, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: You may not like this question, but, if you were to witness a miracle today, would you attribute it to God? The same Jews that saw the Red Sea part went on to commission Aaron to fashion a golden idol to worship. The people in Isaiah's day were claiming that God was asleep and had withdrawn his hand from them, but God said to them, "Awake, awake!" It was they who were asleep. Are you more interested in searching for God than in finding him?
• March 6, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Not sure what's not to like about that question Ben? But I'll certainly answer it for you. So yes, I think I would attribute miracles to God. But lets imagine a miracle happens, and I don't mean some mamby pamby 'Jesus made that red traffic light go green' BS kinda stuff. I mean something really miraculous like say an amputee getting his arm back. Wouldn't that miracle then be open to all kinds of claims that it proved all kinds of Gods? To address your other question "Are you more interested in searching for God than in finding him?" That's a funny question because it reads more like a rebuke. My answer though would be to simply say so what if I was. In other words, a God of miracles would have no problem finding a man who was searching for him would he? "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." I think God wants to be sought. I think religion wants to be found.
• March 6, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: Biblical miracles in the NT are coupled with teaching as a testimony towards the teaching.
• March 6, 2009, Rachel writes: 1. you pray then wait upon God to ’speak’ to you, how do you know if what you ‘hear’ is actually from God, and not simply from your subconscious? Some people have told me that they actually hear the voice of God in their heads, audible and clear speaking beyond any doubt or uncertainty. 2. But if this is the case, then how come God doesn’t speak as clearly to everyone who speaks to him? 3. Should I be concerned that I’m not hearing God’s actual voice, or should I be more concerned about the people who are? Alrighty. When I first read this post, I figured I would have a long response, so please bare with me. 1. Well, my knowing the voice of God comes from a few places… usually confirmations. I will hear or run across the same idea 3 times and that usually confirms to me that its God speaking. I then balance what I feel I’m being told with scripture, and my close friends, and accountability. Now I am one of those who claims to hear the voice of God in their minds. I personally believe that God is speaking to all of us we just don’t take the time to be still, quiet and listen. I think a lot of this world has forgotten principles of solitude, and stillness before the Lord- and I know this because of how hard it is to find! Everywhere you go, noise and chatter. I know people who run the televisions in their homes just so they don’t feel alone, or play music. We use media, and things like this to distract and preoccupy us which I believe draws us away from hearing the voice of the Lord in this way. It’s a hard thing to quiet yourself- I’ve been working on it for a long time and have a ways to go- but I know its where I hear the voice of God. I would also like to point out that when I discuss this with teenagers, I’ve sometimes gotten the response that they sat still for 15 minutes and they don’t hear a thing. Quieting your soul takes time and is a discipline- not a one time shot. Getting to the point where I can wait on the Lord and hear his voice (I believe its His voice anyways) has taken a lot of time and discipline. It’s easier for me now but my goodness it was not always this way. I remember times when I did not know what I was hearing but over time I began to discern His voice from my own. Its interesting to me sometimes when I hear this complaint from Christians- that they can’t hear God’s voice. When you dig a little deeper and ask how much time they’ve put into waiting on Him, or in His presence, or seeking Him- you often find they’ve not been trying very long and it just seems that in the conversation they don’t want to problem solve as much as complain. Not always, but one of the last things people want to hear is that they need to stop themselves. Anyways, all I said above is my experience. People have different experiences and I want to be sure and highlight that it usually comes with confirmation. I believe God speaks to people in different ways- in ways that communicate to them. I know that people are all different so why wouldn’t’ God communicate in different ways with us? So I think I ran on a bunny trail for awhile… but my knowing its God usually comes from confirmations, and then also because it just feels sound and fits. If its God it will usually be wise and something I could have never come up with on my own. God is a God of the third option… when I think there’s only one or two- He seems to always show me a new perspective or show me a third option I had never thought of that really hits the core of whatever I’m dealing with. His answers are a lot more profound then anything I could come up with. 2. I think God speaks in different ways to different people. I don’t think you can compare yourself, (or myself.. the general you) to anyone else and expect things to be the same as far as hearing from God goes. We’re all just so different. I’ve had friends get great revelations from staring at nature which while God has shown me things through nature, it’s not in the same way that it works for my friends. Basically, I don’t think its cookie cutter communication so its impossible to compare. 3. Ha! I don’t know. ☺ I would just try to work out both…. ☺ I hope this didn’t ramble too much and is clear. I’m more than willing to clarify any uncertainties… (I also had this color coated before i pasted it.. i'm disappointed it did not transfer over.... please seen numbers above in quoted paragraph to understand my numbers below in answer form).
• March 6, 2009, FreeThinker writes: What a great question you have posed. It's a shame that there aren't people from other religions here claiming that these Christians are wrong to say that they have exclusive claims on God. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, Simon, that people from other religions will give you much the same advice and also claim to hear from God. I like what Rachel had to say about finding a time of solitude. That seems to be insightful, even if it was muddled with her chosen religion. We can at least agree that she is likely to hear from God when she stills herself and takes the time to listen. I too hear God in those still moments of meditation, when the tangled lines of life settle and become untangled. The clarity you can find in such moments is, as Rachel will appreciate, quite wonderful. So I would encourage you to find time in your day to sit in silence, empty your mind, and allow the stillness to envelop you. Close your eyes if you need to, and in time you will find your way, your 'God' if you like. As I wrote in a comment on your first post, the biggest lie that religions propagate is that God is is somewhere 'out there' passing praiseworthy judgment on us. In the stillness that all religions encourage, you will encounter that which people have been encountering throughout all of time. Try it, and let us know how it goes. As an aside, I wanted to say that I think the top picture you chose to illustrate this post is really very beautiful.
• March 6, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: FreeThinker, it is not Christians that are making the exclusive claims to God, it is the Bible. The God described in the Bible refuses to allow pagan worship. He has killed people who worship idols. He rebukes people who presume on his character apart from his words. Jesus claimed that no one comes to the Father except through him. Summed up, the God of the Bible is exclusive. When the Bible speaks, Christians listen. We are not allowed to tell God that he is wrong. Christians are not on a mission to try to discover God through meditation or prayer, though both, when used properly are good. Christians discover God according to what he reveals. God is a higher being than people are, so us trying to understand him through our own human methods is like shellfish trying to describe what people are like. This is why we have to discover God according to what he reveals, not our own subjective experiences or philosophies. Christians believe that the Bible is God's word, and therefore, the Bible is the only authoritative text on the subject. Contradicting religions must be rejected, not accommodated. My first comment reasons out why I and many other Christians trust the Bible to be God's word.
• March 7, 2009, FreeThinker writes: Thank you for that clarification Ben, and please accept my apology for getting that wrong. Yes Simon, Ben is right, the Bible - a book written by men - is believed through faith by Christians to be the word of the almighty God who has indeed seen fit to exterminate in quite staggeringly cruel and gruesome ways those who do not follow the words of that book. Of course, the Bible is indeed just one of many religious texts that you could choose to believe as millions of others have done throughout the world. It's interesting that Ben mentions shellfish though Simon, because according to the Bible shellfish are an abomination unto God in the same way that gay people are. It's curious that Christians don't seem to get as worked up over the subject of shellfish as they seem to get over the subject of homosexuality though. Ben is, of course, entitled to reject as many religions as he sees fit, though clearly that doesn't take away from the fact that there are alternatives to his way of life out there that are being lived as earnestly and devoutly as his. I hope you'll try the suggestion put forward by Rachel and I and let us know how that goes.
• March 7, 2009, Simon Jones writes: It's funny, a couple of people off this blog who I have talked to about hearing from God have also suggested spending time sitting quietly and so I will try that and write about it. So thanks for the suggestion folks. Oh and thanks for the compliment on the picture. It was taken at Harlech beach in Wales.
