Reproductive justice should include transgender community
How do we adequately address and include those who have abortions but are not women?
We must acknowledge and come to terms with the implicit cissexism in assuming that only women have abortions. Trans men have abortions. People who do not identify as women have abortions. They deserve to be represented in our advocacy and activist framework.
~ Lauren Rankin lamenting the pro-choice rhetoric that excludes the trans community, TruthOut, July 31
[Photo via The I Spot]
Aug.02, 2013 6:00 am |
GLBT |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Eventually the mind that runs around in such tight circles, attempting to make sense out of the senseless, — snaps.
Abortion advocates are in the business of eliminating humans with no concern for whether they are white, black, latino, straight, gay, bisexual, male, female, abled, disabled, cisgendered or transgendered – so give me a break, and please stop it with the faux-humble self revelations about your hitherto unknown intolerance. Abortion advocates are intolerant of all humanity as long as they preborn, all the time. Lauren, please become pro-life and you will have the best self-revelation you could possibly have: you will begin to love the weakest of all of humanity when it is the most dependent on womyn.
Radical feminists need to come to terms with transgendered people because feminists and transgendered people have two diametrically opposed views of gender. Feminists see gender as not being fixed and fluid; while transgendered people, paradoxically, see gender as something that is innate in the brain. The transgendered concept of gender puts a lie to all the feminist hyperbole that there are no such thing as gender roles and that a malevolent patriarchy exists merely to take away the “reproductive rights” of women.
Oh for crying out loud! Does the person in question have a uterus? Alright, then, she’s a woman.
There are quite a few pro-lifers who have had abortions. Perhaps they should be included somehow into the modern feminist paradigm as well. I don’t think they are made to feel very welcome.
Whatever. Wake me up when they decide “reproductive justice” should include justice for the unborn community.
At first I thought I was reading something pro-life and the author was talking about including the fathers of the babies…and then I realized, nope. Post-abortive men still don’t count.
Wow Tyler you made two posts in a row I agree with. :D
I find this whole topic so tiring. Apparently there is a “cotton ceiling” now. You can google it if you want but it basically means that even many progressive and radical cis-women will accept trans-women politically and socially etc but not sexually, in their personal sexual life – that, basically, lesbians are reluctant to have sex with bodies that have penises attached. Who woulda thought.
There was a commenter here some years ago who went by the name yllas and who used to pester Hal, among others, a lot with a very specific question: if you were stuck on a deserted island with a homosexual man, would you have sex with him? When the person asked would inevitably say “No, because I’m not gay,” yllas would accuse him of being unfair and cruel, to deny the hypothetical other person his desires just because “what I want is more important than what you want.” ie, my desire to not have sex with a man is more important than your desire to have sex with me. “Cruel and selfish.” There was a real point that yllas was trying to make but it’s not really relevant here.
Yllas was a total loon for a variety of reasons, and the question was pretty ridiculous, and got tiresome, but it’s the first thing I thought of when a friend of mine told me to study up on the cotton ceiling so that I could break out of my transphobia. I am not anti-trans and I actually know and care about quite a few people who self-identify as a sex that they were not born with; my level of comfort with each of their situations varies depending on the situation, but I don’t offer my opinions unless asked, and they rarely ask, and my comfort or discomfort does not affect the respect or kindness I have for them. But there was apparently a bit of a kerfuffle recently when a certain feminist group clarified its purpose by saying that it seeks to address the issues common to WBW (women born women), such as internalized gender roles and – yes – birth control/abortion, issues that by definition are not problems for WBM; and several of my friends called it a “hate group” or said it peddles “extreme hate” by excluding WBM from its mission, by drawing a line between WBW and WBM; and basically there was a whole huge uproar about it. In response, I questioned the need for every single organization, ever, to be completely inclusive of everyone with a problem – because I do think that there are issues that WBW face and I think that marginalizing those problems or saying that they are all the same as the problems WBM or whoever face, or that every single person who calls themselves a woman faces every single problem that every other woman faces, is actually quite anti-woman – and I got accused of “hate” and directed towards Google to educate myself on things like the cotton ceiling. Which btw is named for the cotton of underwear; I had assumed it was named for sanitary products because I think that most people wear cotton underwear, whether they have a penis or a vagina, whereas only WBW use tampons and pads; but in the grand scheme of things that is the least confusing thing about the whole situation to me so I just leave the terminology be.
My older sister went to one of the Seven Sisters – the all-women’s counterparts to the Ivies – and even back when she was there more than a decade ago, there were debates brewing about admitting trans students. And even back then, I just felt….uncomfortable about it. Not out of a fear or even a dislike but just out of a desire to have words actually mean things. Growing up as a girl, into a woman, I felt that there were aspects of my life that ONLY other women could understand. Not that ALL other women could understand, but that basically NO men or boys could understand. I felt that there were emotional, academic, financial, and ethical struggles I had dealt with that were mostly unique to women; I felt that there were challenges I would still face that people who had grown up male would not. I wanted spaces to exist in the world where I could be implicitly understood in these ways; where the conversation could skip the introduction or the explanation, and start right with the solution. And I felt bad for feeling this way. I felt that there was something unfair about my feelings, something wrong.
My sister’s old college admits transwomen these days, but only those who legally identify as women. There was recently a bit of an uproar because a trans-woman who is not legally recognized as a woman applied and was rejected because, in the college’s own words, “applicants must be female at the time of admission.” The student in question identified as male on the FAFSA form because the student is legally considered male. It is often a long, costly, and medically invasive road to become legally female, so people got very upset by this rejection letter and its reasoning. I feel guilty a lot of the time for this, but I don’t really see how the school could be any more accommodating and still consider itself a women’s college.
Like I said…tiring.
Jack, if I have to pick sides between the radical feminists and the LGBT community I am on the side of the LGBT community. Although I think the LGBT community should not act on their innate experiences, at least they claim that their experiences are innate and they’re not trying to deny the experiences (in the case of cisgendered people) of others or the very existence of other people (as in the case of their support for the abortion of preborn children).
I don’t mean to ramble but I did want to add that in my googling of the cotton ceiling I came upon a piece that responded to the accusations of rape-y undertones of the argument that lesbians “should,” as a group, be more willing to have sex with people whose bodies have penises attached:
“This spectre of rape that cis lesbian “radfems” habitually raise, centered around the supposed inherent threat of the phallus, minimizes the appalling rates of physical and sexual violence committed against trans women.”
I thought that was such an ironic thing to read – that mentioning the word “rape” in the same sentence as the word “penis” is offensive to and accusatory of WOMEN; and that mentioning the rape of cis-women at all is offensive to trans-women. This kind of thing is what I mean when I say that it makes me sad to think of women’s colleges being pressured to accept people who did not grow up as women – not the possibility of rape necessarily, because of course men are raped as well, and it is just as tragic and just as wrong; but growing up female in a rape culture, and how it shapes so many things about your life. I think of sitting in a professed women’s-only environment and having someone claim that it is minimizing and offensive for me to talk about rape because there are other women who are more likely to actually BE assaulted than I am. If you can’t talk about rape in a group of women, then where? If it is offensive to talk about periods and birth control and abortion and that one day where you realize that every man you pass is staring at you as you walk by, and needing a bra or wishing you needed a bra, and being called a prude if you didn’t and a slut if you did, and wanting to get pregnant or not wanting to get pregnant and why or why not; and whatever else – then are we all just supposed to be silent, and alone, in what are actually quite collective and cultural experiences? Just to avoid offense?
Alexandra, I think what you are getting at is a different. I think you’re just asking for a space for WBWs. I don’t see anything wrong with that. When the LGBT community begins to deny that WBW (or MBM) have their own unique experiences I think they overstep an appropriate boundary line. This touches on the issue that I have with the Equality in Marriage movement. That movement denies some of the fundamental realities and experiences of cisgendered children and adults. Natural marriage is by definition different than same-sex marriage and therefore, should be accorded different rights and privileges.
Alexandra, I hear you and I have a huge problem with the “if you don’t want to have sex with a trans person, you’re transphobic” type of thinking. Or if you don’t want to have sex with another man, you’re anti-gay. It’s… gross and coercive. No one has to have sex with anyone that they don’t want to, you’re not being bigoted or mean if you aren’t attracted to someone. Accepting trans people as people is the goal, not getting them laid. There are plenty of people who are okay being in sexual relationships with trans people, both pre-op and post-op, and it’s coercive and abusive to judge or shame people who aren’t attracted to those who are trans. It’s like the “fat acceptance” movement who say that it’s bigoted to not be attracted to larger people. No, sorry, people can’t help being attracted to who they are attracted to. You should be kind and accepting to those who have weight issues (you should be kind and accepting to EVERYONE), but there’s no obligation to have sex with those you aren’t attracted no matter the reason.
” I thought that was such an ironic thing to read – that mentioning the word “rape” in the same sentence as the word “penis” is offensive to and accusatory of WOMEN; and that mentioning the rape of cis-women at all is offensive to trans-women.”
I’ve seen things like this and I think it’s ridiculous. It’s like those who complain that having a conversation about the rape of women is offensive to male victims. I think there is a point that people who aren’t cis-women (men, trans people, etc) tend to get left out of conversations about rape, but the way to fix that isn’t to blame and shame women for talking about their experiences with rape. I do feel “ignored” I guess as a male rape victim, because most conversations tend to have “female = victim, male = aggressor” vibe (or it’s flat out stated). Also, I find it offensive when people claim that cis-women are the ONLY victims it is important to discuss, because more women are raped than other genders, but it’s not okay to ignore tons of victims because of their gender. However, just because victims who aren’t women deserve attention doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to have conversations focusing on cis-women, not at all. It just means that people need to have more conversations about male and trans victims. It really is shaming women to act like it’s offense to have conversations about violence against women without mentioning violence against everyone else.
“Jack, if I have to pick sides between the radical feminists and the LGBT community I am on the side of the LGBT community. Although I think the LGBT community should not act on their innate experiences, at least they claim that their experiences are innate and they’re not trying to deny the experiences (in the case of cisgendered people) of others or the very existence of other people (as in the case of their support for the abortion of preborn children). ”
I have huge, huge issues with radical feminism, not the least of which is the pro-abortion stance and the male-bashing (honestly, considering how much my mother hates men she would fit right in with those people lol). But, I also have my problems with the LGBT community as a whole, even though I suppose I belong to the B part of the LGBT community. I dislike it when they say it’s wrong to have a moral opposition to orientations that aren’t heterosexual, because I think that’s thought policing. People can believe or have the morals they wish, what they need to focus on is the way that LGBT people are treated and spoken to. I also dislike how people who have chosen to suppress and deny their homosexual leanings are treated terribly by the LGBT community. No one HAS to act on their non-straight desires (or their straight desires, for that matter). No one should be shamed for choosing to not indulge their orientation (though I don’t like it when “ex-gays” act as though their personal experiences speak for everyone, I do think that ex-gays can make their own decisions about their sex lives and do not deserve to be treated poorly or shamed). I also dislike how some members of the LGBT community act as though it’s better to be gay or bi. No, it’s not better, it just is. There’s nothing preferable about not being straight, it’s just the way that some of us are. I also don’t like how some insist that it HAS to be genetic, it doesn’t. There could be millions of unique reasons why someone is gay or bisexual, and it doesn’t matter to me why they are, they deserve to be treated correctly whether it’s a choice/biological/genetic/caused by sexual abuse/whatever.
All I want for the LGBT community and myself is to be treated equally under the law and be free from discrimination and being treated poorly for their sexual orientation/gender identity. I think people get overzealous, which is understandable because of all the crap that LGBT people have been subjected to, but it’s not okay to treat people badly because you have been treated badly.
