Trialogue

(135) More on God and Punishment

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve, John Listening

         At the time that I’ve been writing this, three questions about God seem to be on the table for which Steve and I have differing views.

1. Does God proactively intervene on earth to bring punishments upon human beings as a method of preventing wrong-doing or achieving obedience or as an expression of wrath for wrong-doing?

2. Does God proactively intervene on earth to bring physical protection or physical miracles?

3. Does God utilize everlasting punishment, either in terms of (a) everlasting separation from God of human beings who wish to be with God or (b) unending torture?

         Steve’s answers to all three questions are Yes, with the caveat that the everlasting punishment is separation and not unending torture.
        My answer to the three questions is No.
        Please note, before we go any further, that the questions that are at issue between Steve and me do not include whether there is some form of non-eternal “punishment” or corrective discipline that occurs outside of our current earthly existence. I see that as a possibility. (John tends to think that this is where our soul’s reincarnation to earth may fit in. I don’t tend to think of the afterlife soul as preparing for a second run at life on earth; I rather tend to think that the afterlife soul exists in another plane or planes besides this earthly one, and that this is where we may reap some of what we sow on earth. Either point might be true; who knows?) Also, the questions at issue between Steve and me do not include whether God plays a role in earthly affairs by impacting the inner psychology and outlook and courage of human beings to the extent that human beings are willing to “let God in”. 
        So, to get back to the three questions upon which Steve and I disagree...
        Steve’s argument for a Yes answer to Question 1 boils down to this:

Premise: Human parents find they need to use punishment to obtain good behavior and obedience, and they use it successfully and with love.

Premise: God is in many ways similar to a loving human parent.

Conclusion: Therefore, God uses punishment on this earthly plane to obtain good behavior and obedience from human beings.

         This argument is worth presenting, but it is not a compelling argument. The two premises do not establish the conclusion, because even though we may believe that the human parent-child relationship has parallels to God’s relationship to us, it does not prove anything about how God behaves. The “rules of the game” for God may be quite different.
        Further, I’d like to suggest that even Steve does not find the argument he uses in this case to be a very compelling form of argument when otherwise applied. For example, if Steve really thought that this form of argument is compelling, then I don’t think he would believe in God’s eternal punishment. As an illustration, let’s try the form of Steve’s argument on the eternal separation issue:

Premise: A typical loving human parent will forgive their child of practically anything, and would not impose an everlasting separation from their child as punishment for past wrong-doing or disobedience on the child’s part. In fact, a typically loving human parent would be appalled at the very suggestion.

Premise: God is in many ways like a loving human parent.

Conclusion: Therefore, God would not impose an everlasting separation upon the soul of human beings as punishment for wrong-doing or disobedience, and God would be appalled at the very suggestion.

