Fellow Christians, I have questions

Post Reply New Topic

ignore everything else i wrote, if you want, but keep this in your mind.


over one billion of us are starving as you read this.

either reconcile this with your faith and tell me you serve a loving god or that these people deserve the protracted death they're enduring or repent your godful ignorance and tithe to humanity instead of your church.

I am a Believer Baptised Converted Christian Aspie who is a graduate of theological school, with a Master of Arts in Research from Andover Newton Theological School and I have a Graduate Certificate in Science and Religion from the Boston Theological Institute, and I have published three works in the feild-to date. These books are available on Amazon.com, Kindle Store:

Human-Animal Reconciliation: Franciscan Faith-based Communications and Its Implications for Wildlife Management (Amazon.con, Kindle Store, 2008).
Christian Environmental Studies: An Educational Module with Syllabuses and a Sample Lecture (Amazon.com,. Kindle Store, 2008).
Creation Unveiled: The Implications Of Girardian Theory For Environmental And Animal Issues (Amazon.com, Kindle Store, 2010).

You can also get an earlier version of Creation Unveiled at Amazon.com in print form (USA: Xulon Press, 2003).

Also, in the next year I plan to release on Kindle my first of 12 volume series on Autistic Liberation Theology, with my one volume, entitled Confessions of an Autistic Theologian: Doing Theology-in-Pictures, which is almost in draft form.

I would also be willing to have a respectful conversation about the answers to your questions off line, at my e-mail adress, Sherrydsal@aol.com.

There I would be happy to answer all your questions. Just know that my answers will be good news and you will not be judged, not to worry, and you might find the my answers quite surpising and liberating.

Best wishes! Know you will be in my prayers. Keep the faith! You will be vincidicated!

My condolences to you and your mind. And what major scientific contributions have you made?

ruveyn

Indeed, I have a hard time reading chopped-up responses like that and have an even more difficult time responding.

The fundamental conflict you seem to have has to do with a willingness to accept the evidence as such. That's about a succinct answer as I can possibly give, though I generally prefer to be a lot more specific and thorough. I've been using the courtroom analogy a lot here lately, and the same applies here: In a court of law, a prosecutor doesn't have to convince "the state," the judge, or the defense--it's the jury that counts. And despite the best presentation of apparently clear cut and dry evidence of what should be an open-and-shut case, there is always the slightest possibility that you won't make believers of EVERY juror.

So be it.

So, for a few brief comments...

I'm not Pentecostal, so I can't speak for those people. The Biblical day of Pentecost refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit as promised after the ascension. It does not, as the Pentecostals claim, provide and justification for any "falabala" during a worship service. It simply means that the disciples were supernaturally equipped to carry the message beyond Jerusalem.

Music is NOT math. Music can be explained by mathematical constructs, but it's not math itself. If music is anything other than music, it's more of a means of communication than anything else. You may have a particular thing to "say" musically, but "math" doesn't tell you how to express it, no more than math can determine how I'm going to respond to your comments. And as a means of communication, it's more intuitive than anything else, no different than words in effect. It just happens to have the ability to express things more than words can say alone. Sure, you have the circle of fifths, and that is useful in theory as a guide to creating logical-sounding chord progressions. But it also might be argued that the effect of circle progressions is entirely a learned response to a number of centuries of hearing them. I think atonal music is actually more expressive, but we haven't quite gotten enough composers over a long-enough period of time to get their heads out of their arses to compose enough for audiences to gauge how they are going to respond to it analogous to the tonal tradition. I find Milton Babbitt's music to have a kind of sparkly quality to it, and you don't really have to know what "atonal" even means to appreciate it. I've tried playing one of his solo piano pieces, and the conclusion I've drawn about why his music isn't performed more often is that it's really very difficult to perform. Contrast with Anton Webern, who also wrote some wonderful little pieces. The difficulty is in that his music isn't predictable in any traditional kind of way, but I have a better chance of sight-reading the clarinet part for opus 21 than I do learning Babbitt's piano piece in a year.