Oh and to be clear, I’m not sticking my nose up and saying I’m better than other LGBT people, I’ve been unfair and overzealous, mostly because of hurt feelings. It’s hard to be respectful of other people’s beliefs when they hate part of your identity and think that you’re perverted or unnatural, and I’m certainly not perfect or good at all and have said rude things to people. But people have the right to their beliefs even if I don’t agree with it, and I do try to accept that some people think this and aren’t bad people or wrong.
And one more comment and I’ll stop flooding the thread, lol. I really do get what you’re saying about how people complaining about women born female needing their own spaces, Alexandra. Everyone needs a space where they can share and talk about their collective experiences with other people who have shared it. Same for MBM. Men born male have much different experiences with sexual assault, due to societal expectations and condemnation of male victims, than transmen, and it wouldn’t be fair to expect cis-men to be quiet about the issues they’ve faced growing up and dealing with sexual assault in a society that doesn’t allow men to admit their victimization. Especially since the world treats females, even those who are transmen, as the only real victims of sexual abuse, so I think it would be incredibly damaging to expect men born male to be even quieter and deny their experiences even more, just to avoid offending someone who is trans. Trans people deserve their space, but so do cis-women and cis-men. The experiences are simply different and denying that hurts everyone, even trans people.
Jack, I know that making a moral distinction between a person’s identity and the actions that ‘naturally’ flow from that identity is not very satisfying, but it is a distinction that has very practical benefits and is observationally sound. As far as I am aware no one has said LGBT identities are ‘perverted’ or ‘unnatrual’ but that the actions of those identities do not conform to the moral law which states that a person’s actions should try to benefit and not cause harm to other people; and that the actions of an individual should conform to the end that best benefits themselves. Explaining what is meant by ’best’ would take another long conversation.
Rude things have been said by both sides of this debate. Perhaps, we can use different words besides ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural.’ No one should hate another’s person identity, especially if they believe the ultimate identity of every person is that they are made in the image of God. However, this is such a high standard most of us fail at meeting it and are therefore constantly in need of mercy from those offended and, if you believe in God, God as well.
I really believe heterosexual cisgendered people have really been silenced in the whole marriage-equality debate.
“As far as I am aware no one has said LGBT identities are ‘perverted’ or ‘unnatrual’ but that the actions of those identities do not conform to the moral law which states that a person’s actions should try to benefit and not cause harm to other people; that the actions of an individual should conform to the end that best benefits themselves. Explaining what is meant by ’best’ would take another long conversation. ”
People say that not being straight is perverted and unnatural all the time. I hear that it’s abnormal and unnatural to be attracted to men as well as women, like, daily. I also hear that it’s depraved and disgusting. It’s a perversion of normal, good, healthy sexuality to not be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. It’s fine, I don’t care anymore. I accept that it’s abnormal and unnatural and perverse, there’s just nothing I can do about it and I can’t possibly dislike it anymore than I do, so I don’t really want to go over why it’s not good anymore.
And I don’t get why it would be wrong to hate non-straight identities, if you really believe it doesn’t define the person. It’s obviously wrong and unnatural, and no different from hating someone’s tendency to lie, I guess, according to Christian beliefs. It’s that “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing, I thought. And people tell me they hate the orientation but love the person, maybe you personally don’t but I’ve heard that a lot.
I disagree that heterosexuals/cisgenders have been silenced on the marriage equality debate. There wouldn’t really be much of a debate if they didn’t have a voice. But I don’t care very much about marriage equality anymore.
You are probably correct saying that heterosexual cisgendered people have not been silenced on the marriage equality debate. It is more accurate to say that they have been shouted down and not given a fair hearing by the MSM. So, while they have not been imprisoned and silenced in that manner they have been called names. Unfortunately, neither side has been above calling the other side unfavourable names.
Both sides have complicated arguments in support of their positions unfortunately many of us reduce our arguments to ’one-line’ comments that end up being insulting to our opponents while misrepresenting our own position.
Yes both sides have been rude on the marriage equality issue. Both sides have shouted each other down though, it’s not exclusive to the pro-marriage equality side. But like I said, I don’t care about marriage equality anymore, don’t care if it becomes illegal to marry someone of the same gender or legal for the entire country.
Tyler, what are the rights which will be lost to current and future partcipants of heterosexual marriage due to the introduction of same-sex marriage and how will this occur?
Jack, why don’t you care anymore?
I must have not read your comments when you views changed on this subject. Did you state your reasons in this thread somewhere?
By the way, may I also ask why you feel that homosexuality is unnatural and perverse? I must have missed those comments written by you as well.
Hi Reality – the first right that will be lost is the right to teach your child that there is only one kind of relationship that is legally recognized as marriage. It will occur automatically as soon as same-sex marriage is recognised legally. It will be enforced via the Bureau of Education.
Is that the best you can do? Seriously? You won’t be able to teach your child that something which is legal is illegal because it’s now legal?
Gee whizz, imagine the big, dark, evil ‘Bureau of Education teaching children what is legal and what is illegal.
Is that all you can come up with?
I just don’t care anymore, it’s just an exhausting argument to have over and over again. The more progressive states will legalize it, the more conservative states won’t, and I don’t see that changing so I just don’t want to go around and around on it anymore. I haven’t talked about it on this blog so you didn’t miss anything.
It’s obviously unnatural, you can’t procreate in a homosexual relationship. There aren’t any biological benefits to homosexuality or bisexuality. If normal, good sexuality is heterosexual monogamy than obviously homosexual orientations are perverting that. It’s whatever, I really can’t argue about it any more. You guys are right about that aspect of it, I was wrong and I don’t want to go back and forth anymore.
I read this and thought wait what!?
I thought that abortion had to do with forcibly removing the baby from a uterus. So…. Except for a very few cases where that uterus belongs to someone who identifies as a man, I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of people seeking to obtain abortions are women.
Let’s go ask some of these people whether or not they’re up in arms about not being marketed to by the abortion lobby. I’ll bet most of them don’t care….
Jack, you continue to impress me. Your above post is amazingly mature and gracious. Not that I want to be cynical but may I ask if it has anything to do with the recent court decisions? An honest would be appreciated but obviously it can’t be compelled.
Reality – is that not enough? If the government legalized something you thought was not good for society, such as stealing, and then began to teach that stealing or what ever you thought was not good for society was ok, would you be ok with that?
What recent court decision? Parts of DOMA being overturned? Not really. I just got tired of arguing. And tired of trying to convince people that what I am is okay. It’s not. I’m just tired of arguing.
Although your reply sounds a little dark and jaded, I actually think there is some light in that statement. I hope that you are ok with me saying that. Jack, are you happy or content with who you are?
If you’re happy with the case that you have presented to support your claim Tyler, and feel that it offers anything then that’s just fine by me :-)
“If normal, good sexuality is heterosexual monogamy than obviously homosexual orientations are perverting that.” – who says that heterosexual monogamy is the only ‘normal’, ‘good’ sexuality and by what rational, logical and scientific justification. Homosexuals are born homosexual, therefore their sexual activity is one of the ‘normals’. Whether it is ‘good’ or not is completely subjective and arbitrary. Homosexuality is not a perversion and if heterosexual monogamy can in any way be ‘perverted’ by it then there must be some serious questions that need to be asked about heterosexual monogamy.
What next, are rare blood groups going to be declared ‘abnormal’, ‘bad’ or ‘perverted’?
Stealing demonstrably causes harm to society, homosexuality does not.
But which are the rights that are under threat and how are they under threat?
“who says that heterosexual monogamy is the only ‘normal’, ‘good’ sexuality and by what rational, logical and scientific justification. Homosexuals are born homosexual, therefore their sexual activity is one of the ‘normals’. Whether it is ‘good’ or not is completely subjective and arbitrary. Homosexuality is not a perversion and if heterosexual monogamy can in any way be ‘perverted’ by it then there must be some serious questions that need to be asked about heterosexual monogamy.”
Well I think that most people are heterosexual, and our species propagates by sexual reproduction, so it doesn’t makes sense for why homosexuality and bisexuality would be a natural thing. It’s just aberrant, I guess. And it seems a lot of people get really naturally disgusted by homosexuality, I don’t know why they would be if it were just a normal variation. You know? I’ve really tried to convince myself that it’s just perfectly fine to be like this but it seems like most people have an issue with it and it doesn’t seem biologically reasonable, I guess. No one has an issue with rare blood groups.
“Jack, are you happy or content with who you are?”
It is what it is and I cant change it. I already answered your question earlier.
Reality I sincerely want to answer your question, “But which are the rights that are under threat and how are they under threat?“, but I think you should answer my question, `If the government legalized something you thought was not good for society, such as stealing, and then began to teach that stealing or what ever you thought was not good for society was ok, would you be ok with that?` first.
Ok Jack. I just wanted to make sure you were ok.
Not ok.
May I ask why? And just for clarity is feeling “Not ok” a good thing or a bad thing?
Which is more aberrent Jack, being born gay with fully functional reproductive organs or being born straight with non-functional reproductive organs?
Is the kid with red hair and freckles aberrent?
“And it seems a lot of people get really naturally disgusted by homosexuality” – this is generaly borne of fear or ignorance. It is the gradual dissipation of fear and ignorance which has led to the increasing of social equality for homosexuals.
“it doesn’t seem biologically reasonable, I guess. No one has an issue with rare blood groups.” – why should it be any different?
“I sincerely want to answer your question” – that’s not the impression I got.
I did answer your question.
So which rights and how?
Reality, you simply said that stealing causes harm to society and that homosexuality does not. Am I supposed to infer from that statement that if you felt homosexual marriage (not homosexuality) caused harm to society and that if it was legalized you would not be ok with it being legalized or taught in school that it was ok? If this is not what you meant to imply then please try to articulate your answer to my question more directly.
“this is generaly borne of fear or ignorance. It is the gradual dissipation of fear and ignorance which has led to the increasing of social equality for homosexuals.”
I don’t know though. Even people who understand that homo/bisexuality isnt something you choose, and have no problem supporting the right to marry and everything, and are anti-discrimination, a lot of them admit they are still disgusted by it. Or people you’ve known for a long time and you know they care about you as a person, and you tell them you’re gay or bi and they tell you that they can’t help but be sickened by it. It really seems to me that people just have an aversion to it. It doesn’t make it right to treat anyone badly for their sexuality, but it seems to me that if it were a normal thing it wouldn’t have that effect on people. Stuff like rare blood types and other variations don’t seem to have that effect. But I don’t really want to argue anymore.
“May I ask why? And just for clarity is feeling “Not ok” a good thing or a bad thing?”
Because you can’t be okay with yourself if what you are is wrong.
“May I ask why? And just for clarity is feeling “Not ok” a good thing or a bad thing?”
Because you can’t be okay with yourself if what you are is wrong.
Jack, sorry for being obtuse here but in some ways, at least from my Catholic perspective, this feeling that ‘what you are is wrong’ can be a good thing. It may be the closest thing to a religious and mystical experience. None of us are perfect so in a very real sense we all are ‘wrong’. And from a Catholic perspective it really doesn’t matter if we are ok with ourselves as long as we are ok in God’s eyes and trying to remain ok in his sight. It is humbling experience to recognize that you are not God’s gift to the pro-abortion movement, opps, I mean to humanity. You may not be able to “ok” with yourself, but oddly, and beautifully, you can still feel very thankful for who you are.
I do not believe in God.
‘feeling’ homosexual marriage is harmful to society isn’t a right which is lost by the introduction of homosexual marriage Tyler.
Jack, there are a number of heterosexual sexual activities which some other hetrosexuals, and even some homosexuals, find disgusting.
We all have things we have an aversion to. Do you regard me as aberrent or perverted because I eat meat? If I came to you pleading for a sausage would you provide me with one? Or would you spurn me?
How is there any difference between discriminating against people because of their natural born sexual orientation and descriminating against people because of their natural born skin color? Some people are still racist, they can’t stand being in the company of people of other races, are they justified?