• March 7, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: Again, Freethinker, the rationale for believing the Bible is in my first comment. It is faith in the sense that you trust a person, not faith in the sense that you plug your ears and say, "La la la" when someone disagrees with you. If you really want to know what the Bible teaches about shellfish and many of the other supposedly, "wacky" Old Testament laws, I wrote a blog on this earlier here: http://founderandperfecter.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/is-leviticus-relevant/ The summary is that these were laws concerning ceremonial cleanliness and ceremonial separation from the ways of the world. They were fulfilled in Jesus taking on the role of high priest and sacrificial offering. This isn't a pick-and-choose theology where we can throw out things we don't like and keep things that we do. The key is understanding what they mean in context of the whole Bible. You may see God as wrong in his violence against certain people, but this violence is not frivolous or sadistic. It is justice finally be paid on people who went on and on unrepentantly sinning against God. God was merciful to let them live as long as he did, but finally the time came when they lost the opportunity for repentance ended, and God carried out his righteous judgment. It turns out, Hell is worse than any of these ways of dying and since Hell is still open, we all ought to repent, God has not changed in character. I also wrote a blog more extensively on this subject here: http://founderandperfecter.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/turning-old-testament-warfare-towards-the-gospel/ And finally, yes there are many religious texts out there. Take some of the big ones: the Bible Qu'ran, the Mahabharata, the book of Mormon, and the Bagvad Gita. The Qu'ran says that the gospel is a light to mankind (Surah 3:1-4). Yet it goes on to say that Jesus was not crucified (Surah 4:157). So, a Muslim aiming to be faithful to the Qu'ran but believe that the Bible does not teach that Jesus was crucified, which is obviously not true. The reason? The Bible was not in Arabic when Muhammad wrote/had written the Qu'ran so he honestly didn't know what the Bible taught. If he were a true prophet, he would have known what the Bible taught. This is just one example of how we can evaluate religious texts. I read the Mahabharata and the Bagvad Gita, but it has been too long since then, so I won't discuss them. As for the book of Mormon, it is anachronistic, archeologically impossible, the book of Abraham was proven to have been imagined up by Joseph Smith rather than translated like he claimed. I am going to read more of it and will be better able to discuss it later. The point is: this is not a matter of devotion or sincerity. It is a matter of truth. We can't have a buffet God where we pick and choose what we like and leaven behind what we don't. Hell is offensive. Jesus was offensive. Calling homosexuality sinful is offensive. God sanctioned warfare is offensive, but it is true.
• March 7, 2009, Rachel writes: You know I think turning this into a theological argument (which honestly, who's going to be convinced here?) goes a little against the basic question Simon asked. He simply asked about your experience in hearing the voice of God from where you're at- something tells me no one's going to be converted to any religion in the comment section of this blog. Just a thought.
• March 7, 2009, Abdul Majid writes: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. "God is Unique! God, the Source (of everything). He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!" (Quran 112:1-4).
• March 7, 2009, bipolar2 writes: ** when you really hear, beware When you "hear" a voice talking to you, especially about religion and in terms of your lack of self worth; then you may be suffering a schizophrenic breakthrough. Unfortunately, early adulthood is the most frequent time for schizophrenia to emerge. This hypothesis is much more likely to be true than some god's being in contact with you. bipolar2
• March 8, 2009, Cory writes: "I think God wants to be sought. I think religion wants to be found." That's a pretty profound statement Simon and I think you're right on the money there. Keep searching!
• March 8, 2009, Richard Wade writes: Imagine two people talking with entities that no one else can see or hear. Their experiences are exactly the same, the content of their conversations are exactly the same. The only difference is that one person calls their entity "God" and the other person calls their entity "Jack." The rest of society will call the former person "religious" and the latter person "crazy." Imagine two people talking with invisible, inaudible entities they both call "God." one person says that God told them to sell their property and give their money to the poor. The other person says that God told them to beat their children to death. The rest of society will call the former person "devout" and the latter person "crazy." Imagine two people who beat their children to death at the command of the invisible and inaudible entities they call "God." One person is in a western industrialized democracy of one religion, and the other is in a third world country of a different religion. The former person will be called "crazy," while the latter person might be called "devoted to God." What does this say about the things people call gods and their purported experiences of them?
• March 9, 2009, Shane writes: My goodness Simon, I couldn’t agree more that history is stuffed with characters claiming to speak on behalf of God; and is still going…going…going. All the voices sure haven’t made it easy for me either. It is especially disturbing to see how people have used God’s name to advance a personal agenda that really has nothing to do with reconciling people to God but whose agenda seems to be asserting power, exerting influence and amassing wealth. You ask a great question Simon! In a world full of mixed messages and misinformation how do you listen to God? Once again, it’s a question that frankly, cannot be answered outside the scope of faith. What I mean is, no one can honestly claim 100 % certainty. This is not to say that they cannot claim that they believe with 100% of their heart. It simply means that a level of trust (beyond measurable certainty) if required for any belief system. Of course, I know that you already know this. But personally I think that it is God himself who set it up this way. I think that it is God’s design to make man with the internal freedom to choose to see him or not to see him. It is God who has said in the biblical scriptures that faith is required for those who want to please God. With that said, from my view (as a person of faith) seeing is not believing but rather believing is seeing. Now, I know that this is hogwash to the empiricist that demands evidence, but I would challenge that the empiricist also has to rely of their faith, which says that everything that is true in life can ultimately be measured. This is a belief that I obviously do not share. For me then, the issue becomes, what is the most trust worthy object of my faith. Obviously, as I have indicated in previous posts that I believe this to be God’s revelation of himself through the person of Jesus Christ. Of course, even then, I don’t take for granted that everyone speaking in the name of Jesus is actually from God. It was Jesus himself that said there would be many who come in his name to deceive. We are encouraged in the bible to test these things out through the authority of scripture itself. Now, I know that this opens up another question about “why trust the bible” and although the bible for me is intrinsic to answering the question, I will refrain from going there because it is not your exact question. However, I do put my trust in the scripture as the final authority toward listening to God. For me, this is the measuring stick through which I evaluate peoples “revelations”. Now…must the bible itself be trusted? Yes. Must it be interpreted? Yes. Why I trust it above other sources? Well, I will save that for future questions, if you have them. Now…On to your “sign from God”. This may or may not have been from God. Obviously, I haven’t go a clue about that. What this will come down to, Simon, is whether or not you choose to trust that it did or that it didn’t. There is no getting around it. Again, I would remind you that trust is not the absence of doubt. In fact, it is because of the very reason doubt exists that trust is necessary. I hope it was from God and personally I hope you trust it. I think it will do you well. Incidentally, as I sit here and type this response I am reminded about a phone call I received about 5 days ago from a woman that I and some others prayed with because she was going in for surgery to room a cancerous tumor. She was calling to say that doctors have just informed her that the cancer has in fact, disappeared. I am forced to take a step back and ask myself, “Is this from God?” I don’t know with 100% certainty. But I trust that it was. Upon that trust, I rest my hope. Now…critics will doubt my honesty and skeptics will explain it way using persuasive arguments. But they too will have “trust” that there right.
• March 9, 2009, Shane writes: I really appreciate Rachel's comment about "theological arguments" on this blog. Every time I respond, I wonder if this is what Simon is looking for. And I would agree with Rachel, except that the simple questions are not being asked without comment and inquiry by Simon himself based on his own theological observations of scripture and his experience. In other words, the questions are surrounded with theological assumptions and observations. If I am to give an honest response, I can't ignore them. If I were asked, how do you listen to God?, without any other background information or theological observations I could easily respond with just my personal preferences and experience. But the questions are far more loaded than that. Maybe I am wrong but it is only out of the intention of being thoughtful and honest. Still, I do appreciate the the caution that we keep it true to Simon's search.
• March 9, 2009, Ben Mordecai writes: Well, really everyone here is making theological arguments. It is a theological question, so why avoid a theological answer?