         Now on this issue, I actually think that the argument makes some sense, moreso than in the earthly punishment case; but I can also clearly see that the premises do not compel the conclusion. And, since Steve believes in eternal separation as punishment, I’m quite sure that he can see in the eternal separation issue that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, because God’s “rules” may be different.
        So, there appears to be a bit of a conundrum here. On the parent-child punishment issue, Steve thinks that the form of argument he offers makes sense and the conclusion is true (while I think that the conclusion is untrue). On the eternal punishment issue, I think that the same form of argument makes sense and the conclusion is true (while Steve thinks the conclusion is untrue). Why?
        Well, Steve suggests that I am resistant to the power of his argument on the parent-child punishment issue because of what “I want” to believe. Steve states, for example, that I “want God to stay out of our earthly lives.” But this is not the case, and by focusing on criticizing what he thinks “I want” to believe, Steve escapes from responding to the real reason for my belief on this matter (and also avoids having to address head-on the theodicy issue). I am resistant to Steve’s argument, which is, as we have seen, less than compelling logically, because of the strong evidence to the contrary that I can directly observe going on every day in the earthly realm.
        Let me address these points in some more detail.
        Do I “want” to believe that God actively intervenes so that at least at some point, certain horrors on earth are not permitted? Yes I do. Do I want to believe that someone or something is out there who makes sure that innocent children don’t starve to death? Sure I do. Do I want to believe that someone or something is out there who makes sure that what happened to the Jewish people during the Holocaust does not happen, that evil is never permitted to go that far? Of course I do. Do I want to believe that someone or something is out there stopping terrorists from blowing people up? Yup. Do I want to believe that someone or something is out there who will intervene and stop a deranged parent from sending her car with her children into a lake, or drowning them in a bath tub? Absolutely.
        But each of us have some limits upon what we can believe theologically in response to what we may “want” to believe. And, if logic and experience tell me that something CAN NOT be true, then I’m not going to believe it. 
        And in the real world, the “wanting” of an active, efficient, and effective discipline-guiding and human-protecting God or universal force runs smack up against hard cold reality. That sort of being or force does not exist. There’s something in the newspaper every single day of every single year that attests to the fact that such a God does not exist. The very notion, if not clearly discredited in the minds modern human beings before, should have been clearly swept away during and after the Holocaust. If punishment is administered by God on this earthly plane as guidance or deterrence, then why doesn’t this guidance or deterrence head off evil before it fully matures?
        I do not understand how, if there is child suffering from a disease where one in a hundred children survive, Steve and others can laud God for a miracle if one child is cured without a sobering realization of what that says regarding the 99 that don’t make it. I do not understand how Steve and people who think like him can fail to see the following point. If indeed, as they believe, God is in charge of the Department Which Provides Miraculous Cures on Earth, then God not only bears responsibly for the miraculous cures which are affected, but also bears some responsibility for the far exceeding number of instances in which miraculous cures could presumably have been implemented by an omnipotent power BUT WERE NOT. If indeed, as they believe, God is in charge of the Department of Miraculous Survivials, then God not only gets credit for the survivors from a destructive hurricane, tornado, flood, airplane crash, etc., but also bears responsibility for all the human beings which could have been saved by an omnipotent power in these events but instead were allowed to perish.
 I know a senior citizen for which this question of God’s punishment is particularly real. A wonderful person and a believer, this senior citizen has suffered for a number of years from major short-term memory issues and is finding little joy in life. This senior citizen sometimes wonders aloud, “I wonder what I did in my life that God is choosing to punish me so.” Alternatively, this senior citizen sometimes says, “I always believed that God looks after us. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe there’s no God.”
        This is real grappling with the theodicy question. If God exists, and if God is all good, and if God is all-powerful and consistently exercises power for good, then how can there be so much suffering, wrong-doing, and evil?
        The atheists answer to the question is simple. There is no God. God doesn’t exist.
        Another answer is that there is a supreme being or eternal force, but that being or force actually isn’t “all good”. I don’t think that too many people argue for this idea.
        Another possible response is to argue that God does not intervene to provide physical protection or miraculous cures, and there must be a good and higher reason for this non-intervention, such as the allowance of free will and spiritual development. This is the perspective that John Hick and many spiritual progressives (View Three types) take, myself included. The belief is that despite all the suffering, the wrong-doing, the evil, ultimately (beyond or outside of the earthly plane) all will be good, and all will be well.

        To move on to Question 3, why does Steve embrace the idea of eternal separation? It appears that it is because he wants above all else to believe in the infallible reliability of scripture, so his theology is driven by the provisions of what he thinks is the preponderance of scriptural testimony. Unfortunately, the necessity of going with the preponderance of scriptural testimony is inherently at odds with the notion of scripture’s infalliable reliability. The need to do so arises from the fact that many passages are ambiguous or obscure in meaning and the human authors of the Bible speak against each other and in contradiction to their own selves with some frequency. Thus, Steve believes that this earthly life is the tryout time for eternity, though John 5:25 says that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live”. And, Steve believes that doing good is not relevant to salvation, though John 5:29 says that “the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear the Son of Man’s voice and will come out – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”
        Steve also argues that an individual’s earthly life, if the basis for God’s judgement, is not a one-time tryout, but rather constitutes multiple opportunities or a package of numerous moments of choice. This argument doesn’t work. It does not apply, for example, to all those human beings who live and die before they reach the age of intellectual and emotional and moral maturity. (What happens, in Steve’s view, to the soul of an infant who dies?) But moreover, his argument deeply underestimates, in my view, how strongly our lives and choices are affected by culture, environment, intellect, and chance. Just using the idea of “chance” as an example, let’s say that there are two prison inmates and one happens to get the chance to hear Steve spread the word, “sees the light”, repents all sins, and is saved. Unfortunately, another inmate, who would have found Steve’s ministry equally compelling, is in isolation or quarantine and misses out on hearing Steve, never hears an equally compelling ministry, and never repents. Under Steve’s theology, the first inmate goes to eternal life with God, while the second inmate goes to eternal separation from God; but the practical difference is that one got to hear Steve and the other didn’t. I do not see any way, given the variability of circumstances which human beings face on earth, that a single earthly lifetime can provide the basis for an eternal-communion-with-God versus eternal-separation-from-God judgement. It doesn’t matter how many daily choices are exercised by individuals during that single lifetime. 