” Jack, there are a number of heterosexual sexual activities which some other hetrosexuals, and even some homosexuals, find disgusting.”
Well yeah, but most humans aren’t like, sickened at the thought of someone being attracted to the opposite sex. Actions are one things, people can get up to some freaky stuff, but I don’t know anyone who’s repelled by straight people just for being straight you know? You don’t tell your friend you’ve had for years that you’re straight and they get grossed out by you for being attracted to ladies.
” We all have things we have an aversion to. Do you regard me as aberrent or perverted because I eat meat? If I came to you pleading for a sausage would you provide me with one? Or would you spurn me?”
No I don’t think you’re aberrant or perverted for eating meat. Most humans are omnivorous and we’re all built to be omnivorous. Honestly vegetarianism is pretty weird, biologically speaking, for humans. Doesn’t change the fact meat makes me sick though.
” How is there any difference between discriminating against people because of their natural born sexual orientation and descriminating against people because of their natural born skin color? Some people are still racist, they can’t stand being in the company of people of other races, are they justified?”
Well I don’t believe in discriminating against people, LGBT people or people of other races or anyone. It’s not okay to treat people badly especially for things they can’t help.
Jack if I may be honest with you – I never fully understood why you don’t believe in God.
I am reading another book by Dawkins. I have read most of the books by Harris. I have read God is not great by Htichens. Most of these books have often left with the question what evidence of God do they really expect to find? Do they expect to find God hiding under some rock? I really have difficulty believing that they are sincere in their atheism or their doubts about God’s existence. Yet, I know they are sincere because they are much too passionate to be considered insincere. So in the end I have to conclude that they honestly believe God is equivalent to a pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster and that they believe God should be found under hidden under some rock. They think God must be like the burning bush and not “like” the God who set the bush aflame with His Voice. Whatever floats one’s boat I guess.
God to me is not material. He will not be found under the rock. He is the Creator of the universe and He is the sustainer of the universe - a transcendent God or think of a Pantheistic God on steroids. When it comes to the question of God’s existence the evidence you get is twofold in my opinion: testimony from others (oral and written) and personal experience (for some). Reason swings both ways. Believing everything is ruled by Chance is a possibility in my opinion, but not a very satisfying one, nor conclusively persuasive.
Reality, just for courtesy sake will you let me know if you plan on answering my question directly?
If I came to you pleading for a sausage would you provide me with one?
May I indulge my inner child and laugh at this comment?
I don’t believe in God because the concepts that are put forth about him are contradictory a lot of the time, and the arguments for God’s existence seem unprovable and circular reasoning a lot of the time. And, further than that, I’ve never seen any evidence, if I did decide to believe in God, why I should believe in the Christian God and not, like Zeus or something. It all has about the same amount of evidence as far as I can tell. And plus, I’ve seen no evidence of a loving God in my life, if I were purely to go on feelings and personal experiences.
About twenty five years ago I sat around a table with three men who were about the age I am now. They were discussing a film that two of them had seen. In the film there was a simulated sex scene where a man performed oral sex on a lady. All three men were disgusted by it, really disgusted. They almost seemed to feel ill at the thought of carrying out such an act. I’m still amazed at what I witnessed at that table.
“Honestly vegetarianism is pretty weird, biologically speaking, for humans.” – well I for one don’t find you the least bit aberrent or perverted because of this Jack :-)
“It’s not okay to treat people badly especially for things they can’t help.” – yes.
I don’t know Reality, I’m just exhausted by all this.
Which particular question do you feel I haven’t answered directly Tyler?
Or is this just your way of avoiding the fact that the introduction of same-sex marriage will not impinge on the rights of any current or future heterosexual marriages?
I shall be pausing my presence here in about 20 minutes.
You don’t need me to tell you that if you are exhausted Jack, then it is up to you if you wish to just observe for a little while, or even go do something else like I’m about to, rather than participate and feel that anyone may be hectoring you. It’s a choice we all have :-)
I’m not exhausted by this conversation. I’m exhausted by existing, lol.
That’s normal Jack. Just know it’s only a temporary aberration ;-)
Maybe a video game or a documentary would help?
I normally play video games and mess around online at the same time, I am playing Minecraft right now lol.
I’m heading off now Tyler. I’ll be back. I’ll leave you with two things.
1. “the first right that will be lost is the right to teach your child that there is only one kind of relationship that is legally recognized as marriage.” this relates to rights of parenthood, not marriage. Not all parents are married and not all married folks are parents. It was a nonsense claim anyway.
2. What about the rights of heterosexual couples who support same-sex marriage? Are they threatened or not? Since only some heteroexual marriage participants feel their rights are under threat while others don’t, then which specific rights are under threat and on what premise are those threats based? Do they have anything to do with anyones marriage itself or is it actually other factors which are at play? Do non-married heterosexual couples have any rights which are under threat from same-sex marriage? Do they have any rights which are under threat from heterosexual marriage?
The concepts of God are contradictory from our limited and finite perspective. And it is true the evidence for all religions is very similar – testimony and personal experience. The evidence for Zeus is similar to the evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.
This is when you have to consider the merits and value of the testimony. You need to also apply reason to the contents of the faith. It is in this area that I think Christianity outshines all the other religions. However, I do not want to lead you to believe that I very familiar with all of the other religions. I have accepted the Catholic faith in large part due to the fact that it was the faith in which I was raised. I choose to read up on Catholicism because that was my family’s faith tradition.
Catholicism calls God “God” or “Our Lord” or “God the Father” in English. In French this same God is called “Dieu”, “Notre Seigneur” and “Notre Pere” in French. In orthodox Judaism they don’t want you to say His name. But all this doesn’t matter, because God is the name – whether that name, although it is important, but is the reality behind the name. So ancient Greeks who worshipped Zeus can be said to be trying to worship the same God as the Christian God. From God’s perspective he is not God to care as much about the words that you use to worship him but what is in your Heart.
Now if you agree God is concerned with what is your heart then it becomes critical what the faith teaches with respect to the human person and morality. And this is where Christianity shines in my opinion. Religions are important in what they teach you about God, about the reality behind His name.
“And, further than that, I’ve never seen any evidence, if I did decide to believe in God, why I should believe in the Christian God and not, like Zeus or something.”
The Christian God, the only and real God, is the only one who restores us as His children simply by His grace. He wants our whole heart – nothing more, nothing less. If He did not love you, Jack, then you would not exist.
“The Christian God, the only and real God, is the only one who restores us as His children simply by His grace. He wants our whole heart – nothing more, nothing less. If He did not love you, Jack, then you would not exist. ”
But that’s not evidence, though, that’s just a claim. It may be nice for you and comforting, and that’s good. It’s just that there’s no evidence that a God that restores you through grace is more real than a God who restores you through good works, like some religions believe. And if God loves me, I am quite confused why he made me wrong in the first place, and then put me in rather terrible circumstances just for fun. But it’s not really that important, because being at the capricious whims of one of the Greek gods and goddesses makes as much sense to me as being “loved” by the Christian God. I don’t see a reason other than comfort to believe in one or the other, and I’ve never been able to force myself to believe something just because it’s comforting.
Honestly Tyler, I haven’t looked into all religions but the one I always found the most “moral” I guess is Jainism, not Christianity. Not bashing on Christianity, there are plenty of good things about it, but I was always fond of the Jainism belief system if I were to follow a religion simply based on it’s morality.
Reality: Which particular question do you feel I haven’t answered directly Tyler?
See my post at August 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm where I quoted the question I would like you answer directly.
—
Reality: 1. “the first right that will be lost is the right to teach your child that there is only one kind of relationship that is legally recognized as marriage.” this relates to rights of parenthood, not marriage. Not all parents are married and not all married folks are parents. It was a nonsense claim anyway.
Before I deal with the sleight of hand aspect in your response I will simply say: Correct this rights does relate to the right of parenthood. Parents, most of whom are married, will no longer have the right to teach their children what marriage is and is not.
The sleight of hand aspect in your response relates to the fact that your very response assumes parenthood and marriage are not related and this is part of the very debate about what constitutes marriage – what is the relationship between parenting and marriage, and what role should society play in that role. Marriage is set up to benefit parents. Parents who choose not to marry forgo that benefit. Homosexual parents are denied those benefits/rights hence the debate.
—
I will answer your other question when you answer the question I posed to you at August 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm.
“Correct this rights does relate to the right of parenthood. Parents, most of whom are married, will no longer have the right to teach their children what marriage is and is not. ”
No that’s not true. You can still teach your kids what you believe marriage is according to God. You can even teach them the legal marriages are invalid if you please. Don’t you live in Canada? Same-sex marriage has been been legal for several years there, yet you still teach your son that marriage is between a man and a woman, don’t you? I’m not arguing the merits of same-sex marriage anymore, but it’s just incorrect that you can’t teach your kid what marriage is.
I didn’t claim it was evidence, Jack, just true.
Hmmm … I would find it much more comforting actually – well, on some level – if I could make a checklist of tasks to complete and simply do them.
God is far too awesome for that.
Well I am glad you have what makes you happy with yourself and your life. I was feeling okay and now I’m not anymore, I do wish that it was something I could have.
In a host of ways, Jack your atheism, and atheism in general, is more religious and spiritual than my Catholicism. If people don’t have some kind of doubt I don’t think they are being honest with themselves and they don’t have faith. Faith, in my opinion, requires doubt just as much as it requires belief (a believer needs to be able to doubt that God is a burning bush but that God can manifest his presence as a burning bush for example). I am not sure about this but certitude might be the antithesis of faith. Whereas knowledge of the attributes of God – His Love, His Justice, and His Mercy, His Holiness – is different from knowledge and/or certitude of His Existence. St. Augustine taught that God is always more than we can conceive of!
Jack, the parents who send their kids to public schools in some provinces are not allowed to opt their children out of classes that teach that same-sex marriage is legal and equivalent to Natural marriage. Priests, and Pastors have been fined and penalized for speaking in defence of natural marriage.
In the State of Massachusetts David Parker was arrested for objecting to the homosexual curriculum in his son’s kindergarten class.
And, Jack, we are all predisposed to do things God did not intend. I could tell you about my definitive top two if you’d like, but I’ll spare you for now.
Finally, it is through our difficulties that God calls us to Him. Only for the “fun” of steering you to an eternal life, far greater than anything this world has to offer. You have to at least admit that this view is consistent with a loving God, even if you don’t believe it.
No, it’s not consistent, because he set me, and humanity at large up like that in the first place! That’s what always gets me, why I can’t believe God is loving. He created humans knowing they’d fall, knowing sin would enter the world, created a horrible place to punish the people who for whatever reasons can’t come to him in this life. He’s the all-powerful creator, he could have made it multiple ways. But no, everyone gets one chance, and if they can’t force themselves to believe, you just suffer on this earth and then you suffer for eternity. How is that loving? I don’t see how that’s loving at all. You don’t even have to be a good person for any of your life! My dad, he’ll probably be dead by tomorrow or the next day, spent his entire life torturing his own children and causing them permanent damage. But he gets to repent now that he’s dying, like he told me yesterday, he’s forgiven? He gets to go to heaven? God wants him there but not me? Just because I can’t believe? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
No, it’s not consistent, because he set me, and humanity at large up like that in the first place! That’s what always gets me, why I can’t believe God is loving. He created humans knowing they’d fall, knowing sin would enter the world, created a horrible place to punish the people who for whatever reasons can’t come to him in this life. He’s the all-powerful creator, he could have made it multiple ways. But no, everyone gets one chance, and if they can’t force themselves to believe, you just suffer on this earth and then you suffer for eternity. How is that loving? I don’t see how that’s loving at all. You don’t even have to be a good person for any of your life! My dad, he’ll probably be dead by tomorrow or the next day, spent his entire life torturing his own children and causing them permanent damage. But he gets to repent now that he’s dying, like he told me yesterday, he’s forgiven? He gets to go to heaven? God wants him there but not me? Just because I can’t believe? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Agreed – sort of. Here is my rebuttal…please read through even though it is scripture (and the emphasis is mine):
25 And behold a certain lawyer stood up, tempting him, and saying, Master, what must I do to possess eternal life?
26 But he said to him: What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said to him: Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he willing to justify himself, said to Jesus: And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering, said: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having wounded him went away, leaving him half dead.
