Faith and the Bible
November 30th, 2006 by 
drunkentune
I. Background: Is this pushing it too far?
I know this is a touchy topic, but I'd like to begin examining the Bible. I won't be arguing that the Bible is errant on issues, as per soulster's rule #5. Instead, I'll focus on evidence. My argument may offend you, but I hope my honest look at a story of the Bible will show why atheists do not believe. I'm not trying to deconvert anyone. I am only providing an issue that interests me.
During heated debates with Christians, sometimes I would ask God to appear before me, or guess a number I was thinking of, or some other flippant remark intending to put the Christian in a bind. If God can do everything, the logic went, then he could easily guess a number, stop gravity for a moment, strike me with lightning, or something that a skeptic such as myself could see as insurmountable proof of God's existence. You see, to me, if it can't be measured or quantified in some way, than it doesn't really exist. Of course, it could be an idea, or a philosophy, or another construct humanity forms in our boredom, but if I can't test for God's existence, than if I were to be a Christian, I would have to rely on a different faith than what soulster professes. I'd have to believe in something that has no positive evidence.
But what if we could test to see if God exists?
The responses from Christians I received almost always followed these three common paths:
1. "The Bible says that one is not to tempt (test) God’s existence."
2. "To test for God would remove faith."
3. "Who are you to question God's word?"
There's certainly religious precedent for such statements. For example,
“Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God.” [Deuteronomy 6:16]
“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” [Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12] [NOTE: I'll be quoting from my own KJV, but providing links to the New International Version's translation.]
Who am I to question God’s word? The Christian and I be left at an impasse, where not much else could be said. Really, how are you supposed to respond to the ultimate comeback?
Atheist: “Can God show himself?”
Christian: “Of course God can. God exists, he can show himself to you, but chooses not to as a test of faith/the Bible says not to/don't question God.” As a skeptic, I don’t find this to bolster evidence for God’s existence.
Some Christians may find evidence through other ways, such as prophecies Jesus purportedly fulfilled, but to me, I cannot take the Bible on its word without some form of test.
II. I'll be quoting the Bible a lot from here on
If it is given for the sake of argument that the god described in the Bible does exist, then I believe it would be generally agreed that it is possible to communicate with God. I’d like to propose something to the general Christian response: If we assume that God exists, while The Bible says on several occasions not to test for God’s existence, it might be permissible to do so. That is, if the men in the Bible tested for God’s existence, or asked for proof, and did not suffer for the request, then we would not suffer to test for God's existence. In fact, if the New Testament and Torah (Old Testament) show God more than willing to present himself, it would be reasonable to test for God’s existence.
It’s obvious that it my argument hinges on the word of the Bible. Now, humor me for a minute, but occasionally a Christian will retort with, as Steven Carr points out,
Should non-believers remember that many believers think they are engaged in spiritual warfare, and that if you know more about the Bible than they do, they will often say that even Satan can quote scripture? [comment #9 of “How to Talk to Believers”]
It is true that I am an atheist, and I do believe that the Bible is like any other historic text. If I was to analyze the words of the Bible impartially, I hope you can agree that I am not trying to twist scripture to fit any agenda.
There is an occasion in the Old Testament when Elijah tests for God's existence. In this case, he has no faith. Instead, he knows God exists.
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. …Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. …And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. (1 Kings 18:21-24)
Elijah the prophet faces off against 450 prophets of Baal. It seems he has the cards stacked against him, so a deal is struck: Both will show a crowd that their god exists by asking their god to create fire.
…[The prophets of Baal] called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. …Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. (ibid, 18:26-27)
The prophets fail miserably at calling forth Baal. Elijah asks them if their god has stepped out for a minute. I believe that it is fair for an atheist to ask in a more cordial fashion of the Christian the very same. If we were to ask God to ignite timber, and the timber did not spontaneously light, it would be reasonable to ask, "Where is God? Does God not listen to me?"
… And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. …And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. (ibid, 18:30-37)
Elijah then tests for the existence of his god.
Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God. (ibid, 18:39)
And behold, God did follow through. A fire was set. The test was answered by God. In light of the evidence, if the Bible is true, it stands to reason that we only need to ask God to reveal himself to us, and God should appear. If God does not appear, than I believe it is safe to assume that the existence of God is debatable. Until shown otherwise, the atheist is allowed to be secure in his assertion that the God of the Bible will not present itself, even when doing so would convert the atheist, and God has converted in this way many times in the past. We should not test for God, yet when people do test for God, he willingly shows himself. They are not struck down by lightning or damned to Hellfire.
If we take the Bible literally, both Jesus and God did provide proof. If that is so, why cannot we test for God?
III. I like tables. Aren't they pretty?
| Old Testament | Gideon asks God to dry wool set out overnight as evidence for his existence (Judges 6:36-40). | Isaiah asks God to change the shadow of the sun 10 degrees as evidence for his existence (2 Kings 20:8-11). |
| New Testament | Thomas asks to touch Christ’s wounds as evidence for his resurrection (John 20:24-29). | Jesus appears before hundreds as evidence for his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5-9, Matthew 28:1-10, Luke 24:13-31, etc.). |
| Today | I ask God to unlock a sealed box as evidence for his existence. | I ask to see Christ's body as evidence for his resurrection. |
December 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pm
This seems fair. I have always been sort of bugged by that passage about Elijah vs the Baal priests. It’s a little “pat.” Especially since the same Elijah was the one who heard the “still small voice” of God, the antithesis of fire-from-the-sky.
I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but God, who desires our free-will choice for him (at least in Catholic theology) typically doesn’t impinge on that freewill by spectacular acts of miracle.
Love is built on that stepping outside of our bounds: there’s no real way to prove your wife/girlfriend will never cheat on you, and in fact statistics tell you that most people DO cheat, but still you have faith that she won’t.