(136) Punishment vs. Karma

Author:  JOHN
To:  Bob and Steve

First, a few final comments on Bob’s “Views” series:

             Bob, I’ve got my editor’s hat on now, and you’ll forgive me if I like to think that after 35 years of varied professional editorial experience I just may have some worthy advice. Well here it is: you should work up your “Views” material into a little more traditional format and see if you can get it published as a book. Content-wise, it’s that good, and there is far lesser stuff getting published every day. I would help ya with it, but I’m retired now, so I don’t have the time! Seriously, though, I think there is a niche out there for your stuff. One thing I would recommend, however, (and which might in fact make the task easier) is just to forget about all the View One stuff….leave it out…and focus strictly on the two sides of Christianity that you have discovered and very interestingly described. Maybe find two good names besides Views for them (don’t call current View Two “fundamentalist” but maybe “traditional”, and for example perhaps you could call View Three “progressive”, but you might find better terms). I really think that with a bit more effort your manuscript might interest some theological presses out there. And hey, if ya can’t find time to do it while working where you’re working now, then get that smart and good looking wife of yours to pay the bills while you go to seminary or grad school, and heck, you’ve already got your dissertation!

Comments on Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

             There has been a lot in the media lately about NDEs. I trust you read the recent, and quite fascinating, New Yorker article about a guy who was struck by lightening, experienced a classic NDE, and subsequently became consumed with a passion for composing and playing piano music, even though he had seldom touched a piano in his life. I found this very interesting on several levels, since as you know I think music and other forms of creativity have some kind of spiritual basis.
           On the other hand, several neurologists have been poo-pooing the whole NDE thing, saying it is probably a function of brain trauma. In fact, one physician who performs numerous high-risk brain operations a year, has actually put some kind of unique object on the ceiling of his operating room that can only be seen from a high viewpoint. He has devised this as a test to see if the “spirit” is truly “floating” about the room during NDEs, and he proposes to test the NDEers as to whether they saw this object.
         I don’t know if I previously mentioned reading a book called The Afterlife Experience, by Gary Schwartz, subtitled “Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death.” Dr. Schwartz is professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery at the University of Arizona. It’s a very interesting book, but ultimately I think it fails to live up to that subtitle. Basically, Schwartz did numerous tests using mediums to contact the departed, through sessions with relatives of the departed. The object in each case was to uncover information that could only be coming from the departed. I found the book convincing about one thing: that there are people (i.e., the mediums, at least some of them) who definitely do have psychic powers most people do not have. The experiments were carefully conducted to disallow any passing of information to the medium through non-psychic means. And a lot of impressive information was in fact gathered. But my own conclusion was that the information these mediums successfully got was much more likely to be coming from the relative than from the departed.
         I actually wrote to Dr. Schwartz about his book, and I want to share with you something I said to him:

It seems to me that experiments could be set up to deal with this issue. Granted, they would have to be very long-term experiments of an unusual nature. What I am suggesting is that a group of volunteers be established who agree to, AFTER THEY DIE, communicate with the living in experimental settings such as yours. To prove that they ARE communicating from the afterlife, before they die they would simply create a message or other information that ONLY THEY know the nature of, and lock it away in a vault until after their deaths. This information could be as simple a series of numbers, or a sentence revealing some fact that can be verified but which the sitter cannot possibly have known. This information would only be retrieved from the vault and compared to the medium’s information AFTER it had supposedly been retrieved from the afterlife. Of course, our limited lifespans make this a long-term experiment where the experimentor himself may not be around to see the results. Still, with such tools as the internet, I believe it would be quite easy to set up such an experiment with thousands of willing participants. I am betting YOU, for example, would be willing to agree to those conditions in YOUR afterlife.