31 And it chanced, that a certain priest went down the same way: and seeing him, passed by.
32 In like manner also a Levite, when he was near the place and saw him, passed by.
33 But a certain Samaritan being on his journey, came near him; and seeing him, was moved with compassion.
34 And going up to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine: and setting him upon his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And the next day he took out two pence, and gave to the host, and said: Take care of him; and whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee.
36 Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers?
37 But he said: He that shewed mercy to him. And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.
—
I am not trying to be Pelagian by quoting this part of Scripture but just trying to show the power that God has to break the rules and to love loving people.
Perhaps, your Dad is a changed man and God has room enough in his heart for both you and your father. Perhaps your father was also abused by his father.
1) it’s not logically possible to make actual unique individual human beings without a free will. We’d be robots. So, yes, He made us anyways, knowing we’d fall and sin. But He had a plan.
2) Hell is just the absence of God. He gives people what they want. If they don’t want to be with Him, He does not make them.
3) Everyone does not get just one chance. They get many chances, but just one life.
4) Asking for forgiveness does not mean you are forgiven. Is the heart penitent? If it’s sincere, then yes, God is gracious and forgives. Knowingly bypassing God’s will our whole lives does not reflect well on the status of one’s heart, but I can not judge.
5)Thinking we are good often results from a misunderstanding of how great God made us to be and how holy He is.
6) God wants everyone to go to heaven.
Jack, at the very least, your prolife advocacy has to count for something in God’s eyes!
Sorry to hear about your father. I am sure you have mixed feelings about all this. But we should try to say a prayer for him. I need to say some prayers for my own family.
Jack, you still there?
I hope you are ok. I have to get some rest now.
Sorry Tyler I couldn’t deal for a little bit.
“Perhaps, your Dad is a changed man and God has room enough in his heart for both you and your father. Perhaps your father was also abused by his father.”
He wasn’t abused by his father, he was raped by his uncle though. It’s no excuse, I don’t hurt people especially children, and he did a lot worse to me than was ever done to him. But why does it matter if he’s a changed man? Why does he get a free pass? He gets to be like “sorry, my bad” in the last couple months of his life and then it’s all good. No matter how much damage he’s done. No justice, that’s not justice. He’ll never serve a day in prison or have to really face any type of justice for decades of raping and beating his own kids. If God is just I don’t see how that’s justice at all. Send the atheist who’s a decent person out of God’s sight, but the sadistic child rapist, yeah, he’s cool. It’s nonsensical to me.
“1) it’s not logically possible to make actual unique individual human beings without a free will. We’d be robots. So, yes, He made us anyways, knowing we’d fall and sin. But He had a plan.”
But if he’s God, he had the ultimate power to set up the universe however he wanted. Including making logic work differently, including making free will work differently. He didn’t have to make it like this.
“2) Hell is just the absence of God. He gives people what they want. If they don’t want to be with Him, He does not make them.”
This doesn’t seem to square with the promise of eternal torment in the Bible. Shame and everlasting contempt, be thrown into eternal fire, all that jazz. I’ve never thought this kinder version of hell looked Biblical, it’s clear to me that hell is supposed to be a punishment. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I see in the Bible.
“3) Everyone does not get just one chance. They get many chances, but just one life.”
Yes one life, about eighty years out of eternity. You screw up here, you get punished forever (unless you repent before death, I suppose). Infinite punishment for finite crimes doesn’t seem like justice to me.
“4) Asking for forgiveness does not mean you are forgiven. Is the heart penitent? If it’s sincere, then yes, God is gracious and forgives. Knowingly bypassing God’s will our whole lives does not reflect well on the status of one’s heart, but I can not judge.”
I just don’t see how you can be genuinely sorry after a lifetime of torturing people and then you just get forgiven. I don’t see how that’s fair. Someone needs to show me some justice in all this because it’s just intolerable.
“5)Thinking we are good often results from a misunderstanding of how great God made us to be and how holy He is.”
I don’t know what you mean. I don’t think I’m good. I’ve never claimed to be good.
Tyler you can pray for my dad if you want, I don’t think he needs it though. He’s fine, he’s always fine. He’s at peace with himself because he’s “forgiven” apparently. Which, apparently means that everyone is supposed to forget about all the damage he did.
Jack,
Imagine if you did all the terrible things your father has done, and then you truly repented and had a genuine change of heart. Imagine what torment your own memory of what you’d done would be. I know that when I snap at my sons I am haunted by it longer than they. Can you imagine what a sort of unique horror it is to realize and accept for their horror the atrocities you’d committed?
I don’t know if that helps any, but I certainly don’t think that it’s easy for someone to have a truly repentant heart, because it requires accepting the sins you committed, both against your fellow creatures and also against Christ. It means accepting every time that you chose to crucify Him.
Regarding Hell, it is the absence of God and God is goodness. It is the complete absence of goodness, created through Lucifer’s pride in thinking that he could better the best, and his ego in denying God’s reign. Remember that Lucifer was a favorite angel, not a struggling human like us. He knew what he denied and knows what he denies. Hell MUST be horrendous because it is the denial of goodness everywhere.
We get to Hell by refusing to accept what is good, and therefore by isolating ourselves from Christ. Not as punishment for our sins, but as a natural consequence of our denial of what is just and right and good in the world.
Because God is Truth and Goodness and Light, He is in many ways more bound than we are. He had to do what was best, and although we cannot understand it, this is what was most loving. Giving even His angels the choice to deny Him. Giving his creatures His own image and then trusting them to bring that back to Him. It’s so beyond our comprehension, but it is the ultimate act of Love to give us such freedom, to make Himself bound to us and yet completely unlimited. It’s what makes the Eucharist so incredibly wondrous! All of that infinite power and love and good, all that is Him, all in a tiny little flake of unleavened bread, made available to us, made fragile for us! Wow!
He wasn’t abused by his father, he was raped by his uncle though. It’s no excuse, I don’t hurt people especially children, and he did a lot worse to me than was ever done to him. But why does it matter if he’s a changed man? Why does he get a free pass? He gets to be like “sorry, my bad” in the last couple months of his life and then it’s all good. No matter how much damage he’s done. No justice, that’s not justice. He’ll never serve a day in prison or have to really face any type of justice for decades of raping and beating his own kids. If God is just I don’t see how that’s justice at all. Send the atheist who’s a decent person out of God’s sight, but the sadistic child rapist, yeah, he’s cool. It’s nonsensical to me.
Jack, as you know, I totally agree with your line of thinking here. I don’t think God’s forgiveness of your father’s action is justice. It may be his mercy and love, however, Unfortunately, we don’t really know what is in the heart of your father and if he is truly sorry. All I know is that there is not a day that goes by that I yearn for someone, anyone’s mercy. And feel that in my bones this mercy is justified, and would be justice. I know I can’t go back in time and change or correct the wrongs that I have committed. I don’t know the degree to which I have hurt people and all the negative consequences of my back actions. But when I experience bad things from other people I too definitely doubt God’s justice and his love.
As you know, I don’t believe atheists go to hell automatically. I doubt believe the Catholic Church does well. The Church recognizes that sometimes people face legitimate barriers to belief. That is what the Good Samaritan story is about. A Samaritan is non-Jew, someone who had no chance to get to Heaven because he was not one of the chosen people. But Jesus that didn’t matter, because the truly chosen people of God are the ones who love their neighbours and do God’s work. In your good actions, and in your prolife advocacy, I see you very much acting the part of the good Samaritan. You may not love God yet, but when you love his children, other human beings, he will count you among the blessed and note that in loving your neighbour you indirectly loved God. He does expect you to love a God you think purposefully allowed your father to commit cruel crimes. He condemns those actions of your father. Your father was not being a good Samaritan at those times. If your father truly repented the knowledge of his wrong actions will be enough of a burden on his soul. He will have to fully understand the pain he caused. Did your father ever seek forgiveness from you for wronging you?
This doesn’t seem to square with the promise of eternal torment in the Bible. Shame and everlasting contempt, be thrown into eternal fire, all that jazz. I’ve never thought this kinder version of hell looked Biblical, it’s clear to me that hell is supposed to be a punishment. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what I see in the Bible.
Jack, when your children get angry – don’t they gnash their teeth and vent verbal flames like they are on fire. When my child feels that I am not giving him the love he deserves, he is the most angry. His angry seems to burn up the good person he naturally is. Indeed, when I feel angry I feel very far from God and sometimes even feel that I am on fire. Perhaps, Jesus was talking metaphorically. In a way, Jesus has to be talking metaphorically because we have no conception of eternal hell fire or what a ‘lake of fire’ would look like.
Yes one life, about eighty years out of eternity. You screw up here, you get punished forever (unless you repent before death, I suppose). Infinite punishment for finite crimes doesn’t seem like justice to me.
This is the fear of the Lord, and it would be great if people came to this realization before they committed their crimes. The point of this idea of eternal punishment is to make people pause before committing crimes in this life.
Jack, the Catholic Church recognizes the sin of presumption and I am sure God does as well. The sin of presumption is committed when someone does something wrong today believing that God will forgive them tomorrow as long as they ‘repent’ tomorrow. If your father did this, he would also need to repent for this sin of presumption in order to be truly forgiven.
We all want to experience God’s mercy and love; while expecting God to mete out his Justice to everyone else. Aren’t human beings so typical?
This is silly ….the transgender community …even if you transgender you are still the same sex you were born. If you are a woman you have a uterus. BTW where is their community? I refuse to go with all of this transgender bull. Chaz Bono you are still a woman!!!
Very interesting thread. I have to comment about Jack’s statement that some people find homosexuality repugnant. I am well educated and consider myself fairly open minded. I have had gay friends and family members. However I went to a gay bar with a friend and was okay with it until he met an old flame of his and they started French kissing. I felt truly repulsed by it. Likewise I think anal sex is disgusting and unsanitary whether its done by straight couples or gays. Its an exit not an entrance? Also here in Philly there is a large number of out young lesbians. For some reason they are almost always black or Latino. Anyway the “butch ” types are hypermasculine, wearing mens clothing, ” sagging” so that their boxers are showing, etc. They even grab their crotches which I think is ridiculous and sad, since there’s nothing down there to grab. If I see a lesbian couple on the bus I will move so I dont have to look at them. Yet I would never discriminate against gays in any way; at the agency where I work I have had gay clients and I treat them like anyone else. I guess I am conflicted or maybe just a closet homophobe.
Hi Jack,
You used to believe in God. You used to talk to me about it on facebook. Has that changed or do you somewhere deep down inside still believe?
There is a literal hell. A literal burning lake of fire. It wasn’t prepared for people. It was prepared for Satan and his angels. It isn’t just the “absence of God”. The Bible is very clear there IS eternal torment for those who reject Christ. The fact that God could forgive a kiddie rapist who repents and send an atheist from His sight forever who is a “decent person” is because God isn’t looking at what we DO. He is looking at what His Son did! The pedophile who repents has his sins covered by the blood of Christ. Christ paid the penalty for that pedophile’s sin when He died on the cross. The atheist, though a good person is still a sinner (Romans 3:23) and heaven would not be heaven if God let ANY sin into it. NO person has to go to hell but if a person CHOOSES to reject Christ’s free gift of salvation then there still must be a payment for their sin. Only now THEY must make the payment for all eternity because they didn’t let Christ credit their sin account with His righteousness.