• March 10, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Thanks everyone for responding. I want you all to know that I appreciate the time you take to ponder and engage with my questions. This is an ongoing conversation that I hope you will continue to have with me. I don't really like hearing people saying stuff like we should 'reject this' or 'renounce that', it just doesn't sound very much like the practice of "love one another" to me, but I guess this is a religious forum so I need to expect to encounter and be open to religious talk.
• March 12, 2009, Ralph writes: Simon: So, given that many religions claim exclusivity on God, how is it that all these people can hear from ‘on hight?’ What are they listening to? Me: I don't know of any religions that claim exclusivity to God, including my own. I think that this is a misconception that any religion claims exclusivity to God, as if God wasn't transcendent enough to speak to any of his creation. Simon: In a world full of mixed messages and misinformation how do you listen to God? Me: I would say that in order for one to really know how to listen to God, they have to understand the truth about God, about what God would say and what he wouldn't say. I know that seems nebulous, but there is the problem that God may not be the one talking to you - it could be demons, or even your own self. But when you listen for God to speak you have to be ready for him to convict you and to challenge you. I know this - he does not condemn you, he is not prideful. If you hear a condemning or prideful message, something shameful, something to minimize you, that is not God. Simon: The world is more connected now than at any other point in history, so wouldn’t it be more helpful if the almighty could perhaps speak up a little? Me: That is the amazing thing about faith. God never comes and proves his existence. The people who crucified Jesus taunted him from the cross, demanding that he come down from there, and they would believe. If he had done that, they might have believed, but they would have done so out of fear. That is not what God wants. He wants us to believe out of love. Simon: But then if this is the case, then how is one supposed to hear from God if his preferred method of communication is so perilously prone to failure? Me: He expects us to be weak. He wants us to reach out in faith to him, to try to know his will. If we fail, we try again. God is a God of second chances. He doesn't rely on us to be perfect for his will to be done on Earth. He mostly just wants us to try. And he has spoken to us through the Bible. The Bible is his word directly to each of us. Its really important for the believer to know the Bible well, for as St. Jerome said, ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. Simon: If you pray then wait upon God to ’speak’ to you, how do you know if what you ‘hear’ is actually from God, and not simply from your subconscious? Me: Its a good question. You just can't know if the words in your hand are from God or from ourselves, or whatever. But often God will work in more ways than talking to us in our heads. If we stay attentive, we will see him working in our lives and recognize him working. Prayers are heard, and are always answered. We stay attentive and we see his work. Simon: Some people have told me that they actually hear the voice of God in their heads, audible and clear speaking beyond any doubt or uncertainty. But if this is the case, then how come God doesn’t speak as clearly to everyone who speaks to him? Me: He actually, in a way, speaks more clearly. But words can be misinterpreted just as well as events. If God wants us to do something, he knows how to make us understand, and he will give us what we need to know in one way or another. Simon: Should I be concerned that I’m not hearing God’s actual voice, or should I be more concerned about the people who are? Me: Neither. I think your first step is what you are doing right now, and that is learning as much about God as you can. If you are attentive, you will hear God speak to you even through answers to your blog posts. He uses real people to speak just as much or more as speaking to us directly. Its best to pray about everything you read though, and you will realize what is truth and what is not. God made humans to be ordered toward recognizing truth. We can be deceived, but nothing stands like the truth. God Bless, Ralph
• March 12, 2009, Ralph writes: "FreeThinker" wrote: "It’s interesting that Ben mentions shellfish though Simon, because according to the Bible shellfish are an abomination unto God in the same way that gay people are. It’s curious that Christians don’t seem to get as worked up over the subject of shellfish as they seem to get over the subject of homosexuality though." The Bible neither says that shellfish are an abomination to Him nor does it say that people with a same sex attraction are an abomination to Him. God created shellfish and he created people. He looked at the shellfish (as well as all his other creation) and said it was good. He looked at man and said it was very good. In Leviticus 11:10 God tells the Israelites that shellfish shall be an abomination to _them_ - meaning that they shall not eat shellfish. Not that shellfish are an abomination to God. Likewise, God says that _the homosexual act_ is an abomination. He does not say that the people themselves are an abomination, but that the acts are an abomination, just like all sin is condemned. The sin of committing a homosexual act is no worse than the sin of having sex with someone that is not your spouse (called fornication or adulery). There have been people brainwashed into thinking that it is their responsibility to stop homosexuality, but really if they were truly Christian they would treat all sinners the same, loving them and helping them learn what is sin and how to resist sinning. The problem is that people get very attached to sin and they don't want to stop. No one said that obeying God was easy. Same sex attraction is definitely a difficult thing to have when God is saying that it is a sin to act out on that, and that is quite a burden. But if they truly rely on God to help them do it, God will give them the grace sufficient to succeed. And they are definitely not an abomination before him. He loves those with same sex attraction exactly the same as those without. Ralph
• April 18, 2009, Ray writes: Of course, what most people forget is that there is something commonly called intuition. Calming your mind and "allowing an answer to come" is nothing new under the sun. Look at any contemplative tradition that precedes Christianity by up to 3 millennia. That's one thing. It's quite another thing, however, to claim that any "answer", hunch, intuition or inspiration is Yahweh or his son talking to you. That's an absolutely unjustified inference. My patience with this type of dishonesty is at Level Nada. Frankly, people who hear audible voices in their mother tongue in their heads should see a psychiatrist, presto. From the very fist comment to this post (proof of the Resurrection): "One interesting thing to see is that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 17, that there were over 500 witnesses at once, and most of them were still alive at the time of that writing. This would be pretty silly to write if the apostles were making this up." Typical circular argumentation: Claim X is made in the Bible which is supposed to validate claim Y. Therefore, claim Y must be true. Because claim X must also be true. You know, because the Bible says so. Using that, one can talk one's way out of a paper bag the size of the Milky Way. Again, any sane person should have no more patience with these games.
• April 18, 2009, Ray writes: Ralph said, "Same sex attraction is definitely a difficult thing to have when God is saying that it is a sin to act out on that, and that is quite a burden. But if they truly rely on God to help them do it, God will give them the grace sufficient to succeed. And they are definitely not an abomination before him. He loves those with same sex attraction exactly the same as those without." Then why the f--k did God create "same sex attraction"? Sorry Simon, but it's condescending shit like this that gets me. And the oh so meek and mild Christians ask why some atheists are so angry.. Who in their right mind would want to belong to a community of anti-humane bigots like that?
• October 29, 2009, Rodney writes: Ray: Then why the f–k did God create “same sex attraction”? Rodney: God didn't create "same sex attraction". The Bible makes it clear that God created male for female and female for male. Corrupt humanity imagines and acts upon same sex attraction. Simon, I'll attempt to answer your question this way: God speaks to me through His word. When I read the Bible, I understand what it is saying, and it goes into the "core," the "essence (spirit)," the "heart" and changes me, so that those sinful things I once did, I now have no desire to do them. The corrupt essence of humanity is not capable of "listening" to God, and it has no desire to. I can't speak to how God "spoke" in the Old Testament, and I don't believe that 90% of the people who claim that God spoke to them are really "hearing" God.
• October 30, 2009, Simon Jones writes: I so need to write new stuff here! But just to respond to what you wrote Rodney about the 90% of people who claim to hear God... I wonder, of those 90% how many do you suppose actually say that it might not be God who is speaking to them? So I wonder... how do you know it's God? Maybe you've inspired me to write a new post around this question. Watch this space :-)
• October 30, 2009, Rodney writes: Simon: Of the 90% that I think claim to hear from God, I would guess nearly 100% of them would NOT admit if it weren't (if I understood your question correctly). How do I know if God is speaking? I don't upfront. For me, it starts with a strong impression, or an idea of something that I should do or say. If I act on that, somewhere down the road I find that there was a benefit in what I did or said, or it makes a positive impact. I admit there's a possibility that I'll never see the benefit, but I'll still follow the strong impression to do or say what I think God is impressing me to do or say. I attribute that benefit or positive outcome to God. Should I? I don't know...but I don't know who else or what else to attribute the positive result to. Luck? Coincidence? Let me be clear...I DO NOT HEAR VOICES. I think anyone claiming to hear voices on a regular basis should be locked up.
• October 30, 2009, Ray writes: Hi Gentlemen, it's been a while, hope you had a nice summer :) I'll keep it short... Rodney said,