One composer who is obviously mathematical is Iannis Xenakis. I LOVE his music. But the problem is I can't "hear" the math, and I think I'm probably supposed to. So not understanding the "logic" behind the aesthetic he creates diminishes my full appreciation for the "what" and "why" behind what I'm hearing. I know I'm missing a lot, I know I'll never be able to compose like that. But on the other hand, his music doesn't really reach a wide listening audience. Audiences don't really like to hear "difficult" music, so I know if I find it difficult when I'm open to so many different things, then it's hardly likely many other people will REALLY appreciate or understand it. The exact opposite end of the spectrum is John Cage, whose music I find very child-like and maybe even naïve. But it's those qualities that really speak to me. Once again, I'm afraid much of it is largely unappreciated unless you're a composer yourself.

And too, part of YOUR problem might have to do with too much time spent learning brass instruments. You have to be careful. They'll just suck the life out of you. I've noticed that ideologically MOST brass players tend to stay stuck in whatever box they happen to fall in. Myself, I'm not really opposed to composing or playing in "boxes," but I do like to trade my boxes out fairly regularly.

And yes, you can take that as a ideological metaphor. My beliefs are the result of a long time in the faith. I've had the chance to try out a lot of different things, and I've found other things to be lacking. Sometimes the "big picture" is simply what you knew all along. So maybe I've "discovered" one thing, but that doesn't mean the search is over. I view faith as continued growth.



Magic has been viewed in a lot of different ways throughout time. I can't really say I know that there is such a thing as magic. I believe what the Bible has to say on the matter--that is, don't attempt to mess with the supernatural. So if someone really does, through whatever means, somehow manipulate supernatural power through his own means or with the assistance of a "spirit" or a "demon," he's bad news.

The problem with it is that it fundamentally ascribes the powers invoked to something or someone to which it doesn't belong. Either it is ascribed to a false god or to the person's own abilities. Since all things come from God, this cannot be, and thus is not to be tolerated by Christians.

You said this:



How might one assume that God provides whether we ask or not? All things come from God. The request is simply giving credit where it's due. Besides, I've prayed for all sorts of things having to do with my livelihood, and not necessarily for any PURELY selfless motives. Certain things that I've been given have served to make my work easier. But, oddly enough, it seems more of my projects here lately happen to be finding fruit in church worship. I can't really explain that, but the message I feel I'm getting is that "OK, I'll give you what you ask for, but you're going to be doing My work with it." I'm perfectly ok with that, and it helps increase the boldness of things for which I ask. I think God may or may not grant requests (prayers) depending upon His will to answer, but it's doubtful God will be active in granting anything if He isn't asked.

Think of it more like a parent-child relationship: I will be glad to feed my children what they need. But certain things I'm just not going to do. Candy, right now, is pretty much out of the question except for very RARE times when there's no harm in indulging them. If I just give them what they want, then I might indirectly contribute to severe health complications down the road.

And there are times I WON'T give them what they need. I will not respond to angry demands. So even if you are hungry and you scream at me, as though I owe it to you to feed you right this very minute, I will probably walk into another room and close the door until you calm down. And perhaps if you'll learn to be nice to me, I might be more inclined to grant what you need.

I won't even automagically rescue you from every little slip-up you make. If you run crazy through the house, slip on a toy, and bump your head, I'll check to see if your brain is hanging out of your skull, but that's about it. You don't need me to punish you to show it's a bad idea to run in the house or leave your toys out. The way I see it, you've punished yourself enough and don't need my help for that.

But if you're about to run into the street into oncoming traffic, I'll probably yank you back and it probably won't feel good when I do. If you haven't matured enough to understand imminent danger, it's probably better I do something extraordinary to keep you from running headlong into danger or even being a danger to yourself.

Likewise, prayers are answered according to HOW you ask and what you really need and to what greater purpose might be fulfilled in the answering of prayers. We do better to make requests on God's terms rather than demanding He condescend to ours. One can reasonably assume that it is possible, if difficult, to anger God just as one might anger a parent. So the prayer may also be answered in such a way that we either regret the gift or the response we get (instead of getting what we ask for) makes the request regrettable. Spanking as a form of punishment is perfectly acceptable where I live, and it is POSSIBLE, though not often likely, that my child can put unacceptable demands on me as to warrant severe punishment (few infractions are "automatically" punishable physically, and typically the punishment is more symbolic than it is physically painful. A "real" spanking is strictly "last resort"). The importance of prayer is in the appropriateness of it. And the "trick" to getting what one wants is in the persistence in asking for it. I would advise care in that the actual granting of a request may not really have been what you were going for. Are the consequences of getting what you want really worth the value of the object in question? Sometimes, in retrospect, the unanswered prayer is in one's better interest than the answered one.