When God looks at me He doesn’t see the bad I’ve done or the good I’ve done (because my good could never be “good enough” for God’s sinlessness) He looks at me and sees the blood of His Son Who died on the cross as payment for my sin debt.
Do you still keep in touch with Amber, btw? She just got engaged the other day! :-)
Matthew 25:41
II Peter 3:9
The Bible is very clear there IS eternal torment for those who reject Christ. The fact that God could forgive a kiddie rapist who repents and send an atheist from His sight forever who is a “decent person” is because God isn’t looking at what we DO. He is looking at what His Son did! The pedophile who repents has his sins covered by the blood of Christ. Christ paid the penalty for that pedophile’s sin when He died on the cross. The atheist, though a good person is still a sinner (Romans 3:23) and heaven would not be heaven if God let ANY sin into it. NO person has to go to hell but if a person CHOOSES to reject Christ’s free gift of salvation then there still must be a payment for their sin. Only now THEY must make the payment for all eternity because they didn’t let Christ credit their sin account with His righteousness.
I agree with all of this…I don’t agree that we know there is a literal lake of fire – eternal torment (due to being outside of God’s love) – yes; actually being burned in a lake of fire – not so sure, but not out of the realm possibility (ouch).
When God looks at me He doesn’t see the bad I’ve done or the good I’ve done (because my good could never be “good enough” for God’s sinlessness) He looks at me and sees the blood of His Son Who died on the cross as payment for my sin debt.
I agree with this as a beginning. If Christians don’t continue to do good then their faith is dead (their inaction becomes a mortal sin) [James 2:14-26] and they will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. These verses from James cause me some anxiety and help put the Fear of the Lord in me.
Jack, when atheists do good works on their own and not as part of a team do they claim all the credit? Why is it that when we humans do good works we accept all the credit and give none to God but when we do bad works we are more than willing to blame God for making us this way and accept very little responsibility for our actions. It just doesn’t seem fair to God.
” You used to believe in God. You used to talk to me about it on facebook. Has that changed or do you somewhere deep down inside still believe? ”
It’s more that I never really believed but really, really tried.
Honestly the more you all describe your God to me the more horrifying I find him.
Anyway my dad died this morning and people wrote way too much for me to reply to. I’m sorry.
The atheist, though a good person is still a sinner (Romans 3:23) and heaven would not be heaven if God let ANY sin into it. NO person has to go to hell but if a person CHOOSES to reject Christ’s free gift of salvation then there still must be a payment for their sin. Only now THEY must make the payment for all eternity because they didn’t let Christ credit their sin account with His righteousness.
There is the belief that Jesus credited everyone’s sin account automatically – some are simply unaware of what has transpired. People who persist in sin can be saved by grace outside the normal means of salvation.
Jack, you may find these verses makes sense with respect to your father: Romans 1:18-25. It also explains the problem with atheism. Atheism typically causes people to worship idols, including worshiping man himself. But I don’t think you do this.
To me, you sound like you believe in God. It just seems that you have difficulty reconciling some of the concepts and statements said about God – but who doesn’t have difficulty understanding God.
Sorry to hear about your loss Jack.
Don’t worry about not responding to me. There is no need to respond to me.
So sorry to hear about your dad’s passing, Jack.
I’m not sad about it, all he did his entire life was destroy people’s lives and do terrible things. Maybe I’m screwed up but I don’t think it’s bad that he’s gone.
I’m sorry that you’ll never have the opportunity to have a loving and healthy relationship with your father. I am sorry that his life was lost before he seems to have experienced true repentance. I am sorry for what he has taken from you.
I am sorry for your loss of your father, both the loss you experienced long long ago and the loss you experience today, for every loss along the way. My heart goes out to you.
Thank you. I’m not sad, just angry. I appreciate the sympathy.
Jack: My condolences for your loss — whether that was today, or years ago.
“Honestly the more you all describe your God to me the more horrifying I find him.”
Well . . . yeah. I’d be horrified to discover my spaceship was heading straight into a star, irrecoverably, as well. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the star.
God is much greater in kind and magnitude than a star. I should think he would be the source of the most unimaginable possible horror to any who turn from him and find he allows them to remove themselves from the Source of all that is good.
And likewise, I can imagine no greater comfort to those who trust him and find that he welcomes them into a lasting relationship that encompasses all good.
God is either the greatest horror or the greatest comfort — and yes, that is entirely a matter of perspective. Those who’ve experienced his forgiveness and those who have not, will have wildly differing perspectives of him. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Hugs to you, Jack, for all you’ve been through and all you are feeling right now.
Tyler ~ Your very liberal interpretation of the Good Samaritan story is surprising. What, then, do you take Jesus to mean when He says:
“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) ?
Or
“All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away”
(Isaiah 64:6) ?
The little good we do is meaningless because of our sin. Saying otherwise promotes humans to something we are not, saviors who can make ourselves right with God.
Yes, I see your point Lifejoy.
“There is a literal hell. A literal burning lake of fire. It wasn’t prepared for people. It was prepared for Satan and his angels. It isn’t just the “absence of God”. The Bible is very clear there IS eternal torment for those who reject Christ.”
I believe there is a literal hell as well. This is not exclusive of the idea that it is the absence of God. But I personally find a literal burning lake of fire much less frightening than being without God.
I just don’t think it’s love to allow your children to suffer for eternity because they don’t/can’t do what you want.
People who do not identify as women have abortions. They deserve to be represented in our advocacy and activist framework.
Uhhhhghhggghh, NO, they don’t!!!
If they hate women so much that they refuse to admit they are one, then pregnancy shoves it in their face that they are one, so why should that give them special rights to kill a baby?
Transgender people have their issues like anyone else, but they don’t “refuse to admit” they’re female because they hate women.
Honestly the more you all describe your God to me the more horrifying I find him.
And I can’t blame you, Jack. Or any of our other secular friends. This twisted idea of Hell is totally borrowed from most other ancient religions. And it’s so typically human. We seem to want revenge on anyone not better than us.
I don’t agree that the Bible talks about eternal punishING. Yes, “the smoke of their torment went up for ever and ever”. But that’s just a metaphor for how high the smoke will go when “the Beast and False Prophet” are destroyed, as it says in Revelation. Remember, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with “eternal fire”, and they’re not still burning.
Look, the Universe is God’s House, and He has the right to turn off the lights He turned on. But, as Sydney’s link to 2 Peter says, He’s not willing that any perish (not “be tortured forever”, by the way). And since He also says that “many are called, but few are chosen”, that indicates that there will be several phases to what we call Salvation.
No wonder atheists can’t believe in a God Who is less merciful than they would be.
No, I believe there will be phases to the next life. First, “the Firstfruits” who will be kings, priests, and teachers in the Millenium, and then everyone who got it wrong in this life will have a real FIRST chance at following “the Way” with all the blindfolds (and the influence of “the Adversary”) taken away.
I don’t believe God planned all this so poorly as to be helpless that most of humanity would have to be eternally tortured. And trying to soften it up a bit by saying we’d only have to be in some lonely, dark place away from God is a cop-out, as Jack said.
“I don’t believe God planned all this so poorly as to be helpless that most of humanity would have to be eternally tortured.”
Yes, yes, that’s my problem with this idea of people burning forever or being pushed from God’s sight or whatever. Only like.. 1/6 of the world’s population follows any type of Christianity, and half of those think that the other denominations are wrong enough to not even make it to heaven! Do people really, seriously, believe a loving God is all like “oh lol I only care about a small minority of my children, the vast, vast majority of people throughout the ages can just burn because they didn’t worship me specifically.”? Lol that’s the weirdest definition of love I’ve heard, it sounds a whole lot more like egomania.
Like you said, if people are more merciful in general than your God, there’s an issue.
Jack, I’m so very sorry for all the suffering your dad caused you. What he did was wrong. You know it, God knows it, and hopefully your dad realized it before he died. For your own sake, I hope you are someday able to forgive him.
I find this remark interesting…since earlier in the thread you were outraged at the thought that God would have mercy on someone that had deeply harmed you and others:
Like you said, if people are more merciful in general than your God, there’s an issue.
First God is too merciful. Then God isn’t merciful enough. Perhaps your real issue isn’t with God’s mercy at all?
We can define women medically…at least (!!) for the purpose of who can have an abortion. (The question of…can we so casually rearrange our gender is still on the table.)
A person with a working womb who emits eggs should be considered medically…female. Here, it’s the inner machinery that counts. Despite what the “gender studies” expert says. One cannot carry a child/abort that child without the inner female (XX chromosome based) workings.
Regarding the increasing chaos so many dear people are experiencing…We are killing ourselves with our language…and with our BLIND acceptance that our feelings LEAD—and thus should be the basis of redefining our gender.
Which is why lots of personal pain, anguish is following many who are buying the increasingly chaotic definitions of “gender”.
I don’t deny the reality that some are confused inside about their gender, but I see the increasing chaos following when people change their lives based on confused feelings. Feelings should follow reality, not lead it.
Welcome to the continuing ever evolving fallout from the initial mass chaos from the late 1960s heterosexual revolution. Damaging, confusing kids of the 60s advocates of casual liasons…..and now their children are even more confused.
“First God is too merciful. Then God isn’t merciful enough. Perhaps your real issue isn’t with God’s mercy at all?”
I’m angry that some people get off with no punishment for horrific crimes, but others suffer for eternity for pretty much nothing. It’s not just OR merciful. I wouldn’t even want my dad to suffer for eternity even if I think it’s unfair he basically got a get out of jail free card. It’s barbaric and I can’t see a loving Father making the rules like that.
Glad you could vent, Jack. That’s what we’re here for, I suppose.
And I appreciate those on this thread who are approaching the matter with the appropriate sensitivity and directness. Whacking people over the head sometimes brings about the opposite result.
Carry on…
Jack, the truth is you don’t know who got off with no punishment and who suffers for eternity. Looking around at others and trying to determine if eternal justice is being done isn’t our job and we aren’t equipped for it.
It’s perplexing that you are angry because you perceive God isn’t being just OR merciful…yet you don’t believe in God.
For believers, it isn’t about “rules”, it’s about a relationship. I hope you are able to find peace, Jack.
I’m angry always about everything, I might as well be mad at a deity who I don’t really believe exists. Lol I do realize it sounds ridiculous. I think I’m more mad that people have finally convinced me that everything I am is wrong but I don’t have access to this relationship or whatever you all talk about to make it better. So I’m just left with reason and rules when it comes to God, and it doesn’t work and it’s totally miserable.
I think I’m more mad that people have finally convinced me that everything I am is wrong but I don’t have access to this relationship or whatever you all talk about to make it better.
Ouch!!! Oh, Jack. This statement breaks my heart. You are not wrong in everything you are!!! Your sense of self seems to be so skewed! Why would you choose to define yourself based on all that you think (or have been told) is “wrong” with you? You really don’t get the separation between the person and their actions/sins, do you? I wish I could help you see.
You are a loving, pro-life father who works hard to do his best for his children. You’ve suffered much in your young life but you are determined to raise your children with lives full of love and happiness. Yet you feel compelled to ignore all that and believe that everything you are is wrong? Seriously, you need a whack over the head!
Jack, you deserve to be at peace. At peace with your father, peace with yourself, and most of all at peace with God. You do have access to that relationship. You do. May God send someone into your life that will lead you into a fuller understanding of who you are, who God is, and how you can have the relationship you think is impossible.
Lrning,
HERE HERE!!! Well-said!
Jack,
I think the only thing I can add is that God told us, very clearly, that whatever we do for the least of our fellow man we do for Him. Do not turn your fellow man away from God, make yourself humble before your fellow man, and you will have turned to God. I cannot believe that a loving God would allow your eternal torture if you follow this path. I do not know your heart as He does. I simply trust Him to have the Plan.