  God didn’t create “same sex attraction”. The Bible makes it clear that God created male for female and female for male. Corrupt humanity imagines and acts upon same sex attraction.

  The Bible only "makes it clear" in its own context/framework. There's zero evidence that it's making a statement about reality. I've covered that in previous posts. Okay, glad to hear you don't hear voices. Your explanation ("strong impression... acting on that, etc.") sounds reasonable and is something we can all relate to, I think. But again, why burden it with additional concepts like God? It's infinitely more likely that we get that kind of information or "hunches" from intuition or some other form of subconscious means (as any psychologist can tell you, we know more than we're consciously aware of). And yeah, luck and coincidence do often come into the picture. So, again and again the point is: Putting "God" into any of these equations doesn't help at all, it does not add anything meaningful to the process of understanding things. Take care, Ray
• October 30, 2009, Rodney writes: Good to hear from you again, Ray. Likewise, I hope you are well. I am a little confused, and hope you can clear up for me...I assume that you do not believe in God, based on the context of many of your posts. But, you then ask "why did God create same sex attractions?" Maybe I misunderstood your point. Please clarify. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say "putting God in the equation does not add anything meaningful." Like your statement about the bible and same sex attractions, God being added to the equation has no meaning only within your context/framework. Again, maybe I'm not clear, so please clarify that for me.