FWIW, I think glossolalia is fake, too. The early Catholics recognized that people DID experience "ecstatic utterances," not to be confused with Biblical speaking in different comprehensible languages. The Bible teaches sobriety in worship. So if your worship involves "utterances," so be it, but don't pretend that such things are anything more than what they are. What a knowledgeable Southern Baptist will tell you is that if someone has the "gift" of speaking in tongues, they may be a part of worship IF they have an interpreter. Otherwise, they should keep silent. I believe Paul said that somewhere. The point is that if someone has a message from God, the congregation needs to hear it and understand it. Random "falabala" nonsense does not serve any useful purpose. Music, on the other hand, transcends much of what can be said in words, and is the ideal place for "ecstatic utterance." Listen to Gregorian monks singing "alleluia" for 15 minutes at a stretch and you'll hear exactly what I'm talking about.

And, yeah, despite what I think about some Pentecostal worship practices, they really do have some good music. You're probably thinking of the more contemporary and "innovative" contemporary styles. Those guys down in Australia are pretty amazing. And as little credibility as I can give to Jimmy Swaggart because of some of the decisions he's made along the way, they DO have some good singin' (there's a radio station not far from my house that's "all Swaggart, all the time." I listen for the music. When he starts talking, I have to go to a different station. I'm not sure why, but preachers and musicians tend to make bad combinations, and it's not just Swaggart).

The "Goddidit" conclusion depends upon whether a conclusion is drawn from something that it not known based upon what means someone might have of knowing it. The creation of the universe is probably the best example. Abiogenesis is another. A creationist will argue against the truth of either by pointing out why it is science can't conclusively show that there was a "big bang" or whether or not something had to precipitate it. Likewise, life is not randomly known to just create itself. I'm not getting into the creation/evolution argument here. All I'm saying is that the "gap" in origins theory is a pretty wide one, wide enough that some people will have a difficult time of "just accepting" it. But that doesn't mean that it CAN'T be possible to have life spontaneously come into being in a laboratory-controlled setting. It just means that IF it's possible, we just haven't figured it out yet.

If something is determined to be something that had to be an act of God, then there really isn't a gap. God really did it. If multiple witnesses, for example, can attest to the fact that something happened that could not have ordinarily happened, then supernatural attribution of that event is not unreasonable. The feeding of the 5,000, 4,000, healing, raising people from the dead, raising one's self from the dead--and that's just the New Testament, and only a few examples. You only asked for one, so I figure I need not go on.

Your hearsay "accusations" are false assumptions, the assumption being that it couldn't possibly have happened. Now, on whether it was 4,000 or 20,000 is a mere guess based on how families are typically counted in the Bible, usually in the Old Testament. But even it was ONLY 4,000 taken strictly and not an estimation, that's still a lot of people.

Actually, it is ridiculous to assume someone is lying when the truth they claim is not reproducible. Kill someone and go before a jury and make that defense. Say that they can't reproduce the crime, that because you can't go back again and kill the same person who is already dead, and thus because the murder is not reproducible that you are innocent of a crime. Let me know how that works out for you.

In regards to unbelievers and miracles: I'm guessing that you are generally disinclined to believe any of it anyway. You're quick to explain it away as "magic" or "illusion." So what good is actually witnessing a sign going to really do you? No one is forcing you to believe anything. And if Jesus or God or an Apostle were to do something like that on demand for someone who isn't going to believe anything anyway, it serves no purpose other than to make Jesus/God/believer look like a fool. A god who is a fool to the prospective faithful isn't much of a god worth believing in. On the other hand, such signs ARE useful to someone who is willing to believe. Jesus wasn't really put to death for working miracles, though. Miracles were enough to get a few people to pay attention, but it was what He taught that contributed more to the ire of the religious leaders. Even the religious skeptics were quick to attribute Jesus' works to a supernatural yet anything-but-holy source (demons). Since there would be those who refuse to believe anyway, miracles would be pointless.