I’m sorry I just don’t understand.
Neither do I, but I was fortunate in my childhood and am able to trust without understanding. We still pray for you. Have a peaceful day, friend.
“The evidence for Zeus is similar to the evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.” – what’s this, is an inkling of reality seeping through? ;-)
“If the government legalized something you thought was not good for society, such as stealing, and then began to teach that stealing or what ever you thought was not good for society was ok, would you be ok with that?” – if it was something which demonstrably causes harm to society such as stealing then I would probably not be ok with it. This does not apply to same-sex marriage and you still haven’t demonstrated which rights pertaining to current and future heterosexual marriages would be under threat and how.
“Parents, most of whom are married, will no longer have the right to teach their children what marriage is and is not.” – well that’s not true. Parents will be able to teach children that marriage is – no longer discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. Like what parents taught their children about marriage after anti-miscegenation laws were dropped. Or was that an issue for people such as yourself?
“In a host of ways, Jack your atheism, and atheism in general, is more religious and spiritual than my Catholicism.” – this tired old cannard again? Really?
“Priests, and Pastors have been fined and penalized for speaking in defence of natural marriage.” – ahem, links?
“In the State of Massachusetts David Parker was arrested for objecting to the homosexual curriculum in his son’s kindergarten class.” – this is untrue.
Citing scripture as evidence for god is…………so nothing.
“Its an exit not an entrance” – I hate to tell you this phillymiss but so is the penis. It is used for the exit of bodily wastes too. And what about menstruation?
I see an amazing array of god’s intents and their application to suit any situation, olympic standard gymanstics.
I like this one:
“The fact that God could forgive a kiddie rapist who repents and send an atheist from His sight forever who is a “decent person” is because God isn’t looking at what we DO. He is looking at what His Son did!”
“Well . . . yeah. I’d be horrified to discover my spaceship was heading straight into a star, irrecoverably, as well. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the star.” – yes but does the star believe in you?
“God is either the greatest horror or the greatest comfort” – choose which interpretation best suits your needs and desires today.
Jack, whether you are feeling sadness or anger following your father’s death, what is happening is that you are feeling because of it. Your feelings towards him may not be much different to what they were before, but circumstances have changed. His place in your life has changed. What you focus on is up to you. How you remember him is up to you. The thing that really matters in the future is how you feel about you. It is obvious that you are a totally different person to him. You live, behave, operate and function in fundamentally different ways. Some might say that what you do is counter-balance who he was ‘in the universe’. Maybe that’s the sort of thought that can help moderate the understandable negative feelings you may have about the whole situation and help you focus on the good that you do, that you deliver unto others. Be happy about who you are, not angry or sad about who he was.
I can appreciate both the general rationale and the compassion that motivates such comments; however, the Bible does not suggest that rejecting God but being a nice guy makes you right with God. The Pharisees, etc. were actually pretty decent folk by human standards. Jesus despised their pride. Pride keeps us from accepting God’s grace.
Reality,
I cannot imagine a form of healthy intercourse that would treat the penis as an entrance. Ouch! I don’t usually use the “exit only” argument but your response is ludicrous.
Your complaint was that the anus is an exit for body waste yet some people use it for intercourse.
The penis is also used as an exit for body waste as well as for intercourse.
If you want to specifically limit it to waste exits which can be entered then I refer you to menstruation.
MY complaint was that you responded to the original quote from Phillymiss “Likewise I think anal sex is disgusting and unsanitary whether its done by straight couples or gays. Its an exit not an entrance!” by pointing out that the penis is also an exit. My point was that the penis isn’t being used as an entrance in gay OR straight sex, so your argument is faulty… I suppose the menstruation argument could be used to argue that couples shouldn’t engage in sexual activity during her “time of the month”…although I’m fairly certain that fecal matter is significantly less sanitary than the uterine lining. I don’t really make an argument one way or another on the “exit only” premise, just point out that your response was weak.
OK, if phillymiss said it was an exit, not an entrance, how does she conclude that this is the reason anal sex is wrong? It is indeed an exit but some people do also use it as an entrance. The vagina too is an exit which is also used as an entrance, albiet by a significantly larger number of people. Now that you mention it, I’ve never heard of men cleaning their urethra between urinating and having sexual intercourse. It’s all a bit disgusting really isn’t it? Until we’re doing it :-)
It’s all a bit disgusting really isn’t it? Until we’re doing it
Well, it all involves bodily fluids, some of which are pretty icky, so I can relate to that, yeah. One of life’s great mysteries, how something gross in theory can be beautiful in practice.
The vagina has two separate pathways, and urine is actually sterile. But as you point out, there is an “ick factor” in sex in general, so there really needs to be a better argument against anal sex. Which there are. You’ve heard most of them, and I’m not interested in getting into the anal sex debate, I just had to laugh-and cringe-at your response to phillymiss.
It’s surprising what people do in the grip of passion.
“The vagina has two separate pathways” – after all these decades have I been missing out on something?
To be honest, when phillymiss said “it’s an exit not an entrance” I did a bit of that ‘reading between the lines’ stuff and interpreted her meaning as ‘it’s meant to expel waste, not receive a penis’. But as I pointed out, the vagina also expels waste. And while the penis is an entrancer (that’s ‘entranc-er’, not ‘en-trancer’ as in woo) not an entrance, it also expels waste.
I am sorry to hear about your dad Jack and I pray for your peace, comfort and the answers to your many questions at this time. Even if someone has abused or even neglected us we still grieve in some way even if we grieve for what we wish we could have had. I am indeed sorry for all you have been through Jack. Everyone grieves differently and in their own way. Please give yourself permission to grieve even if it for the loss of having a healthy, stable relationship with your dad. I pray someone will come along side of you to answer your many questions.
I think my husband experienced grief when his dad died who pretty much abandoned them (there were years they did not even know where he was when he was trying to avoid paying child support). He did not really talk about it. I told him he should go to the funeral if he wanted to. He thought about it and decided not to go. I have heard some people say “being ignored is worse than being abused” I don’t know if I believe this. I personally believe your situation was worse than my husband’s, at least his mother after being abused for years left when he was very young.
One last comment of the “exit entrance” comments.
Take it from a healthcare worker there are physiological and anatomical difference between the two systems. I have taken care of adults, geriatrics, children, infants and adolescents over the years of my career. There are differences between the:
Male Reproductive System
Female Reproductive System
Urinary System
Excretory System
Digestive System
Everyone of these area have functions (only the male shares the same passageway for the urinary and reproductive system) for excreting 2 different fluids.
Universal precautions are used for handling all body fluids but I guarantee you that waste from the digestive system is MUCH MORE DANGEROUS.
I won’t reply to “Unreality” but for those who are truly interested feel free to read up on the Female Menstrual Cycle.
Thank you all I appreciate the advice and well wishes.
” have heard some people say “being ignored is worse than being abused” I don’t know if I believe this”
I have heard this too, and I don’t think it’s true when it comes to sexual abuse and rape, at all. I’d have much rather my dad just abandoned me than hang around. I think maybe it might be true for some people when it comes to being smacked around (not emotional abuse though, emotional abuse stays with you for decades). Bruises heal, but having a parent abandon you leaves major scars.
Thanks Prolifer L.
Given the age of my body I had kinda figured out most of those things.
I wouldn’t mind a little more info on what the second excreted fluid is for a couple of those systems though.
MaryRose, I’ve contacted the ladies who have been in my life and asked them if there was something they hadn’t told me about our sexual activity but they all seemed slightly perplexed by the question.
MaryRose was obviously referring to the entirety of things down there, not just the vagina itself.
Up until I was like thirteen I thought that females peed out of their vaginas though, one of my sisters found out I thought that and mocked me mercilessly for a while, then took pity and explained it to me. Sex ed is important, you just don’t magically know these things!
Goodness, no I certainly meant the entirety of the female genitalia having multiple holes, the urethra vs. the vagina. I didn’t really think it required that much explanation, and assumed I was referencing the obvious. “Vagina” is really a term that is thrown around rather casually to describe the genitalia, but I should know better than to be technically inaccurate when correcting others.
S’oright MaryRose, it just gave me a bit of a laugh and cringe moment.
Maybe being perfectly and unquestionably scientifically accurate isn’t always the be-all and end-all of things ;-)
We both get to laugh at ourselves and one another on this thread, I suppose ;)
Although I’m not surprised to hear a Choicer state that scientific accuracy isn’t the be-all or end-all ;) (Had to say it :P)
The person in the mirror is the first person we should learn to laugh at, otherwise we just end up grumpy, disgruntled and incapable of joy. Miserable gits we are if we take ourselves too seriously.
It was a ‘maybe’, based on observation, not a claim ;-)
Although I am not convinced by the writings of Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens I do appreciate their concern for human beings and the suffering that humans experience. If all atheists are as concerned with moral issues as these writers then the possibility for reconciliation between atheists and Christians is possible.
All of them write in a manner that makes reading their books enjoyable.
Of course most atheists/agnostics care about the suffering of humanity as much as theists do, Tyler.
I thought Harris’ books were rather weak and Dawkins is too aggressive for my taste. I enjoy Hitchens and Daniel Dennett the most.
It is nice to know that you do read some non-fiction Tyler.
I haven’t read anything by Daniel Dennett – is there a book of his that you would recommend?
Preferably, a book that is not too-advanced.
I read Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Dennett, Tyler. It’s a good book, I think you’d like it, since you’re always questioning the atheists who comment here on how you can square a secular view with morality. He talks about how he thinks human morality arose for evolutionary purposes (that humans adapted morals because it upped their chance of survival as a species), it’s quite interesting. :)
Oh about “not too advanced” Dennett writes in an understandable style and explains his ideas quite thoroughly and easy to grasp. I’m not a very good reader and I got through it just fine, you’ll do fine with it.
Reality and Jack, have you read Descartes’ Discourse on Method?
How did you get through Dawkins’ books without being terribly offended Tyler? I’m just curious, which one did you read? When I read The God Delusion I got offended on behalf of religious people! That’s what I’m talking about when I say he’s too aggressive, he’s got a rather mocking tone in my opinion (I think the same thing when I watch his interviews and such on Youtube), I think he gets really rude.
I haven’t read any DeCartes, literally the only thing I know about his writings is that “I think, therefore I am” thing.
He was a Catholic philosopher wasn’t he? I remember reading he wasn’t an atheist, but he still got in trouble with the church at one point? I have read some CS Lewis and that Lee Strobel guy, didn’t convince me or answer my questions but I enjoyed the viewpoints.
It looks like my library only has the book Breaking the Spell - have you read this book? any thoughts?
I am just reading Descartes right now. I read parts of Discourse in school and always meant to go back and read the whole thing (it is not very long about 50 -60 pages depending on the publisher). Is a good read and an important book in the Western history of Ideas.
About 100 years ago Tyler :-)
I found it to be about 100 years out of date then, as well as slightly naive and, in part, self-contradictory.
Haven’t read Breaking the Spell.
No sorry haven’t read that one Tyler. The only book by Dennett I read was Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. He’s a good writer though, I’m sure that book will be interesting for you.
Discourse on Method is a good read and an important book in the Western history of Ideas. It is different from our perspective – it touches on quite a few things in the few pages: it provides a quick summary of his proof of God and the Soul (the I think therefore I am bit).
I haven’t read anything by Strobel. What did you think of his books? By the way, what did you read by Lewis?
Reality, what did you find naïve about Discourse?
I read “The Case for Christ” by Strobel. I thought it was interesting but ultimately lacking in rigorous, non-biased evidence. He made a lot of statements I think he failed to support, and a lot of times he would make claims and treat them like they were evidence.
I read Mere Christianity by Lewis.
His claims of proof for there being a god and what he says regarding the supposed soul.