Maybe it begins the moment you start talking to God. “Hello God, it’s me, Simon.” But then what? Other forms of communication lend themselves to clear responses, conversations, and conclusions. But speaking to God seems far more ambiguous than that. We talk, he listens, or so we hope. But does he?

What’s the difference between talking to God and just talking to yourself?

I can’t email God or send him a text. He doesn’t have a mailing address or a toll free number to call. He’s not on Skype or IM and not even Google can find him. As connected as we are these days, it seems that we might be more disconnected from God now than ever before.

So really, I’m interested… How do you speak to God?

—

Get ‘Who the hell is God?’ posts in your Email

Comments

• February 12, 2009, marcie writes: hey simon, i am just now stumbling onto your post, haven't looked at everything. but i really really really like your graphic up top. i just want to add a sci-fi insert/comment here... i read a book a long time ago about operations people had to sort of make their brain wireless, like our phones and laptops and whatnot. there was a lot of other cool stuff going on other than that, i'm not gonna get all into it right now. but people basically talked in their minds and didn't use their other devices. i sort of imagine that to be the case with God, him not needing a cell phone and all, because of the way he intricately designed connections (wires/technology) in our minds. that being said, a good and loving father likes to hear his children talking. it's pleasure for his ears. if that's a basis you can approach it with then talking to God is easier. on the other hand, if you imagine her/him up there being busy, surfing galaxies, being aloof, and not caring then why bother to speak to him/her? but if i made a little person out of clay and they could talk to me, i think i'd want to get to know that little person and be really nice and care for them. i like this blog - it makes me feel creative... i probably wrote too much :)
• February 12, 2009, Chris Dodds writes: Simon-- I apologize for not responding to the first blog on here. I am happy to discover, apparently, another ragamuffin. This has been much on my own thoughts for the last several years. I grew up with in a very isolated home church. While there was powerful evidence of the spirit of God in the place at times, there was also an all-consuming yoke of rules that went along with this version. For example, the women all wore long skirts, I guess very similar to the penacostal (sp?) version of holiness. all outward appearances of holiness, but the spirit behind this cloak of holiness was anything but, with a profound bigotry of anything not like "us". By the time I was 12 years old, I already knew that this was not the Jesus of the new testament, or even the God of the old Testament. That this did nothing to show the "good news" of Jesus, or the overwhelming love of humankind that would cuse Jesus to only show his direct anger at the money-changers of the temple feeding off the poor and destitute trying to follow the law. anyway...I have been fortunate to be exposed to people like Rich Mullins, Larry Norman, to Kevin Maxx, ragamuffins, I call them in honor of Rich. People who for all the world, just by looking at them you would realize there was something different about them in a very real way, not because they dressed to a certain standard, or because they refused to partake in certain activities...in fact you were almost as likely to find Rich in a pub with a pint of stout, then you would to find him in a church. King David was the original ragamuffin, I believe. A man with a heart for God. A seeker of truth, an acknowledger of his mastakes...living his life out in the open for all to see and to judge....all his mistakes, all his successes, desperately crying out to God for answers and wisdom.... So, in direct response to the here and now....I dont feel it is any different..when our hearts cry out to God.....he is always listening....most of the time it is our own interference, lack of understanding, distractions...all of the above that you mentioned that keeps us from hearing him.....In a world full of mass communications, it is more difficult to seperate that still small voice of truth from the clamor surrounding us. For me, there is also doubt behind the whole equation....I relate so well to Thomas....always having to see, to touch the impossible....Like you, I cannot reason beyond science, so I have to rely on faith, and trust that God is trying to reach me....and in those times when I cant seem to find him....trust that it is because he is waiting for me to learn another lesson and take that next step on my journey towards "Samadhi" or truth and enlightenment. Keep looking, Simon, and he will be found of you.... CD
• February 12, 2009, Todd writes: I am a huge doubter... to the point where it has caused quite a few crisis in my life and my faith has often been the target of such doubts. My doubt, though, has actually quite strengthened my faith in God and in prayer in general. I try to talk to God on an ongoing basis... every day. I like to think it's a conversation, although I don't hear "the voice of God" as clearly as I'd like. What I do hear are more like thoughts and impressions... things like, "call Dennis. He needs to hear from someone." I know that these things are subjective and only real to me. I journal my thoughts, prayers, and requests almost every day. Writing them down gets me focused and is also a good thing to look back on and see where God has met me and brought about change in a circumstance. Tom Holladay wrote this about prayer, "People ask me, 'how long should I pray about this situation?' Pray until on of two things happens: God changes the situation, or God changes you."
• February 13, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Marcie, and indeed anyone... don't worry about long responses. Long is fine as far as I am concerned.
• February 14, 2009, SuperFunBeth writes: I think we get all overly complicated when we discuss talking to God. That has a lot to do with the "life and times" that we're in. Our entire world is overly complicated (not "the world" as in the planet Earth, but rather, OUR world - the parts of it which affect us more directly): as you said, we have cell phones, IM, email, text messaging and on and on and on. So, "What’s the difference between talking to God and just talking to yourself?" Well, many people don't see a difference these days. The reason for that is that we've been in an Instant Gratification society since the invention of the microwave. We expect our conversations to happen instantly. I say something, you respond, etc. But God doesn't - and almost never has, really - work that way. That's because His timing is completely separate from our own. So I believe this is why some people may feel that they're just talking to themselves. They don't get the response when they want it. Me? I just talk. Not nearly as often as I should, mind you. But I believe He hears me, just the same. He's everywhere, you know. Jesus said we should call Him "Abba," which, roughly translated, equals "daddy." Maybe I should feel more at home in beginning my day with a simple, "Hey Dad. Gettin' ready to go out there today, and I sure could use some help . . ."
• February 16, 2009, Ralph writes: It takes a measure of faith. For me, I had to believe in God before I could believe that I could talk to him. Logical, eh? Once you believe, its important to know what he expects from us, and also what he has taught the faithful. I believe in what some call the "Judeo-Christian God" (although I also believe that there is only one God). I know that I can speak to him through prayer and that he listens to me. How do I know this? Through my faith, and belief that the Bible is true. So I know that he hears me, even if I can't hear a response audibly. If I pay attention, I can witness an answer to my prayers. I know that God loves me, and being Love itself, God wants what is best for me. So I may not get exactly what I ask for when I pray, and I am good with that. Offering up my prayers to God, I trust him to handle things, and therefore I can let it go and not worry about it anymore. Now there are several ways that God speaks back, and I see them if I pay attention. He speaks through his word in the Bible. Sometimes I just read until it convicts me. He speaks through the actions of others. He speaks through our consciences. And once in awhile we can observe miracles. Even so, there are no guarantees that what we experience as God talking to us, just strong evidence. I hold that its really important to know what kinds of things would be "of God" and to learn about the nature of God. When we know these things then we can be more confident that whatever we experience is of God or not. Anyway, a bit of rambling, but I hope that helps you in some way. To sum up, we speak with him through prayer, and know that he receives our prayer through faith, and trust him to answer our prayer through faith, and realize how he is answering our prayer through faith. God desires for us to know him, but to know him we have to have faith. There is no way around it.
• February 17, 2009, Shane writes: Simon, This is a great question; communication obviously being the critical component of any meaningful relationship. I feel like I need to acknowledge first however that communication with God isn't as often or obvious as it might seem when casually reading through the historical books of the Old Testament (O.T.). For example, consider that the entire span of time represented in the O.T. is approximately 3600 years. That is almost double the time since Christ himself actually walked the earth in flesh. So, while it seems like God popped in and talked to people all the time when you casually read the stories, this is not so. In fact, God only appeared to a specific few (so far as we know) and very few times all together (if you consider the time all together). Does that make sense? With that said, communication with God has always been (O.T. included) an act of faith for those communicating and has more times than not, felt very one-sided by those trying to get in touch with God. I observe this because when I read through the Old Testament, I often notice people asking the same type of questions you have asked and wondered why God is so silent. I too have asked this question many times. This is of course the reason we identify ourselves with the concept of "faith". Because there are no guarantees. We trust that God will hear and respond according to his best intention for us and for others. I seems to me that the most difficult part of your question is not "How to talk to God?" but rather, "How does God talk to us?". Now Simon, I have to be truthful here. I am not sure how far to take this question. You have asked it specifically in reference to the Old Testament. There is much to say that might be helpful for you but I also don't want to over due it. Let me just say it this way... There is much to say about the difference in how God communicated in the Old Testament as opposed to the New Testament. In fact, broadly speaking, the reason there is a division between the "Testaments" at all is because God established a new way of relating with humanity. For example "Testament" in another word for "Covenant" or "Agreement". In other words, the way God relates to man (his covenant, if you will) in the O.T. is different in many ways God relates and communicates in the N.T. For example, from O.T. to N.T. the basis of our ability to relate to God at its very nature changed in ways such as: 1. Who Can Know God 2. How They Know God (in daily practice) and then 3. How Much of God can be Fully Known by Man. With that said, in the N.T. first and foremost, God's self-revelation/communication is through the person of Jesus Christ (God in flesh). This way of relating/communicating to us is the most personal way possible. Consider how the writer of Hebrews distinguished between how God related to man in the O.T. verses the N.T... Hebrews 1:1-2 (NLT) - Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. That is, God experiencing the fullness the human condition so that when we do draw near in prayer (communication) we can do so with confidence knowing that even he experienced the silence of God much like we do. So much so, that in "the silence of God" Jesus himself questioned "God, why have you forsaken me?" Well, that gives me confidence in prayer that Jesus understands our doubt. Faith is not the absence of doubt. Quite the opposite; it's our doubt that makes it possible for us to have faith/trust. Also, in the New Testament Jesus said that he would lead us and speak through the Holy Spirit. Look to what Jesus said prior to his death and resurrection... John 16: 7, 13-15 (NCV) - ...when I go away, I will send the Helper to you. If I do not go away, the Helper will not come. 13 But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth. He will not speak his own words, but he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is to come. 14 The Spirit of truth will bring glory to me, because he will take what I have to say and tell it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take what I have to say and tell it to you. So... God communicates to us first through Jesus. Which is why we look to him first and foremost as the center of our faith. Then God communicates to us through the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus said would communicate what he wanted to say. Then I'd say God speaks to us through the church and the scriptures. I appreciate what others have said about this. So when I go to God, I talk to him much like I do in any relationship (sometimes feeling great/sometimes not) and I trust he hears and listens. Then, like in any other meaningful relationship I try and listen. I try and listen for the Holy Spirit to speak to me. I think he does this through his word (scriptures) and into my heart and spirit and through the community of faith (the church). I listen to both as a conduit for God's leading through the Holy Spirit. I could go on to show more bible references but am afraid I have made the mistake of rambling on to long as it is. I am just trying to be thoughtful about your question from my perspective and understanding. I am sorry if I have chased any rabbits here. Shane
• February 18, 2009, Simon Jones writes: NOTE TO EVERYONE : Long responses are okay! Stop apologizing for them! :-) Okay, so I don't want to really get into how God talks to us here, that was going to be the question of my next post, so you can ponder that for a while, but I will say that the fact that Jesus said "God why have you forsaken me?" does seem more than a little bit odd to me. Jesus was talking to himself? But then, just being fluid with my thoughts here, if Jesus can talk to himself/God, then he sure as hell must understand just how dumb that feels to us, or at the very least, to me! So getting back to my question then... So none of you have like a method to talk to God that involves some kind of ritualistic respect? Muslims face Mecca and do this something like 5 times a day at various given times, Jews have to wear little hats and some never shave their hair so they look a bit funny, and Hindu's seem to bow their heads a lot and make a real mess with herbs and spices and stuff. God only knows what Buddhists do, but you see where I am going here with this? When I was at school and they still taught Christianity, we were told to close our eyes, bow our heads, and clasp our hands together. It seems to me that this is still the preferred religious method. But these days people pray while driving to Starbucks or walking their dog, I wonder though, does the creator of the universe demand a little religious respect or can you be in the bath washing your wobblies and be talking to God? Maybe it's practice right. I mean Maybe to begin with you need to do the whole clasping of hands, heads bowed, eyes closed thing because that helps you clear your mind. But just as riding a bike to every ounce of my cognitive ability to learn, now I can cycle along without fear or regular crashes because after a while I just got good at it. Is that what it's like? Can you get good at talking to God?
• February 18, 2009, Ralph writes: Hi Simon, When Jesus said "My God, why have you forsaken me?" He is using a rabbinical method of teaching, in which through one short passage of scripture, he proclaims an entire portion. In this case, he is referring to Psalm 22, which starts with that phrase. I think it is important to revere God, to know our relation to him. There are many ways to pray. It can be on our knees, or clasping hands, or however you were taught. There is nothing wrong with that. But I believe that Jesus wants our whole life to be a prayer. I often say little prayers throughout the day just as I am walking around. Someone will pop into my head for no reason and I'll pray for them. Or going into a tough situation I'll say some prayers. There is no necessary way to do it. I think people teach those things to children just to help them realize how important and reverent prayer should be. But we can be as reverent with our words as we are with our bodies. I wouldn't pray in an irreverent way. I've heard people praying to Jesus like he's just one of their guy buddies. I just don't get that. I always try to keep the relationship in perspective. He is God, I am not. It keeps me from getting prideful. That being said, I wouldn't worry about where you pray to God, just as long as you are praying. Also, there is nothing wrong with the ritualistic prayers that you mentioned either. Respect is not shown solely through ritual. If whatever you are doing at the time seems irreverent, then stop for a moment. Your wobblies can wait.
• March 10, 2009, Rachel writes: I somehow missed this one. It says in one of the gospels (if you really want the reference I can look it up for you later) that God turned His face from Christ at the last. Jesus had been used to that connection His whole life and then at his hardest moment the Father turned His face away. I think I would ask the Lord the same as He did. BUT. as far as ritual go... there are definitely different types of praying in the church. Centering prayer for instance or Lectio Divina. You could try them though I've never thought of them as prayers for seekers because one is about meditating on the word of God and the other waiting on the presence of God, quieting your soul. BUT why not try it? I certainly dot see why you couldnt. you can google around for directions OR if you like I can email you a sheet with the basic instructions. The above two are prayers I've done in community more. On my own, I talk to God in lots of ways. I write, I sing (worship music is essentially talking to God), I talk out loud and also in my mind. Anything works really. Hope this is helpful..