Now I ask you, Bob and Steve, would YOU be willing to sign on to such an experiment? If not, I would like to know your reasons why. I personally would like to see more inquiries like Dr. Schwartz’s, where proven analytical and scientific techniques are applied to spiritual, psychic, and other mysterious phenomena.

Bob’s comments on Steve’s belief system:

        I have to say I am highly skeptical that Steve rejects, as Bob wants to think, “the idea that one’s belief in a particular savior, religion, or set of doctrines is critical or determinative of the positive or negative nature of the afterlife.” Although I do not think of Steve as a “fundamentalist” Christian, I think he does believe one particular savior IS critical to the nature of our afterlife. And if I’m wrong about that, then I am at least sure that he feels some belief systems are just too far off the mark (which of course we all agree on, but my problem is I fear my OWN belief system is in that category….but probably not Bob’s!).

Eternal separation from God:

In thinking about the idea of eternal separation from God as a consequence of our actions and thoughts, it occurs to me, as it has many times in the past, that this description can easily be applied to our present existence. (Well, not the “eternal” part, but the separation part.) And I have to admit that upon occasion as I look around me at this world, and in particular our current culture of selfishness, self-absorption, materialism, inequality, brutality, etc., I get pretty down on the human race, and I come close to seriously entertaining the idea that we are living presently in hell, or a kind of hell. When I get in that mode (or mood) I can almost believe that our spirits have been sent here as a kind of prison sentence. (I would add in passing that this is somewhat similar to what I have been able to find out about the ultimate beliefs behind Scientology (except I think they believe we were put on this planet eons ago by some other (alien) race and “attached” in some way to the humanoid animals we evolved from….a fitting theory for a “religion” made up out of whole cloth by a very shady science-fiction writer. I can guarantee Steve doesn’t think that one’ll getya into heaven!).

        But to return to the punishment idea, I agree with Bob and some of his View Three theorists that punishment that is eternal in duration seems offensive to reason and to our innate sense of justice (a sense which, I have to think, God must have built into us). I just cannot countenance the idea of an infinite and merciful God irreparably and eternally separating us from that mercy on the basis of the attitudes and actions we take during our very finite lifetimes. And I agree that is especially true when considering the tremendous differences in individual circumstances – for example in terms of life spans, quality of childhoods, living environments, ideas exposed to, reasoning capacity, economic circumstances, etc., etc.
         I am not ready to respond to Bob's recent post #135.  However, after his post #133 , Steve came back pretty strong on the idea of punishment. I think he believes that practitioners of liberal or progressive religions are too quick and too “wishfully thinking” when they try to marginalize ye old punishment idea. And he does make some good points with his comparisons between God’s role and our parenting roles – that’s something all three of us as fathers know the truth of. I think he’s right to say that there is, and there must be, such a thing as loving punishment for unacceptable behavior.
         When I consider the idea of loving punishment, I agree that for it to be truly loving it must allow for corrections and second chances, and I know Steve would agree with that……at least during a lifetime. That is to say: if a person repents of his wrong behavior and is able to change himself in a way that allows him to truly see that behavior as wrong and refrain from it, then surely in the eyes of god he is no longer condemned to punishment. Now, that is a simple statement that ignores lots of devils in the details, about which we have differing opinions, including what exact behaviors (abortion? homosexuality?) are truly “wrong,” but bear with me as I try to make a different kind of point.
         As I said, Steve would agree about second chances during a lifetime. But my question is: if a person does not “repent” and “dies in sin,” then are his chances for redemption over, used up, and gone forever with eternal punishment his fate? Three score and ten years of life is nothing compared to eternity, and so neither eternal punishment nor “you only go around once” seem a fair arrangement. And what about the victims (as opposed to the perpetrators) of sin – the person who is cheated, tortured, raped, or murdered by someone. (I can think of few “sins” where some other person or living being is not harmed in some way. Even if the perpetrator repents and is truly changed and forgiven, the victim’s experience remains virtually the same….his or her suffering is not undone.) Moreover, we know for certain that many many “sinners” are never punished during their lifetimes. Many a murderer, thief, and rapist is never caught, and many a tax evader lives high on the hog for lifetime. Must we believe that there is only one time around in life, and only in its afterlife he receives his punishment?