Even those who believed the miracles didn't always buy into his teaching. The "eat MY flesh and drink My blood" proved to be too much for some. And Jesus knew that. Thus the only ones who stood by Jesus as far as the cross were the only ones totally sold-out in their faith in Jesus the Messiah. My opinion is that an easy faith is not a strong faith, which I think the tenacity of a few disciplies--a few hundred as opposed to a few thousand--demonstrates. And the fact that so many eventually became active in the heavily persecuted church in Jerusalem as well as throughout Greece and the Roman empire shows that the apostles and their disciples established their credibility with outsiders. If their testimony was good enough to be believable then, why shouldn't it be so now? There's no good reason at all. It really just comes down to whether you want to believe it or not.

One piece of evidence lies in the historical pluralistic society of ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks wouldn't have had any problems learning about Yahweh and maybe even worshiping God. In fact, history shows that Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles met together in synagogues to debate theology. So any reasoning Greek might add God to the list of gods he worshipped. And any thoughtful Greek would have carefully considered the wisdom of Jesus' teachings. But it takes something much more to convince a pagan Gentile to give up idol worship and commit to faith in Jesus alone and worship of the one true God. We know, obviously, they were convinced, since those religions gradually died out in favor of Christianity. Even if you say that they were converted by force, you still have to account for the free conversion of a top-ranking ruler. Perhaps Constantine jumped the gun a bit in marrying Christianity to the state and ultimately harming the movement, but it remains that something had to convince him in his own conversion. It's not easy for "the little guy" to convince "the big guy" that the "little guy" is right. Ask any person or religious group what a national leader has personally done for him. How, exactly, did Dubya further gay "rights"? How much attention is Obama seriously giving to Tea Party interests? It would take something truly significant to win that person over, among other things, that a certain point of view really is the right one, not simply the opinions of a tiny number of adherents to some mysterious new cult. I think that Constantine's conversion and subsequent actions are the typical immature responses of new converts, made even more severe by Constantine's already significant hold on power.

The point being, though, that the message of the Bible is clear and convincing enough to grab the attention of so many people willing to go to their deaths for holding those beliefs. Religious "reformers" were nothing new when Jesus walked the earth. Religious leaders of the time were ultimately forced to contend with the fact that maybe, just MAYBE because God did not stand in the way of this new "movement," then one way or another, for good or for evil, God was responsible for the proliferation of faith in Christ. Jewish persecution ultimately came to an end because they were forced to confront the credibility of the claims of the apostles. By killing them, they realized they were only pouring fuel on the fire. Disciples of previous "reformers" quickly scattered to the wind, and the consistent tenacity of Jesus' disciples to the point of death shows that they really believed what they saw. You don't under most circumstances get people willing to die for something they know to be a sham. Politically, having to put up with so many religious executions would not long have held the support of the Jewish laity, and thus Christian persecution was temporarily stayed until it began to take hold in the Greek and Roman world.

I think the direction of Christianity would have been a lot different and much more easily accepted as what it was intended to be had Constantine avoided making infantile mistakes (theologically speaking). I don't think it would have been less widespread. I just think that the Church would have been more of a service institution (more like it commonly is now) rather than a governing institution. But sadly, we can't change the past.

Pastor's salary? MOST places (secular or not) discourage employees from disclosing their salaries, and for good reason. Personally, though, I'll say that mine is $600/mo, more than most churches are willing to pay, but not enough in terms of the time I put into it. It ought to be twice that, but I even offered to work strictly as a volunteer. So I don't complain. I'm not sure whether the pastor's salary is disclosed in the budget report or not. I know it's appropriate given the size of the church, and I also know our pastor lives remarkably modestly. His wife is a school teacher, and they have 4 kids. Our worship leader is well-paid, all things considered, and his wife also has a job. Their house is still on mortgage, is a modest 3-bedroom number, and they have 3 kids. Our church also has three other pastors besides who are married, and their spouses also have support the household by working, often making better money than their husbands. We also have a part-time Sunday School director who is paid, and he, in fact, pays back every cent of it in "tithes" because he doesn't feel right about getting paid for his work! Now, I understand that mega-church salaries are high, and it's understandable why. The good ones have no problems disclosing that, and often the salaries are voted on by one or more committees and the rest of the congregation is fully aware should there be any dispute. "Health and wealth" preachers make much more, but they ARE working a scam. Gotta have that private jet if you're going to be a good example, right?