I started this blog in order to find God. The somewhat irreverent title was meant in jest, and also to perhaps make those holier-than-thou types feel a little uncomfortable in their seats or pews. But more than that, it was a genuine expression of my searching heart – I mean really, who the hell is God?

The journey

I planned to visit churches, mosques, temples, synagogs, and all manner of other places in an honest and truthful journey of discovery with the expectation of finding the answer to my question. The prospect of the places I would go and the people I might meet excited me.

This was to be be a journey that would surely open my eyes, my mind, and my heart. I felt sure that along the way, as I learned and experienced new things, I would most certainly change as my outlook and expectations were perhaps shaped by the encounters of such an exploration.

Nearly a year later the blog is still effectively empty, my plans as yet unfulfilled, and my question behind this grand idea still unanswered and largely unexplored like a great mountain that has yet to be climbed.

So what happened?

I got scared: There, I wrote it, it’s out there now in shameful black and white honesty, naked as the truth and as difficult as a confession. You see I can’t deny that vulnerability is not one of my strong points, and that I had underestimated just how hard it would be to even make the first steps of this journey that I absolutely want to make.

I found myself bound and gagged by my absolute fear and loathing of religion and the prospect that the road to enlightenment is beset on all sides by distractions and shortcuts that instead lead to the closed minded judgmentalism of religion with all its vile and repulsive entrapments.

For the sake of disclosure it seems only fair that I should tell you that I have had experiences with Christians and churches, few of which have been positive. Those experiences have often been embroiled in a certain degree of controversy that is perhaps born out of my unwillingness to simply go through the motions. If I had closed my eyes, shut my mouth, and waved my hands in the air when everyone else did I probably would have had an easier ride.

Thus far I’ve been “disfellowshipped” from a Pentacostal church, unceremoniously shunned by another, and even forcibly ejected from a London based Christian sect who didn’t appreciate my line of questioning. In short it’s fair to say that my mainstream religious endeavors have all ended badly, and most of the time they’ve ended very badly indeed.

So why bother?

Because I still believe. Because I still cannot look at a Jellyfish, or the stars above, or the intricate veins of a leaf, and think that this was all just some act of random physics. Because humankind has sought and found different ‘God’s’ throughout time, building great shrines and temples to powers and forces beyond our comprehension and the limitations of our own experiences and imagination. Because there is an element to life that science cannot answer, and we alone cannot satisfy. Because of all the journeys and great explorations mankind could ever embark on, this one, this very one must surely be the boldest.

That said, here I am, standing still.

So what now?

I don’t know. I’ll be honest with you, whoever you are, I’m at a loss as to know what to do. My repulsion for religion has merely hardened now, and the distance I feel from knowing or coming to terms with any kind of God now seems further and more pronounced than ever before.

I’ve prayed and searched for signs, but it just feels like I’m adrift, like a sailor using the stars to navigate on a cloudy night. I feel like I’ve been sending out an S.O.S to God for years, but he’s not tuned into my frequency and I can’t find his.

I don’t want to over intellectualize my search, but at the same time I don’t want to unplug my brain either. I want to be humble but I don’t want to dumbly follow the words of another just because they ‘know’ more than me. I want to be bold but I don’t want to be foolish.

People have told me that there could be dangers inherent in any such search as this. Some truly awful things have been done in the name of God and I’m not beyond the danger of getting swept along on a wave of excitement or emotion. So with that in mind I want to be able to know when to let the wave carry me and when not to.

I want to be understood, not handled with suspicion and distrust. I don’t want people to see my questions as attacks, my words as weapons, or my doubt as defeat. I want to be engaged and engage others, to use my mind and follow heart. Maybe I don’t tick the standard boxes or fit into the molds with which people are comfortable, but that doesn’t make my desire to find or be found by God any less valid or real.

I want to share this journey. This is part of who I am, my longing for answers, for peace, and for purpose has always been a journey I’ve wanted to share. That’s why I’m writing, because I want someone to come with me, and after all the disappointment it might as well be you, right?