         Where am I going with all this? I suspect you already know. The one arrangement that takes all the above situations, questions, seeming inequities, and metaphysical dilemmas (which I have barely even sketched) and answers them all is: karmic justice over multiple lifetimes. I am defining karma as a metaphysical law whereby we inherit the consequences of our actions. That may be done in the same lifetime or in a hundred, but ultimately we all evolve upward toward God by reaping what we sow and learning to sow better. (This also fits perfectly into the idea of life as a kind of school, as some of Bob’s favorite ministers picture it, only it might be more of a reform school!). In simple illustrative terms, the rapist will eventually experience a fate of suffering equal to the suffering he has caused his victim. The victim herself is working off the bad karma from suffering she herself caused someone else in one life or another. Both are paying their debts, but eventually will be debt-free. No one is denied union with god, but everyone must earn, or at least achieve it through right living.
         This is essentially the teaching of Hinduism and some forms, I believe, of Buddhism (which evolved from Hinduism). Why am I not, then, a Hindu or a Buddhist? Because, from this great Western distance, even though I am attracted to the metaphysical ideas (I might even say truths) of these faiths, I think I clearly see their down (or wrongheaded) sides. They are most obviously demonstrated in the still-existing caste system among many Hindus, who justify not lifting a finger to help the poor and downtrodden because they feel they “deserve” their state for sins of the past, or argue that they would be interfering with karma. Ironically, I believe that by ignoring or taking a hands-off approach to suffering, many Hindus are creating bad karma for themselves through a sin of omission. As for the Buddhists, although you know I find their meditation techniques very helpful, I find their tendency to retreat from normal life into monastic isolation ultimately an escapist approach (though I admit I could be wrong about that).
         I do, however, believe that we must reap what we sow, one way or another. And so I suppose Steve could say that I ultimately buy into his beliefs about punishment. I basically believe in karma. But it is important to clarify that by noting that I believe karma is an aspect or, if you will, a tool of God. In that sense, Steve could say it is a tool of punishment when punishment is called for (and at the same time a mechanism for reward or a ladder upward). I believe it is a “law” that functions just as reliably as the law of gravity or any other known characteristic of the universe. Unfortunately, we cannot measure this law, because it plays itself out beyond the limits of our lifetimes, one way or another.

         How does our personal relationship with God, or attempt at such through such means as prayer, affect karma? Well that is a subject I have been ruminating on for some time, with a changing opinion over that time. I confess I was surprised to read this, which Bob said in #133 so forthrightly: “I do not believe that a divine being actively intervenes to protect or bless or punish people during their earthly lives.” Bob, does that also mean you think prayer, then, is completely ineffective? I’m betting you don’t really believe that, but I would like to know more specifically about your beliefs concerning the efficacy of prayer. I will reserve for a future piece my current opinions, but I will say now that I seem to be slowly changing my opinion about the effectiveness of prayer – and toward a measured acceptance of intervention by God. And I’m betting that’s something you find surprising.

(137) Life and Afterlife: Our Distinctions and Similarities

Author:  STEVE
In response to John (Bob listening):