Anyway... Given that many congregations I know of barely have a penny to spare, and considering where I live there are churches closing their doors, full-time pastors aren't as well-paid as the big ones you hear about. I've had friends who went on to be bi-vocational pastors. Nothing wrong with that, either. Paul had a busy travel schedule, refused a salary, and subsidized his work through his skill of making tents. So paid or unpaid, comparing pastor's wages to that of admitted illusionists is hardly an issue. The Law says, "Don't muzzle an ox while it treads the grain."

The danger of ouija boards is the close association with the occult. Fake or not, don't play. Same goes for tarot cards, palm readers, fortune tellers, psychic hotlines, newspaper horoscopes, you name it. Even if it's only for "entertainment" purposes and you think you "know" you're throwing your money away, just don't.

Anyway, I could keep going on, but we're just running around in circles here. If you're determined not to believe anything, it doesn't matter what I say, anyway, whether what I say is compelling or not.

I could certainly make a case about human suffering and God's purpose for humanity. But rather going into that right now, how about this: If God is so horrible as to allow these things to happen, and if you think you have a better way, then what are YOU doing about it?

God thanks your readers for their purchase. I can't think of a better tribute to JC than internet shopping.

I took the time to read what you wrote. I'd have a hard time convincing myself that I was having a serious discussion if I didn't.

Then again, if I had the audacity to label Islam false and then use willingness to martyr oneself as proof of religious validity, I probably wouldn't be bothered by such silliness.

God isn't horrible. You know, I think that sentence is one word too long. Let's try again: god isn't. Yes, that'll do.

It's obvious that, while you are more than willing to discuss your faith, you absolutely refuse to think critically about it.

And for (probably not) the last time, magic isn't real. that you consider quija boards to be dangerous puts your faith in exactly the context it belongs.

also: excellent work getting those degrees in theology. What other religions have you written books for? Or are your degrees only in Judeo-Christian theology?

Teenage girls put a tremendous amount of faith into those things. Maybe Justin Bieber really is God!

Indeed?

So tell me... What ARE you doing about the hunger situation? You took the time to at least read my post, just as I took the time to read and respond to yours. The ability to think critically allows one to respond in such ways. But no, I'M the one not thinking critically. I see. Ah, well, I suppose the logic of a brass player yields only what little it can.

My apologies if it's tl;dr, but I figured you might actually want me to respond to your comments, so I did. If you weren't really interested, why bother commenting? I mean, if you didn't want a response from me, then that makes the conversation entirely one-sided. Tl;dr it may be, but I was just going with the flow. Very sorry if my responses aren't welcome.

And your response to my final question, assuming it's a response at all, wasn't really much of one.

Willingness to martyr oneself isn't proof of religious validity, and that's not even what we're talking about here. The earliest martyrs died at the hands of religious zealots who felt threatened by what they had to say. They didn't martyr themselves. Whether early Christians became martyrs was a decision handed down from their persecutors, not themselves. Proof of religious validity is in the conviction of so many who reviewed the evidence and chose to believe, so much so they became a force to be reckoned with.

Still doesn't answer my question.

"God isn't"? Sounds like an assertion to me.

Still doesn't answer my question.

I've already said what I think about critical thinking. I've examined evidence. I find it consistent. All that's left to consider are the details of day to day life. So it's "obvious" I refuse to critically think about? Obvious to whom? Obvious to you? Obvious to those who only think the same way you do? Seems to me the question of my "critical thinking" skills is moot in that I consider what has been said and give responses to it. Lengthy? Sure. Wordy? Perhaps. But they are, indeed, responses resulting from pondering what has been said.

But your accusation that I don't critically think still doesn't answer the question.

The reality of magic or objects of the occult under dispute is a product of anti-supernatural bias. Seems to me you've compromised your own critical thinking in favor of a false assumption. MAYBE. Probably due to so many years playing brass instruments and a neo-Freudian obsession with the circle of fifths. You should go see a doctor about that.