—

Get ‘Who the hell is God?’ posts in your Email

Comments

• January 26, 2009, Caz writes: I commend you, Simon. I'm a pilgrim on the same journey, and I'm coming from decades of 'certainty' that Christianity was "the way, the truth and the life." I am no longer certain of that. And so, I search. This much I have discovered - this is a solo sojourn. While we will meet fellow seekers along the way, in the end it is a trip and discovery we make alone. I shall be following along with interest as you move out in full seek! A toast to our finding 'god'... and maybe ourselves, too. ;-)
• January 27, 2009, FreeThinker writes: Simon, the wonders of Google brought me to this site quite randomly, but I hope you won't mind if I wrote a comment. You are not likely to find God if the only people you ask are religious people who believe in vastly exaggerated tales from ancient texts. You won't find God in the Bible, The Koran, The Torah or any temple, church, and shrine. God isn't "out there" Simon. You must look for God closer to home my friend. God lives inside YOU. God lives inside us all and the biggest lie that religions propagate is that God is is somewhere 'out there' passing praiseworthy judgment on us. Have you ever considered that the reason why you were uneasy about church is because your spirit knows that you won't find anything there but more emptiness, confusion, and condemnation? Christians do not like free thinkers and you sound like you are a free thinker to me. Good luck with your journey Simon. I subscribed to your email list and will read with interest.
• January 27, 2009, heath alysa writes: Hey there Simon, next time we are together and in front of a TV (really when has that ever happened) let's watch every episode of Mr. Show. I'm sure we will have some great "God discussions" after that.
• January 28, 2009, Bob writes: Hey Simon, I'm not so sure God comes from the inside like one of the commenters stated. I know everyone has a need for God and that is why you're doing this blog. Knowing who God is and why you are on the earth is the most important journey you will make. It's hard to do important things some times. Anyway, I'm with you. Be careful of people, they are all flawed though most often mean well. Getting all kinds of advice from all kinds of people could just make things confusing. Do you're best to push though and ask God for His help as I'm sure you're doing. Anyway I'll be following and commenting.
• January 29, 2009, Shane writes: Simon, I would like to join you on this journey. I have great appreciation for your honesty and candor in regard to your search for God. I also feel kindred to you in so far as I want to seek truth wherever it may lead without religion muddying up the waters. This is not to say that I do not have a centered faith, because I do. I have chosen to trust in what I believe is God's revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ. I certainly hope this does not disqualify me from being a "free thinker" or open to honest dialogue wherever it may lead. It simply means that I have come to trust in an answer that I have found along the way in my own journey. Upon this revelation, I will hang my hat and trust that God is leading. I look forward to the dialogue.
• January 29, 2009, Todd writes: This has nothing to do with your journey... I just like the art on your new blog. Who is the artist?
• January 29, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Good question Todd. The artwork was actually an original piece created specifically for this blog by my friend Bob Burch (yes, that guy above). He is a Christian guy and was at first reluctant to do the piece when I first asked him to create the illustration for the blog. But he had a think about it and decided that he wanted to do it in the end to support my journey. He didn't even charge me, but don't tell anyone that :-) I should write a page about it because it truly is a beautiful piece of art in of itself. I will write that page just as soon as work calms down and I catch up with my life. For now though why not check out Bob's illustration website.
• January 31, 2009, In His Love writes: I think that if you're serious about finding God, then you should probably show a little respect to Him and change the name of this website to something less irreverent. Clearly you're mocking God when you use the word hell in this context, and God will not be mocked. Dive into the word of God, the Bible. Pray for God to reveal himself to you and open your heart to him. I think you should put your bad experiences aside and join a church. If you really can't do that then you will benefit from some other books which will help you read the Bible. There are many to choose from but I would recommend this one - http://www.gty.org/Products/Books/451121S As for a new name for this website, how about iamlookingforgod.com. I think that has a nice ring to it.
• January 31, 2009, In His Love writes: I've just found an online version of that book too. http://www.gty.org/Resources/DailyDevotion
• January 31, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Oh 'In His Love', if I didn't know better I'd think you were someone I once knew. I look at the links, thank you, but as for me mocking God, stick around because you never know, you might even learn something.
• February 1, 2009, Todd writes: Thanks for the link to Bob's site. I will check it out... He seems really talented.
• February 3, 2009, Lisa Joy writes: Interesting and brave thing to do Simon. I hope you one day find what you are looking for. I very long ago found it easy to believe there is no "GOD". I have no problem with the idea of it and truly wish I could believe- I would love to have that comfort - most of my oldest and closest friends are very religious and are wonderful people often because of their faith. I do not question my disbelief. Maybe this is weak? I feel discomfort because if there is a God I don't think I would like "him" very much...
• February 4, 2009, Rodney writes: Hey Simon: Great blog. How about starting with explaining what you currently know or think of God now? You might run into someone who does have better answers. Just because a church, temple, mosque, etc., claims to have the answer, that doesn't mean they have the right answers. You can know God, and unlike what someone wrote earlier, you can know God through the pages of scripture (of the bible). I think there are clear, cogent answers to your legitimate questions, and any church, temple, mosque, etc. not willing to entertain your questions is not worth their salt.
• February 4, 2009, Rachel Hanley writes: I'm glad this is finally starting up... I also like Rodney's suggestion, though you may not know your thoughts on God? Anyways, Simon I think you have a lot of friends who have wanted you to take this journey for a bit... so while you might feel alone I suspect that has to do more with what you're figuring out then who's helping you figure it out. Looking into your pain, and the deeper parts of your soul can be a lonely business cause its within you... but I'm sure you know you have friends who will join you in whatever way they actually can. So while the journey is painful and can feel lonely, I hope that you eventually are able to find a place of solitude that counteracts lonliness...I'm also going to make it a point not to push my faith on you- you know it well enough as is and we both know it would only create more resistance. :-D
• February 5, 2009, Mark Raggett writes: If you are looking for God you won't find him in a church, mosque, temple or synagogue any more than anywhere else. As you said you've already seen his finger print in the whole world, in nature and the universe. From a christian perspective you won't find his presence in a church building anymore than anywhere else. The curtain has been torn. What you will find in religous buildings are people who believe certain answers trying to have a relationship with God. Those people will be imperfect, you might have experienced this... If you are searching I would recommend spending lots of time where you see his fingerprints. If you seem him in nature and the universe then spend time looking at it. I'd also suggest conversations with people who have embraced answers. The thing is I don't think a good search for God necessarily makes a good blog, TV show or film ('Religulous'?) Good luck with it and if you do want to visit a church I know one in Houston that would love to see you. I will let you know all the required motions beforehand so they don't chuck you out.
• February 5, 2009, Anne writes: You know, you have started some thinking in me. What would it be have been like, if God had shown up, on that night in India? I am also reading a book that is revolutionizing my own experience with God. I will tell you about it, if you want. I wonder if there's a downloadable audio version of the Bible?
• February 11, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Some great comments here. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment. Okay, I wasn't going to answer Rodney's question because I didn't want to get bogged down in where I've been. I'm more interested in the road ahead. But let me just say that my experience of Christian churches has obviously shaped my understanding of God. However, I struggle to believe that a God capable of creating photosynthesis, sealife, and clouds would then so dramatically limit his grace to those who happen to be fortunate enough to come across and accept Jesus Christ. It make little sense to me that a God so capable of diversity would create such a desperately narrow path to him for humankind to walk. God to me, is a creative force, an infinitely limitless power. All religions that claim exclusive rights to God and the truth seem to be a contradiction of this is so many ways. At this stage I think God is a reality and religion is a choice. Anne asks me what it might have been like if God had shown up that night in India. She is referring to a now deleted post I wrote back in April where I invited God to join me on the roof of a little house in southern India one night. I sat there and waited for 1 hour for God to show up. In the end it seemed that maybe he had another more pressing engagement. So Anne, what would it have been like? Well heck, I don't know. Maybe though you're thinking that he did turn up and I just didn't see him because I wasn't looking for the right signs? Well maybe, but if God is going to be that subtle then I'd have to ask him why his appearances in the old testament are such a big and obvious deal while today people are left searching the vagueness for 'signs' that may, or may not be from him. If God had shown up then I wouldn't be writing this blog now would I :-)
• February 11, 2009, Rodney writes: Simon: Thanks for your response to my question. I respect your answer. If I may, allow me to explain what I have learned about God so far. Before I do that, let me say that my answers ARE based on the "ancient texts" that so many "free thinkers" seem to so despise, because I find the scriptures of the Holy Bible seem to best fit and answer life. I believe that the purpose of life is simply to enjoy a relationship with God and to enjoy relationships with one another. I say that because Jesus was asked a question, "which of the commandments is the greatest?" Jesus didn't say "thou shalt not kill" is the greatest, or something like that, but He summed up the commandments by saying "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself." Having love for God and love for one another dictates how we relate to one another, which again, is the simple purpose of life. Genesis opens with the garden of Eden. The Hebrew word for garden is "gan" and means "defense." That implies protection. In the beginning, man was in the protection of God and was provided for by God. The devil, represented by the serpent, was also in the garden. He convinced man that mankind didn't need God to determine what is ethical, that man could make that determination himself. Man believed the devil, and as a result sinned against God (I'm leaving out a LOT of details because I'm trying to be succinct in this small space), separating us from Him. Sin is why we have death and corruption in the world today...it is a spiritual (unseen) "condition" that affects the spiritual and the natural. Sin cut us off from the source of life, which is God. It's like a branch that is cut off from a tree...it dies. Fortunately, the PERSON of God, being loving as He is, restored us to relationship through Jesus Christ by paying the penalty of sin, which is death. When we believe in Him, and commit to live how He expects us to, He gives us His holy spirit to help change our corrupt human natures, so that we reconsider doing the things that cause our relationships to suffer. I'll end this post by saying I see God like some product manufacturers. Some manufacturers put out a disclaimer with their product saying "failure to use this product in a manner consistent with its intended use may result in injury or death." That's what God has done; He developed life and said that the best use for it is to love Him and each other, and failure to do so results in death. The choice is yours, therefore, you have to accept the consequences of your choice.