Distinctions
        After I read your last piece, a distinction between our views of life and the afterlife become a little clearer for me. Let me take a stab at a short summary of our distinctions.
        For Bob, it doesn’t seem fair (or true) that God gives us only one lifetime in which the choices we make have eternal consequences. Thus, he rejects the notion that a loving God would allow us to endure eternity in pain. Surely, God must give us a break in the afterlife. (My thoughts on this are written in a previous piece.)
        John also appears to believe it isn’t fair for God to give us only one lifetime “to get it right” or should I say, “get right with God” in preparation for eternity. However, his logic takes him down a path to a different conclusion than Bob. He postulates that God gives us multiple lifetimes to get it right – to work toward a level of goodness that finally is sufficient for merit-based entry in God’s eternal, blissful Kingdom. In some ways, this idea seems a bit of a stretch even for John, for it implies that victims get what they deserve for an offense committed in some previous life. I also disagree on another significant point – works versus grace. As I’ve noted in several previous pieces, we cannot earn our way to goodness – our relationship with God depends on his willingness to forgive.
        I believe God is loving and God is fair (just). God gives us one lifetime, but multiple opportunities, to draw closer to him. In fact, he grants us the free gift of his Holy Spirit to enable us to walk more closely with him. Anytime along our life’s journey we can choose to accept God’s guidance and empowering spiritual help to overcome our self-centered tendencies. Tongue in cheek, I say to John, I agree we may be born again -- but in this lifetime, not multiple subsequent ones. “When a person becomes a follower of Christ, he becomes a brand new person inside. He is not the same anymore. A new life has begun!” (1Corinthians 12: 17)

A Similarity?
        We’ve had multiple discussions on what gains us entry to Heaven. These have often revolved around your criticism of close-minded Christians who believe their faith is the only true faith and the only gateway into Heaven. I suggest a debate that centers on entry into Heaven misses the goal of faith. I believe, and perhaps you both agree, that the goal of faith is to draw closer to God and closer to our fellow man. In the words of the Bible: (1) to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and (2) to love our neighbors as ourselves. Most importantly, both components must be active.
Love for God, without love for neighbor, becomes religious zealotry. When carried to an extreme, this one dimensional faith could lead a person to near monastic withdrawal from all human contact. Another form of this zealotry could lead to extremist dedication to the annihilation of others who do not share one’s faith.
Love for neighbor, narrowly defined as those like us -- without love for God or accountability to him -- can lead to radical nationalism when carried to an extreme. On a small scale, violent gangs could be another example.
        In short, I would say a life-enriching faith is one that motivates us to seek unity with God and to lovingly serve our neighbor – broadly defined to include even our enemies. Any belief system built upon these twin pillars of principled desire, and a recognition we need God’s help to act upon them, would provide blessings throughout our lives and presumably throughout eternity.

(138) God's Intervention, or Lack Thereof

Author:  STEVE
To: Bob (John listening, probably with amusement at our sparring),

            I’ll start with some miscellaneous clarifications and debate on Bob’s latest piece. But I’ll end with what I hope are some conciliatory remarks.
         Bob assails my logic. 1) Parents reward and punish. 2) God is like human parents. Thus, God rewards and punishes. Bob contends that premise two is false, thus the conclusion is erroneous. Bob says God plays by different rules than human parents. What are those rules or does He keep them a mystery? Is there any way or any place for us humans to get a glimpse of his rules? (I don’t think God keeps his ways or his expectations hidden from us. You know my answer is the Bible, but I’m guessing you have other sources.)
         Bob also finds another fault in my logic. If God is like a parent, how can I suggest that a parent would condemn their child to eternal separation. You misunderstand. I believe children can wander from their parents, rebel, and deliberately remain estranged. I think we can do the same to God.
         I’m not talking about infants – we touched on that topic maybe 100 pieces ago. I’m talking about those of us who are confronted with choices about how we act in response to God.
         Along those lines, you say it is illogical for God to accept one inmate who might have heard my lesson and eternally reject another who had not. Come on. God has many ways of reaching that inmate, through other inmates, friends, family, or even a guard.
         Now, I’ll dig a little deeper into your logic. If God remains aloof with higher purposes that remain a mystery to us, then what’s the point of praying and what’s the point of thanking? If I’m in trouble, why pray? God won’t intervene. If I feel blessed, why thank? God had nothing to do with that blessing.
         Perhaps this gets to the very essence of our difference in how you and I might relate differently to God. I choose to relate to God on a more personal level, thus I attribute some of the good and bad in my life to his presence. Let me be more precise. Bad things that happen aren’t necessarily punishment. God doesn’t guarantee there won’t be storms in my life, but he promises to prevent them from capsizing my boat. Those storms are special opportunities for me to draw closer to him.
         To me, God is not aloof. The premise of the New Testament is that God cares so much that he came to us in human form to demonstrate his love and explain his expectations. Even if you don’t believe Jesus is divine, God accomplished much through him. Surely, you would admit Jesus had a profound spiritual impact on a small band of followers and on millions in the centuries that followed.
         It seems you enjoy relating to God at a different level. What most stimulates you is the attempt to understand his nature. Reading and writing about him give you great pleasure. You love to explore the essence of God, in your role as a “spiritual progressive.” That’s okay. I’m sure God is out there welcoming engagement in your type of relationship, mine, and countless other types.
         Let me take another conciliatory step in your direction. A paraphrase from Hebrews 11 illuminates. Some Christians were miraculously spared in a den of lions. Others were devoured. Was one group blessed by God and the other punished? No. The passage explains that God has promised greater things ahead for both (eternal unity with him). So in a sense, I agree with your belief that despite all the suffering, the wrong-doing, and the evil, all will be well beyond this lifetime.
         You trust that God is good despite his non-intervention in our lives. He must have a higher reason. I trust that God is wise and good when he doesn’t intervene and when he does.