But disputing the reality or non-reality of occult objects, you still haven't answered the question.

What are YOU doing about world hunger?

You misunderstood. I was saying that your lack of response to anything I wrote because it was choppy read to me as: "tl;dr" and it was followed by a wall of text. My "chopped up" responses were pointed at things you said. I chopped it up because I would rather address what you claim to believe and point out where, specifically, your losing me.  

The point of that is pretty much lost since discovering you believe in quija boards.  

So I don't feel so bad that my cleverness runs out before explaining how my understanding of music as math gives me a "neo-Freudian obsession" with one of countless mathematic maps to music. It's not magic. It's math.

I don't need to disprove quija boards any more than I need to disprove genies, elves, or big foot.  

Click for embarrasing link for someone who teaches music.

Last edited by waltur on 25 Oct 2010, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

As to world hunger, I'm not doing anything worth notice right now. I'm not claiming to. That would be you who claims your god feeds the hungry.

There are many secular humanist charities that don't waste food money on bibles. Your charity would probably do more good that way.

[quote="AngelRho"] So yes, I know a silly argument when I see one. But there is no Biblical law that says we can't laugh, even at ourselves, and nowhere is there a law against thinking.[/quote

That is true. For example the Patriarch Isaac is named Giggles. Isaac is the English transliteration of Yitzchak which means laughter or giggle. When Sarah, Abraham's very old wife was told by a visiting angel that she would conceive and have a child she giggled. When she did conceive and had a child (Yitzchak) she named him Yitzchak or Giggles. Abraham's two main children are Ishmael and Giggles.

Ishmael means God Heard which is to say God heard Hagar's cry for help when she was turned loose in the wilderness by Abraham's wife Sara. Hence Abraham's well know son's are God Heard and Giggles.

ruveyn

But I never said music WAS magic. Music IS, however, based on illusion. Whether you BELIEVE in magic or not, or whether you ascribe all magic to illusion or not, there IS a distinction between ascribing something to the supernatural and something that is purely hidden within plain sight. Playing an extremely rapid series of notes is one of those things which many non-musicians see as impressive or some indicator of skill, which may or may not exist in reality. Drumming your fingers on a flat surface doesn't take any remarkable skill. Doing the same on piano keys is only different in that it requires a greater degree of force. What I find holds more of my piano students back is their failure to understand that fast playing is not a great skill, but rather an illusion--something the pianist knows that the audience doesn't, and the effective execution of which at the right time can be absolutely stunning.

The issue I have with "music is math" is it leaves out the elements of human responses. Math is a descriptive language. It is NOT a conversation in the same sense as music. As a synthesist, I'm well aware of the harmonic series, phase manipulations, subtractive filtering/harmonic emphasis, envelope times, various ways in which subsonic frequencies are employed in modulating various sound parameters (filter frequencies, pitch, amplitude), and so on. Math helps describe some things that are happening in music. But what you hear is sound, not mathematical formulas. Perhaps that's why I have so much trouble "getting" Xenakis. Xenakis consciously uses mathematical constructs in his music. But reliance on mathematical formulas, probabilities, and the like result in sounds that are more easily perceived as random noise than what we normally think of as music. Music that is conceived more as a communicative medium has a greater effect on the listener than that which uses less "musical" means of construction. Don't get me wrong. I love Xenakis. But I'm talking about what appeals to more as "listenable" art rather than my own subjective opinions. Compare with visual art. Impressionism comes off as being highly abstract, yet still representative of its subject. Art that is consciously abstract or purely conceptual seems much more self-referential by comparison. That doesn't make it "good" or "bad," just different. You can describe visual art in terms of the same things as music: Golden ratio, Fibonacci, and so on and including more geometrical terms. But art in general is not governed strictly by mathematical formulas, but rather the creative vision of the artist. Visual art, likewise, is an intuitive skill. I once took an art class, but my failings in art probably had to do with having a hands-off teacher that probably didn't really want me there in the first place. If you don't understand how to achieve certain visual effects, it's difficult to copy those of another painter. I just don't have THAT kind of patience, and perhaps if I'd studied individually with a painter, I might have gotten it. Yet somehow there are more painters than composers. I wonder why!