• February 11, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Interesting response Rodney. I'm lightly reading the old testament at the moment. It's a rather vile book if you ask me. God is not "all knowing" in (extremely) old testament, in fact a lot of the time he seems to be utterly clueless. For example when Abraham conned that King to take his 'sister' as his wife God came down and told the King he was a dead man for sure! The King had to plead his innocence in that he had been told by Abraham that the woman was his sister. God heard that and spared the king as we know. In fact the old testament seems vile in a great deal of ways. The rampant abuse of women, the incestuous sex, the hateful and vengeful God. It truly is a harrowing read, not God's best work of PR if you ask me. But that's stuff for a later post. I don't want to get into a protracted conversation about that right now. Suffice to say that the assumption that "God is love" seems to be a HUGE one if you ask me.
• February 12, 2009, Rodney writes: Simon: In the difficult passage you quoted, regarding Abram (his name hadn't been changed yet) and Pharaoh, God was not clueless at all. In fact, God was quite "proactive" in keeping Pharaoh from innocently doing something that would have caused him a lot of problems, that is taking another man's wife. Consider it a "warning shot across the bough" for both Abram and Pharaoh. Pharaoh, probably deeply religious/superstitious himself, recognized that the plagues he encountered were of a supernatural nature and that caused Pharaoh to decide something is wrong with this woman Abram claimed to be his sister. It probably woke Abram up, too, to realize that his actions had consequences, and that next time he'd better trust God and be truthful. When reading the bible, be careful to remember that the books are broken into different genres: historical narrative, law, wisdom, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, gospel and epistle. When reading about "abuse of women," as you put it, be sure to recall what genre the book is written in. Also remember, it was not originally written in English, it was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, so you may need to find the meaning of the original words to find the correct meaning of a difficult passage. A scripture in the New Testament says "God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different manners...but has now spoken to us through His Son (Hebrews 1)." God doesn't thunder out of the heavens to speak to us; He speaks to us primarily through scripture. He also speaks to us through the Holy Spirit, which He gives us when we believe and are baptized. I look forward with great anticipation to explaining anything else you need to know to show you that the Old Testament is not vile as it may appear to you now.
• February 12, 2009, Ralph writes: Hi Simon, I have faith that God will assist you along your journey. That may sound strange, so be it. But trust me, he is going to honor your search and reveal himself to you in many ways. I was agnostic for a great part of my life. That is, I believed that there was a God, and it was simply because I could see no other option when I pondered the creation of the universe. Something from nothing never made any sense from me. There had to be some kind of prime mover. And therefore I believed that there was a God. But I got no farther than that until I met a good woman and she showed me the way. One way that you have discovered God already is in his creation. Some call this the "natural law" - every created thing is a living example of God's truth. The thing can be nothing but what it was created to be, and it is simply what it is - a creation. I think I see that you have already realized this through what I have read on your blog. Its a great place to start. I'm sorry that you had a negative experience in churches. You'll find that many of them are scared of questions because they don't have the whole truth. You might try approaching RCIA at a local Catholic church. Its a special program that meets once a week and teaches people about the faith. Its a period of discernment before you would decide to join the church. If you decide to go through this, test out your hosts right away to see that they aren't afraid to answer questions. If they are, try a program at another church. Or even call to talk to a priest. There's no harm in talking. It might interest you that the Catholic Church was the main driver of nearly all scientific discovery for more than a thousand years, and that the scientific method was actually invented by scientists funded by the Catholic Church. Coming from a background of science, I find this fascinating. They are one of the few churches who realize what you have already begun to realize, and that is God's truth can and is found in all of his creation. If you want, you can email me and we can talk. BTW I wouldn't bother trying to understand the Old Testament right now. Most people when they read it misunderstand God as an angry tyrant. Rather the Bible is a theological work, and although it contains historical and scientific things, it is neither a history nor a science book. Events that happen have a theological significance that may not be apparent and often are not a clear reflection of who God is. The New Testament is short and is easier to read; it might be a better place to start, but don't expect to be able to understand it all right away. Also keep in mind that God did not hand man the Bible. God inspired books of the Bible and we are able to read them, and they contain only truth, but whenever we read the Bible we add our own interpretation on top of it. By interpreting the Bible in this way, we are not guaranteed that we believe the truth, because all we are believing is our interpretation of the truth. Instead, God founded a Church (Matthew 16:17-20) and gave the whole truth to his followers and they were told to teach that truth to the whole world. The Bible was never intended to be used in the way many Christian churches use it now, and this practice has led to confusion and many different interpretations. In my personal opinion, explore them if you feel some urging to do so but you'll be wasting your time. There is only one Church that God founded, a Church that has preserved the truth of the apostles since the time of Jesus, and that is the Catholic Church. Another thing to understand is that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints. We are all sinners, and some people throughout history have done terrible things in the name of God. It is undeniable. God is there to help us know what is right and true but he still gives us free will and some do still abuse it. That isn't a reflection on the Church he created, just on the depravity of man. Another thing that you wrote that I need to comment on: God does not give his grace only to those who believe. Every good thing about you and me is a grace given by God. Without those graces, we would all be utterly depraved. Everyone has been given different graces. That is why some people murder, others do not, some people steal, others do not. Those who do not; have grace. I'm getting a little theological here; I hope you don't mind. But grace is not just for believers. Jesus Christ died for all sinners, even those who did not believe. If God did not offer all of us grace, we would never have the capability to believe in Him in the first place. God Bless you, and if you seek him, he will reveal himself to you.
• February 13, 2009, Simon Jones writes: Thanks for that Ralph. Stay tuned, I'd like to hear you opinions on other things.
• February 16, 2009, Ralph writes: Thanks for the invite. I will definitely stick around. Keep the questions coming.
• February 17, 2009, Shane writes: Wow. There are some very interesting comments here. It seems that you are in good company Simon. I like what many have had to say. My primary observation to date is how encouraging it must be that many in the community of faith certainly do respect and understand your search for truth. This at least demonstrates that not all believers are from the same religious mold that so negatively affected your impressions early on. I am excited to be a part of this dialogue and hope to learn from others while making the best contribution I can. For the moment, I am particularly interested in Ralph's comment about the nature of the church in contrast to scripture as it relates to God's self-revelation. I know this may be more specific than intended for this blog but am wondering if Ralph would be interested in dialoging via email about this?
• February 23, 2009, June writes: Why don't you write down what you think your god should be like. Choose your own conception of God. Be willing to believe in your own God. Start there. That's how I began. Not how I finished.
• April 15, 2009, Skye writes: If you really are looking for God you will find Him, He is kind merciful, gracious and the God I know has changed my life. I also know that if you really do have questions that you want answers to He will answer those too. If you genuinely do give your life to Him He will change it forever. The night in India is interesting because the thing that God blesses is faith and maybe just maybe He is looking for that Faith in you to keep coming, Asking, seeking and knocking. As for your reasons for seeking Him they will be the very thing that God uses to change and strengthen you. In my experience God is the God who really answers by fire as He did with Elijah and He will not be mocked He will answer you and fulfill all the promises He has ever spoken to you or ever will speak to you, He is just looking for your obedience. Ouch that is a hard word to swollow Obedience but that is what God requires of A broken spirit and a contrite heart and you will know when the time is right for you to submit your life to Him and live for Him and the Kingdom plan He has for your life, you will find it. It says "ask what you will in my name and it will be done for you so that my father in heaven will be glorified" God wants to be glorified in the earth and when we ask Him of his will and He fulfills it that Glorifies Him. Maybe just maybe you are asking the wrong questions. It says somewhere else that it delights Him to give us the Kingdom, Maybe this is where your questions start. What do you want Him to do for you? Is it for the good of Gods kingdom? If it is be sure He will show you. It also says in the OT to ask Him for the ancient paths, I know it sounds a bit cliche but but God wants to redig the ancient wells and show us the paths that our forefathers walked in , their revelation, their anointing, their experience of Gods power, the prophetic anointing, In corinthians it says above all seek that you may prophecie, The prophetic word releases Gods will in the earth and we are channels of that blessing that God wants to release. I am not going to tell you to go to a church because I believe that He is well able to show himself to you and change your life outside of the church structure and all the other manmade ways to God but what I will say is follow His lead and wait on Him to reveal Himself to you remember it took God 3 times to get samuels attention. Happy searching and remember those that seek Him find Him and that those that seek the Lord lack no good thing