(139) Logic Is Not a Path to God

Author:  JOHN
To: Mostly Bob, Steve Perking Up His Ears

Warning warning: I have no idea what I’m about to say, but something wants to be said, so I’m going to let it go where it will. Maybe I’m reacting to what I see as an over-emphasis on logic in Bob’s last piece. Well I ain’t going to try to be logical, or even organized!

         So first, I have to say that I found Bob’s attitude about the possibility of God intervening in our lives entirely too dismissive and too reliant on what he obviously sees as irrefutable “logic.” Many a philosopher throughout history has attempted to either prove or disprove God’s existence or aspects of his relationship to us through the “logical premise” approach, and what I have read of that has ultimately been unconvincing and left me cold.
        Yes, Bob’s arguments "make sense" according to the rules of logic, but logic itself is a limited human tool that breaks down when you try to apply it to the really big questions. It is certainly illogical that the universe could burst into being out of nothing, but here we are, poking each other in the chops via the internet while we sit on this ball of earth as it goes rolling around the sun, which goes rolling around the galaxy, which goes rolling around the universe.
        I believe there are other things around that just may bring us closer to a knowledge of God than logic: such things as revelation, epiphany, poetry, meditation, instinct, music, art, emotion, and yes, faith and prayer just to name a few. And none of those have anything at all to do with logic.
        As for me, I find it quite easy to throw logic aside and say God could be constantly intervening in our lives. Now you may think I am contradicting myself in my previous pieces, and to some degree perhaps I am, because as I hinted last time my beliefs seem to be changing. But also, what I tried to say before is that I don’t believe God intervenes in ways that we can prove or necessarily detect, and that’s saying something quite different than saying he is not intervening. We must be open, I think, to the idea that God acts upon our lives, both individually and in mass, but does so in ways we are not able to identify or trace. In fact, that might be exactly the case, exactly the nature of our existence and our relationship with or to God. (I am tempted to once again get into the issue of faith versus proof here, but I will let it lie).
        Further, I don’t find Steve’s analogies involving the parent and child far afield at all. In fact I would take them furher. Think for a moment about your relationship to your daughter when she was still an infant. Most of the actualities of her life, moment to moment, were in fact determined by you to a great degree, but she did not have the ability (yet) to perceive this. Every night she was placed in a protective crib of certain dimensions and design, which you had acquired probably even before she was born. She slept on sheets you chose, in a room where you opened or closed the window and set the thermostat, in a house you acquired before she was born. In the morning she was dressed in clothes you picked and bought for her, was placed in a high chair you chose, was fed the strained carrots and the applesauce you chose, was placed in a playpen or the back seat of your car, went where you took her, saw what you gave her the opportunity to see, etc., etc., etc., all the day long, for many months. Obviously, YOU intervened in her life heavily and constantly without her understanding much of the specifics of that intervention. Only later as she became more independently conscious and aware could she begin to appreciate that it was ma and pa and not chance forces that were operating on her and determining much of her very existence.
        Granted that’s a rather simple analogy, but Bob’s latest has me thinking that his God is way smaller than I assumed. My concept of (better to say my belief in) God comes down to this: if I am going to accept his existence as God, then I also have to think that he is aware of every single thing that happens to every one of us, and every thing that passes through every one of our consciousnesses. Further, either through willful intervention or through the universal laws (i.e.. karma or something like it) which God himself has set up, God COULD very well be continuously placing experiences in our path, but in such a way that we cannot attribute them to him. I am talking about moment to moment living, moment to moment consciousness, moment to moment obstacles, challenges, learning experiences, and perhaps even rewards and punishments. Bob accepts the idea of earthly life as a kind of schooling; well then how exactly does he think that schooling is accomplished? Bob sometimes speaks of “serendipity,” which I had until now assumed meant some form of intervention by God, but either I misunderstood or, has he changed his opinion?