Jack, just so I don’t mislead you from my above comment – Descartes begins by proving the existence of the soul first and from there goes on to prove the existence of God. These proofs only constitute 1 of the 6 chapters. As far as I am aware this little book is also a plea for Descartes’ version of the scientific method. It is this plea (along with some others I am sure) that ushers in the modern scientific perspective and methodology. In one of the chapters Descartes also wanted intellectuals to take the study of medicine more seriously and with a generational perspective in mind. In this book he also advocates that intellectuals should share their results of their experiments so that future generations can benefit, etc… Despite what Reality said about Discourse you may find it a rigorous, if not brief, attempt at proving the existence of God. I believe his Meditations is more thorough, but I have not read that book yet.
“Descartes begins by proving the existence of the soul first and from there goes on to prove the existence of God.” – not quite. He begins by assuming god exists and incorporates that assumption into his ideas and postulations. He then proffers what he considers to be proof of the existence of god. His approach to the concept of soul is inconclusive and not particularly concise. He brings a number of self-assumptive beliefs to his rationale. Not proof for god or a soul.
The Case for a Creator by Strobel is great.
Life and the necessary conditions for sustaining it are infinitely improbable, unless …
Tyler, from my perspective, regardless of its contribution to the argument, the details are awesome and further humbling with respect to who God is. You could get more in depth info from the sources, of course, but this is a good intro/synthesis.
Strobel’s book is nothing more than a collection of the espousals of creationist headliners/hardliners. It offers no alternative points of view, reasoning or genuine science. It’s pretty much a fictional reference book.
Well, Reality, if you actually read the book, you would have read the part where Strobel explains that his book is not written in the traditions of academia, but rather as a documentation of the interviews he conducted which collectively make a compelling case for a creator. That said, your description of the book says a lot more about your commitment to a particular way of thinking than about the book.
Lifejoy, I didn’t like the book because he basically made claims and acted like they were evidence. I remember really clearly, the whole thing about “well, if Jesus’s miracles and resurrection were fictitious, we would have contemporary accounts arguing against them”. This totally ignores the fact that for a several decades, Christianity was just a tiny little offshoot of Judaism. There would be no need for a body of contemporary literature arguing against the claims of Christians at that time, we don’t have contemporaries arguing specifically against the claims of all our little denominations today, do we? And despite how much momentum Christianity gained later, at the time Jesus was one of many religious folk who had small followings, and he wasn’t the only one crucified by the Romans for insurgency and rebellion, etc. It’s just stuff like that, that makes the book less than compelling. Which was really frustrating for me, because I read the book hoping to be talked into believing from a logical perspective and came out more discouraged that I’m never going to find what I need to believe.
And also, there was a lot of flat out science denial as well. I cannot agree with someone who will disregard solid, real life research. It would be intellectual dishonest of me (and as a side note, I don’t see evolution and Christianity incompatible, and I think it’s weird how people insist you have to have one or the other).
“documentation of the interviews he conducted which collectively make a compelling case for a creator” – I think this sums it up nicely actually LifeJoy. It’s like interviewing half a dozen fans of one particular sports team and then claiming to have a compelling case that everyone is a supporter.
I have read works from most of the ‘contributors’, and read of the works of the rest. Some of them have websites where – one-sided – discussions take place. I have observed these. I have also seen and read debates between some of them and real scientists.
“your description of the book says a lot more about your commitment to a particular way of thinking than about the book.” – yeah, it says I approach the topic from a position of facts and scientific application – actual thinking, unlike the book.
Jack, I started reading this thread the other day and saw this comment:
“But if he’s God, he had the ultimate power to set up the universe however he wanted. Including making logic work differently, including making free will work differently. He didn’t have to make it like this.”
I’ve been thinking about it, and others could correct me if I’m wrong here b/c this is just my speculating. God made lots of creatures on this earth. Creatures that can’t “go to hell”, b/c they can only be what God made them to be (a dog, a cat etc). They have free will in a sense of having some volition, but they can never choose to go against their nature or make a choice that is immoral. But God made us in HIS image. Unless he can change His nature, then he couldn’t make anything in His image without being something like Him. Maybe that’s why we had to have free will of the type that seems so unfair to you. I do not understand the plan or fully understand the complicated concept of free will in the presence of omniscience. However, I do trust that there is a reason God made it so that we would have to freely choose Him.
I’m sorry about all that you’re going through, and I agree with Lrning’s Aug 4th, 2:38 comment. Completely.
I also found it frustrating that he kinda represented himself as doing a hard-nosed, skeptical look at Christianity, where all he really did was interview people that agreed with it and didn’t substantiate it. I mean, it’s a good book if you’re just looking for people explaining how they feel about a certain type of Christianity and why they believe it, but other than it, it was lacking in my opinion.
“But God made us in HIS image. Unless he can change His nature, then he couldn’t make anything in His image without being something like Him. Maybe that’s why we had to have free will of the type that seems so unfair to you. I do not understand the plan or fully understand the complicated concept of free will in the presence of omniscience. ”
Well I suppose that makes sense, but again it just seems… weird. I mean, he didn’t HAVE to make us in his image. And the way he made it so we get forgiven for our sins never make any type of sense. So, he knew we would be sinners (I also have trouble with the concept of him basically setting Adam and Eve up to fail, how could they really understand it was wrong to eat the fruit if they had no knowledge of good and evil?), and that we would need forgiving. But instead of just, you know, forgiving us, he’s gotta torture his son (and himself, I guess, if you believe in the Trinity) just because? He set it up that way! He could have just looked into our hearts, or had people do so many thousands of years of good works to make up for the bad, or any multiple of different ways rather than this idea of Jesus having to die. And plus it just seems ridiculous to be like “oh I’m going to make you, you have no choice in my making you, and you’re automatically doomed, but don’t worry took care of that before you were born”. It’s just nonsensical to me and I can’t make it make sense no matter how hard I try.
Oh and thank you. I still don’t see how you can like yourself at all if what you are is intrinsically bad, but people keep telling me what I AM isn’t actually bad, just thoughts and actions and everything (which isn’t actually me?). Just doesn’t make sense but I have problems with self-loathing and paranoid thinking anyway so it’s probably my mental illness that’s not letting me understand.
I wish I could explain to you, Jack, why it all seems to make sense to me – especially at this time of night, I am lacking. It is the most logical when I build from the ground up and consider other possibilities. Here I am in this world, here is this world … That we are just one big freak of nature accident is just not an option for me, for various types of reasons. For example, the stars, the butterflies, and the twinkle in my children’s eyes tell me that. But yeah, that’s not science, and I’m glad. The next question then is what is God like?
As for Strobel’s books, I also read the Case for Christ, which you are talking about. This book does not contain what I, or he even I don’t think, would consider to be hard scientific proof, as we think of proof. But moreso how we would use the resources we have to present a case in court. No one can disprove what we know about Christ’s life. Sure, that’s not evidence, but it is a case of sorts. If there is no way to refute testimony, it stands as an artifact that has stood the test. The jury can believe it or not.
My brother always says the best job would be getting paid to sleep. Then you would have 16 hours of free time every day. Gotta go sleep.
I just wish I could think like that. I think I can’t take things on faith, at all. I had a therapist who taught me how to manage irrational and paranoid and intrusive thoughts by going over the solid evidence and logic (like if you randomly are paranoid about a person, you have to go over the evidence and see if you’re just being paranoid or if they have done something that points to them wanting to harm you, 9/10 times it’s just paranoia). It just seems dangerous to me to assume something is true without solid evidence, and I’m not sure if I can ever convince myself to take things on faith, it seems near impossible for me.
Good night hope you get some good sleep, thanks for talking to me.
I still don’t see how you can like yourself at all if what you are is intrinsically bad,
Ah. This explains quite a bit to me. In my belief system, there are no people that are intrinsically bad. Even serial killers are not intrinsically bad. How could something made in the image of God, by God, and loved by God, be intrinsically bad? This might be why I have no problem separating the sin from the sinner.
just thoughts and actions and everything (which isn’t actually me?)
In most cases, our actions follow our thoughts. Guard your thoughts and you can change your actions. IMO anyway.
So, I’m assuming that the whole “intrinsically bad” thing has to do with bisexuality? I seriously find it incredibly weird and sad that so many people choose to define themselves by their sexual appetites. I can hardly wrap my head around it. I’ve had a sexually dysfunctional past, all of my own choosing. If I defined myself by what I’ve desired and done…I just don’t even know what my life would be right now. I can’t even imagine it.
But certainly you can’t believe you are only a sum total of your thoughts, actions, and desires? Imagine if 20 years from now one of your children did something horrific. Became a serial killer…I don’t know. Imagine the worst. Would you look at your child then and believe that everything they are is bad?
Jack, Descartes’ proof of the Soul and God stays away from the concept of original sin and our need for redemption. He basically argues for God’s existence on intellectual grounds. It is interesting. Again, I realize I may be a biased reader but I don’t think Reality’s description of Descartes’ argument is fair. Descartes didn’t publish his works immediately because he felt his more intellectual attempt at proving God’s existence wouldn’t be understood or accepted by most people and many in the Church. His argument is famous for the fact that he began by trying to doubt everything he could so to say that he assumed God’s existence, as Reality infers, is untrue. Moreover, Descartes is a well-known and well-respected mathematician. He wanted all of his arguments, including any for God or the Soul, to be as demonstrable as any proofs in mathematics.
Well I suppose that makes sense, but again it just seems… weird. I mean, he didn’t HAVE to make us in his image. And the way he made it so we get forgiven for our sins never make any type of sense. So, he knew we would be sinners (I also have trouble with the concept of him basically setting Adam and Eve up to fail, how could they really understand it was wrong to eat the fruit if they had no knowledge of good and evil?), and that we would need forgiving. But instead of just, you know, forgiving us, he’s gotta torture his son (and himself, I guess, if you believe in the Trinity) just because? He set it up that way! He could have just looked into our hearts, or had people do so many thousands of years of good works to make up for the bad, or any multiple of different ways rather than this idea of Jesus having to die.”
Jack what did you make of CS Lewis’ explanation in Mere Christianity of why we needed vicarious redemption? He also gives a longer explanation of why in his book Miracles , if you’re interested.
“Oh and thank you. I still don’t see how you can like yourself at all if what you are is intrinsically bad, but people keep telling me what I AM isn’t actually bad, just thoughts and actions and everything (which isn’t actually me?). Just doesn’t make sense but I have problems with self-loathing and paranoid thinking anyway so it’s probably my mental illness that’s not letting me understand.”
Jack, who in your life did you meet that was perfect? I have never met anyone who is perfect. Recognition of human limitations does not mean that we loathe ourselves, it simply recognizes our dependency and imperfection. All creatures are dependent and contingent beings. Awareness of this fact is something atheists and Christians can and do share, don’t you agree?
” It just seems dangerous to me to assume something is true without solid evidence, and I’m not sure if I can ever convince myself to take things on faith, it seems near impossible for me.”
Yeah, but I don’t see why there is evidence that there is no God. I get that this is the default assumption (for some), and most would say the burden of proof is on those who believe in God. But again, look at the world, look into your heart. Do you really think the human spirit is confined by biology? It takes just as much faith to believe God does not exist. Do you have any idea how, well, laughable actually it sounds to believers that people think they will find definitive evidence for God, if what we see when we look up into the night sky or what we do when we breathe won’t suffice? What would count as evidence? Nothing.
Do you really think the human spirit is confined by biology?
LifeJoy, that is an excellent question posed to Jack. I would also ask him where he gets his sense of justice from? How was he able to deduce that there was a better way for God to plan salvation than through his dying Son?
“I mean, he didn’t HAVE to make us in his image.”
I mean that is true. He could have made us just another creature on earth (and since I believe in evolution albeit God driven), I do believe that is how we started. But for some reason, He decided to invite us to be more like Himself. To share in His nature. I don’t know why, but I believe that it’s true.