Anyway...

Look, your accusation was that, assuming if God exists and provides, then there ought not be so much hunger in the world. You're exact words were "not doing anything worth notice." That's a bit of a weakener, and it would be a false assumption on my part either way to say your answer means either yes or no.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume "no." That makes you a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it? Complaining about the world's food needs and not proactively providing those needs? It hardly seems fair to me to lash out at God for something you OUGHT to do yourself!

Me personally, I AM disturbed by world hunger. But I also know that God chooses those of His to serve in the ways they are best suited. I'm not personally involved, for example, in foreign missions because it is not my PLACE to do so. What would I do? What would I say to these people? It's a frightening thought, especially knowing that the Bible suggests I should do SOMETHING. But since there are those who give up their time and money to do those things, those people who have the ability to do so, then I don't have to feel quite so guilty. I do things within my own congregation that no one else there can do. So that is my place and that is my purpose. My wife and I try our best to tithe, though we aren't perfect. We also take part in some charity work. If we're on our way to eat at a favorite restaurant, which is seldom these days, and someone who claims to be hungry or displaced begs for money, I'll spare a dollar if I have it. It's not my business what he needs money for, so I don't ask. But if I ever see the same person again after some cock-and-bull story and I find out he's a chronic liar, I won't give him another penny. So while I am, in many ways, powerless to do certain things, I have faith that God HAS empowered others better suited to that kind of work. You can't blame God for failing to feed the hungry when, if you are so convicted, it is perhaps YOUR job to do so. You don't know whether God has appointed you to that task.

If "yes," then good for you! You ARE doing God's work insofar as you are able. I've already mentioned my own inadequacies, but that does not mean that I don't work for God within my ability to do so. Most people I know who do mission work, the actual hands and feet of ministry, are typically the ones who buy their own plane tickets and take cuts in pay from missed work. My wife and I actually DO go hungry sometimes for the sake of giving our own kids food. According to the Bible, God will accomplish His will with or without the faith of people. The difference between a believer who does good things and an unbeliever who does good things is that the unbeliever does so for self-centered motives, whatever those may be. Maybe it makes you feel good to help people. Maybe you are trying to satisfy some intrinsic need or urge to help people. That's not a BAD thing, per se, but a believer knows that even if selfish desires are satisfied from the doing of God's work, the primary focus is in that God is glorified by the good works of those who are His. Faith in God, then, is necessary for salvation, but good deeds are required only so far as they display a believer's faith and the change they've allowed God to bring in their lives.

Ultimately, the Bible says everything comes from God, one way or another. If secular humanists are feeding the hungry, it is God who allows them to do so. Perhaps Christians who do not when they are able to could learn a few lessons from the way in which God uses unbelievers. God used sinful people to teach Israel a few lessons back in the OT. If God can use foreign invasion and war to make a point to those who would understand war best, there is no reason to think God can't use sinners to wage peace on His own people. Further, Christians seek to fill a spiritual need, not only a physical need. If we hand out Bibles, it is because no one else is doing so. Why would they? While food fills a physical hunger, the inspired word of God fills a spiritual hunger which we believe to be ultimately much more important. Jesus said those who have faith in Him and follow His teachings will never (spiritually) hunger again. Perhaps we can't force people to read and understand the Bible, or even believe in what it says if they do read and understand it. But at the very least we can make it available. Feeding the hungry or providing medical care fills only a temporary need which might not be met again for a long time. The value of faith is in its eternal consequences. A much more peaceful life is achieved in the knowledge that, no matter how bad the physical world can be, the physical world isn't ultimately what is important anyway. There remains hope for a better world "hereafter" much more worth living and waiting for.

I'm tempted to go on about human suffering, but I can't do much without risking quoting C.S. Lewis. And that may not necessarily be a bad thing.

Last edited by AngelRho on 25 Oct 2010, 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Bible says (or contains) a lot. But what evidence (of the empirical sort) do you have that indicates what the Bible says is true?

ruveyn

Any chance someone can answer this question without a reference to 'faith'?

What empirical evidence do you have of a Hebrew oral tradition?