           And I ask again (and so is Steve asking) a highly related question: Does Bob believe that prayer is completely useless? How about a direct answer to that one, Bob? As for me, it is a question I have been seriously contemplating lately. And what has come out of that contemplation is, I guess, a kind of sub-question, which is this: Is it not possible that whether God acts to answer our prayers (again maybe without our ability to prove it) at least partly depends on what we pray for? That was an awful sentence but English majors have a special license for those.
        I ask myself, what would seem to be the “right” things to pray for? And immediately I find it much easier to come up with things I intuitively feel (got that Bob? Intuitively!) it would NOT be “right” to pray for. Surely it would not be right to pray for riches, for fame, for status, for sexual favors, for injury to someone, or other things that are purely selfish or vindictive. If one does, then I go back to that old joke that perhaps has a lot of truth to it: “God answers ALL prayers; it’s just that sometimes the answer is NO.”
        Then what does my intuition tell me are things I CAN (and perhaps should) pray for? Wisdom, guidance, perhaps courage, help in getting my heart right about various issues, help in overcoming the selfishness of my ego, intervention to help others who are in need, intervention to correct the horrors as war, genocide, disaster, or disease, and perhaps wisdom for our not-so-wise leaders. And I am….how to say this?….experimenting with these kinds of prayers. I don’t mean testing God. I mean trying to limit my prayers to such things. Are you surprised that I even pray? Well dare I add that in many cases there does seem to be a change that results from those prayers --and a change in the direction I am seeking.
           All this possibly seems out of character for me, huh? What can I say? I grow older (just passed my 60^th birthday) and mortality no doubt has something to do with it. But also, my retirement simply has given me additional time to actually examine (I want to say meditate upon) my own attitudes toward various things.

        Here’s another. (Note: that was a transition.) You will certainly recall my experience (experiment?) listening to Christian radio and how negatively I reacted to it. Lately I have been listening some more, and asking myself exactly why I had that reaction. Well, the answers to that are still the same, and include (1) way too much certainly by commentators about the meaning of the scriptures, (2) way too much emphasis on salvation and an obvious assumption that the commentators themselves are in fact saved, (3) way to much support for political leaders whose attitudes seem very UN-Christian to me, and (4) more emphasis on the role of Jesus (as opposed to God) than I can readily accept.
           Most of those still apply. However, I find that in regard to #4, if I simply substitute God for Jesus is nearly every point the radio commentators make, I am able to relate to their point of view and accept their beliefs much more readily. In addition, when I listen to the kinds of advice that certain Christian (“family values”) commentators give regarding such important issues as child-rearing, dealing with tragedy, daily interactions with others, I find that I agree with much of what they are saying.
        And finally, I have also lately been consciously trying to listen to Christian music on the radio (which Steve tells me somewhat discouragingly is “big business”). I had always been dismissive of this music….simply switching the channel when it started playing. But I find when I really listen to these songs, many of them appear to be intensely heart-felt and are dealing with issues that are to be found nowhere else in popular media (except to a lesser degree in Country music, about which I seem to be experiencing a similar appreciation for the same reason).
           Now, Steve is probably nodding and thinking, hey there’s hope for this guy yet. Well, not so fast. I still have HUGE problems with a lot of issues (some of which neither of you guys appear willing to even comment on): homosexuality and abortion to name two. And looking at the Episcopal church these days, it appears I am not alone in having problems with the church’s stands on these issues.

        Well, this horse is threatening to ride off in all directions, so I’m going to dismount. But just to summarize, in reverse order: (A) I am finding a new sympathy for certain aspects of Christianity that I formerly tended to dismiss, and (B) God is never going to be found through logic.