I think my mind works a little like yours – I get myself wrapped up (very wrapped up) in thinking about areas of things that don’t make sense. I actually think your question was a good one, which is why I ended up thinking about it for a couple of days. The way I looked at it is this – do I believe in a creator? Yes. Do I believe that God has revealed some things about his nature to us? Yes. I believe this b/c I believe the accounts of Jesus’s life and the witness of his contemporaries. The rest I learn as I go.
I just want to share one thing with you. When I was little a priest told me about an encounter he had with a man who asked him, “Father, what if you want to believe in God, but you can’t.” I remember thinking that that was a preposterous notion – if you want to believe in God, then you do. As an adult, who went through a period where I couldn’t believe in God either and who still has struggles, I understand it. The priest told the man to seek him anyway. To pray for understanding. To pray to want understanding if that’s where you are. To pray for help. To pray and tell God, he doesn’t make any sense. Just pray. If you want to believe in God, then you seek him. He’ll meet you where you are.
Also, God’s judgment of our hearts is perfect. I believe that sincere effort will be judged more kindly than insincere “success”, though I would never pretend to know the final calculus.
“So, I’m assuming that the whole “intrinsically bad” thing has to do with bisexuality? I seriously find it incredibly weird and sad that so many people choose to define themselves by their sexual appetites. I can hardly wrap my head around it. I’ve had a sexually dysfunctional past, all of my own choosing. If I defined myself by what I’ve desired and done…I just don’t even know what my life would be right now. I can’t even imagine it.”
Well not just that, even though that’s definitely something that’s wrong and unnatural and perverted about me. It’s just I’m wrong. I don’t know how to explain it. Left to my own devices, if I didn’t force myself to be a decent person every day I’d just be awful. It’s like, I work hard at being a good dad, but I’m really just an awful parent internally. For example. I absolutely hate physical affection, I think it’s gross and awful, makes my skin crawl. But I read in the child development books that kids need hugs and cuddles and everything, so I forced myself to hug them, I set reminders on my phone every half hour or so to pick them up and give them affection. But still, years of this I still wouldn’t choose to be affectionate if I didn’t force myself. Because I’m wrong and I still hate physical affection. That’s why I can’t understand why people say that being a good parent or being pro-life and everything else makes me a good person, because everything that everyone points out that is good about me, is something that I have to force and fake every day. So what I am is just something not okay. I don’t know how to explain it properly.
“But certainly you can’t believe you are only a sum total of your thoughts, actions, and desires? Imagine if 20 years from now one of your children did something horrific. Became a serial killer…I don’t know. Imagine the worst. Would you look at your child then and believe that everything they are is bad?”
No, but I think my kids are different. I don’t know how to apply how I feel about them to myself. That just seems silly to me. They’re innocent little normal people and I was literally never a little innocent person.
“Jack what did you make of CS Lewis’ explanation in Mere Christianity of why we needed vicarious redemption?”
I don’t really remember that specifically. Didn’t he see Jesus’s death as God giving us a chance to die to sin by our choice, rather than Jesus being a substitute for our sins? It’s been a long time since I read that book.
“Yeah, but I don’t see why there is evidence that there is no God. I get that this is the default assumption (for some), and most would say the burden of proof is on those who believe in God. But again, look at the world, look into your heart. Do you really think the human spirit is confined by biology? It takes just as much faith to believe God does not exist. Do you have any idea how, well, laughable actually it sounds to believers that people think they will find definitive evidence for God, if what we see when we look up into the night sky or what we do when we breathe won’t suffice? What would count as evidence? Nothing.”
It’s just I see no reason to believe that a God created the universe rather than natural phenomena. I just can’t put my faith in either, which is why I always consider myself an agnostic. I don’t really see natural stuff as miraculous either, considering their workings are testable. I just don’t see things right I guess.
” I just want to share one thing with you. When I was little a priest told me about an encounter he had with a man who asked him, “Father, what if you want to believe in God, but you can’t.” I remember thinking that that was a preposterous notion – if you want to believe in God, then you do. As an adult, who went through a period where I couldn’t believe in God either and who still has struggles, I understand it. The priest told the man to seek him anyway. To pray for understanding. To pray to want understanding if that’s where you are. To pray for help. To pray and tell God, he doesn’t make any sense. Just pray. If you want to believe in God, then you seek him. He’ll meet you where you are.”
Well see I do pray, I give up at times for a while but I do try to pray. It doesn’t seem to have helped.
“Also, God’s judgment of our hearts is perfect. I believe that sincere effort will be judged more kindly than insincere “success”, though I would never pretend to know the final calculus”
I guess that would make sense. I don’t see how you guys trust that God is merciful though.
“That’s why I can’t understand why people say that being a good parent or being pro-life and everything else makes me a good person, because everything that everyone points out that is good about me, is something that I have to force and fake every day. So what I am is just something not okay,”
Virtue is always good, but virtue freely chosen against great obstacles is highly valued. You face great obstacles to certain virtues, through no fault of your own. God sees your effort. We can’t always help feelings, but exercising your will in an act of what you know to be good.
“Well see I do pray, I give up at times for a while but I do try to pray. It doesn’t seem to have helped.”
I think maybe it has helped. Maybe that’s where you get the strength to choose good things against so much internal aversion. I “prayed” (I just talked to God – not even formal prayer on my knees) for years and years and I still never had the miraculous conversion of faith. It was just drips over time, but it was enough.
Jack, here is a bit from Miracles since there is no way that I could explain it better. I think he calls it something else in Mere Christianity. This passage is from Chapter 14 – The Grand Miracle. The entire chapter is probably well worth reading on its own.
…
“For when we look into the Selectiveness which the Christians attribute to God we find in it none of that ‘favouritism’ which we were afraid of. The ‘chosen’ people are chosen not for their own sake (certainly not for their own honour or pleasure) but for the sake of the uncho-sen. Abraham is told that ‘in his seed’ (the chosen nation) ‘all nations shall be blest’. That nation has been chosen to bear a heavy burden. Their sufferings are great: but, as Isaiah recognised, their sufferings heal others. On the finally selected Woman falls the utmost depth of maternal anguish. Her Son, the incarnate God, is a ‘man of sorrows’; the one Man into whom Deity descended, the one Man who can be lawfully adored, is pre-eminent for suffering.
But, you will ask, does this much mend matters? Is not this still injustice, though now the other way round? Where, at the first glance, we accused God of undue favour to His ‘chosen’, we are now tempted to accuse Him of undue disfavour. (The attempt to keep up both charges at the same time had better be dropped.) And certainly we have here come to a principle very deep-rooted in Christianity: what may be called the principle of Vicariousness.
The Sinless Man suffers for the sinful, and, in their degree, all good men for all bad men. And this vicariousness—no less than Death and Rebirth or Selectiveness—is also a characteristic of Nature. Self-sufficiency, living on one’s own resources, is a thing impossible in her realm. Everything is indebted to everything else, sacrificed to everything else, dependent on everything else. And here too we must recognise that the principle is in itself neither good nor bad. The cat lives on the mouse in a way I think bad: the bees and the flowers live on one another in a more pleasing manner. The parasite lives on its ‘host’: but so also the unborn child on its mother. In social life without Vicariousness there would be no exploitation or oppression; but also no kindness or gratitude. It is a fountain both of love and hatred, both of misery and happiness. When we have understood this we shall no longer think that the depraved examples of Vicariousness in Nature forbid us to suppose that the principle itself is of divine origin….”
Jack,
You most certainly were a little innocent person, and you did not receive the sort of self-sacrificing love that we are called to give as parents. Your innocence was taken advantage of, by those who should have protected it most. And you have managed to overcome that enough to give your children a real love, to protect them, and to really make yourself be a source of good in the world.
I find it incredibly interesting that you trust the experts on childcare and parenting, but struggle to trust the experts on faith. I find it particularly interesting because I have the opposite problem. I trust my Church Fathers, but I struggle to determine who is correct about parenting: is attachment parenting actually a good thing, or is it damaging to the psyche? Is it better to enforce rules with time-outs or with ‘natural consequences’? Which are the best consequences for given behaviors? All of these things are in contention by the leading experts, just as the details of God and the afterlife are in contention by the experts.
One thing, though, that most respected religious experts have in common is a belief that we are all struggling with duel natures: the desire to do good and the desire to do evil. Why would you be an exception? The most commonly repeated message in the Bible, though, is Be Not Afraid. Even though you do not feel Him, or believe in Him, God is always working with you to fight your battles.
Jack I hear you. I may not understand it all but I hear you and I am praying for you. Some of the things you have said have spurred me to pray some scriptures. I do not give these in a patronizing way but as I pray for you
For wisdom for you:
“If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God, that gives to all men liberally and upbraids it not; and it shall be given him” James 1:5.
For your struggles:
Paul said “For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not, For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me.” Romans 7: 18-21
For you to find faith:
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, … but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith.” Romans 12 :3
Jack, you sound like father of the year to me. Working to overcome your personal inclinations for the benefit of your children…that’s self-sacrificial love!!! That’s the freaking definition of it! You are showing Christ-like love to your children each and every day.
I hope you’ll see someone that can help you think more kindly of yourself. I can’t imagine it’s healthy to believe that you are bad at the core and just faking all the good you choose to do. Truly, you deserve to find some peace.
Okay I think I’m just looking at things with crazy person logic because everyone seems to disagree with me about how I’m really just evil. But thanks for explaining guys. I should probably go back to therapy since I’m obviously not thinking correctly about things.
I would imagine that the way you look at things and understand the world has been heavily influenced by the negative experiences in your past. It can’t be an easy thing to overcome. But understand, also, that we’re all just trying to interpret and respond to the data you’ve given us combined with our understanding of you as a frequent poster on Jill’s blog. Still, doesn’t it seem a lot more meaningful, to get a gift that someone really struggled to create, that they worked at for long hours and thought on deeply, than it is to get a gift that was easily created by someone for whom it just came naturally? Isn’t it more meaningful to you if one of your children sits and works hard at writing “I love Dad” than it is if one of them scribbles it out quickly? Both are appreciated, but one is treasured. Same concept applies. You cannot force yourself to want to hug your children, but you can acknowledge their need and force yourself to fill it, and to give to them with the clear understanding that you will reap no reward for this action, it’s a real gift.
Jack,
I can’t believe this guy is a U.S. senator, but at least he got this right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY
” Isn’t it more meaningful to you if one of your children sits and works hard at writing “I love Dad” than it is if one of them scribbles it out quickly? Both are appreciated, but one is treasured. Same concept applies. You cannot force yourself to want to hug your children, but you can acknowledge their need and force yourself to fill it, and to give to them with the clear understanding that you will reap no reward for this action, it’s a real gift.”
Ok I do understand this concept. I just think it’s really horrible that I don’t naturally want to be affectionate towards my kids (seriously the only parent I know who didn’t want to affectionate towards one of their children was my mother, and besides my dad she’s the last person I would want to be like), and I think they’ll figure it out when they’re older like my ex-wife eventually figured it out, that I’m just forcing it. And then they’ll be hurt and and hate me. Or I’m just paranoid.
And Hans that video actually made me smile so thanks. :)
Oh Jack. Your children will not hate you for not being naturally demonstrative. You’re not faking the love you have for them, you’re just expressing that love in a way that doesn’t come natural to you and you’re not fully comfortable with. That is not dishonest. Besides, by the time they realize it doesn’t come naturally to you, they’ll be surly teenagers and won’t want physical affection. hehe.
I just worry about it. Like 70% of the arguments when I was married were about how much I suck at snuggling and things like that lol. “I don’t want you to make yourself hug me, I want you to want to hug me!” I don’t know how to do that!
MaryRose,
That was such a beautiful way to describe it!