Though… even if God DID reveal himself with spectacular miracle, if tomorrow your alphabet soup spelled out “HELLO ITS ME GOD” …would you believe? I would guess that most atheists would look for a naturalistic explanation for such an event.
I remember a time that I wavered heavily between theism and atheism, I couldn’t decide, some days one side seemed beyond disproof, some days the other. I eventually simply decided that I had to make some kind of choice, and so… I would have faith. And build my life thusly, even on the days when I didn’t really feel like he was real. I suppose many atheists would view that as intellectual suicide, though, many atheists seem to mix all theists into the “fundie flat-earther anti-Darwin” bag.
Hmmm. That almost certainly doesn’t answer your question at all.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:34 pm
ben, Thanks for your comment.
While miracles may not be a typical occurrence, the Bible has numerous occasions of miracles taking place: the Twelve Plagues leveled against the Egyptians and the presentation of the Ten Commandments immediately spring to mind. I find it difficult to reconcile this with the fact that miracles don't happen today.
I haven't eaten Alphabet Soup since I was a child, but I'll humor your thought experiment: I admit that I'd probably try to find a naturalistic explanation for this. I'm a skeptic when it comes to these kinds of things. If I couldn't find one, I might be convinced. That's why the evidence I ask for I cannot possibly rationalize with a naturalistic answer, namely, "I ask God to unlock a sealed box as evidence for his existence."
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you two personal questions: 1. Why did you choose the particular form of theism you practice now over other forms of theism? 2. Why in the end did you choose faith? To me, that sounds like a false dichotomy. The choices seem to me to be instead of religion vs. atheism, it's more fitting to be all reigions vs. each other, vs. atheism.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:28 pm
I'm not sure that people are using "you shouldn't test the Lord your God" correctly in your case. For one thing, according you, he is not the Lord your God, so I don't think the command addresses you. Any one familiar with covenant theology would agree with this. It would be like trying to bind the Sabbath on a Gentile.
Second, when Jesus interprets this command during his temptation, he seems to see it relationally, namely that Satan wants him to test how much God loves him and how important he is to God, especially in front of the people. Its like me testing my wife to see if she loves me, and worst testing her in public. Doing so harms the relationship. In the same way, testing God is harmful, not because he wants to hide or it breaks some rule about our freewill, but because we humans tend to allow such testing to quickly become manipulation and control, as our infantile behavior with our parents proves [see John 6, where Jesus avoids doing a miracle the people want as proof of his identity for this reason]. A believer should be encountering the presence of God on a regular basis, even if not in miracles, so such tests are as tricky as a child trying to get Mom to prove her love though she cares daily for the child.
As far as the tests you quote from the Bible, I would point out one thing, which I think you noted above. All the people performing these tests believed in the existence of God. I think it important to note that nowhere in the Biblical narrative does anyone test for the existence of God. Perhaps that was because atheism was so rare at the time. Deities were assumed as pre-modern tribalism and early pantheistic feudalism was the rule. It was more a question of which god to worship.
Maybe a better supporting text would be the story of Jacob. When Jacob encounters Yahweh for the first time he says:
Two wives, a lot of sheep, and at least fourteen years later, Jacob comes back to the same place and, because all the terms of his vow have been met, he makes Yahweh is God [Gensis 31, 35]. While Jacob believed in the existence of this God Yahweh, it wasn't until after the long-term tests that he made Yahweh his God, which is more similar to the test you propose at the end than any of the others.
If your serious about your test, I recommend you work with a believer on it, to bring it within the parameters of the narratives. Perhaps, one day we'll try one of your tests together. But not yet.
Also, it concerns me that, in response to ben's alphabet soup thing that you say you'd try and find a naturalistic explanation. That seems to indicate that the experiment you suggest above isn't suitable since there could be naturalistic explanations for anything done in material reality, especially if your beginning assumption is materialism. If people claim a dead man came back to life after three days and others dismissed it saying they stole his body, how hard would it be to say someone snuck in and unsealed your box? You need an experiment that eliminates all other variables and only leaves one explanation to correctly test your hypothesis.
You're right. If miracles do not happen today, or at least in the last couple of centuries, we should doubt if they ever happened in the Bible. We should note that, according to biblical history which spans many centuries, miracles happened only occassionally with the appearance of something important, and many people went their whole lives without seeing one (some century long gaps occur without a miralce). Miracles have never been the basis for faith, althought they happen to be a popular disproof of theism, based on the assumptions of modernism (namely that there is nothing supernatural) that they will always fail. On the other hand, Jesus promised his followers they would "do greater works than these," so miracles should not be too rare amoung Christians if Jesus keeps his promises.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Hi drunkentune,
Greetings. These cases you cite are not "tests for the existence of God". Thomas already knew that Jesus existed, he just didn't know the fullness of who he was whereas Elijah knew both. Read the passages again (I just did). A good idea is to get a newer English translation (at least the NKJV), Walmart has them on sale.
The Bible has many examples of believers asking for proof of God's intentions. God answers the way He pleases, and in His own time. Wouldn't God be a separate entity anyway? Just because He could do anything doesn't mean He has to do everything we ask [He doesn't have to open your box, does He? Is there something inside it He might need?].
Wouldn't you be projecting you're own demands and presuppositions into your method of falsification? And if God showed up in all His glory wouldn't we be flocking to Him out of sheer terror, and not love? The question of why God does reveal Himself and other times He does not is rather moot. As far as I know Britney Spears didn't reveal herself today, but I'm sure she still exists! [Ok, I'm not sure of that theology]
As far as those "three common paths" Christians take, they're very weak.
1. "The Bible says that one is not to tempt (test) God’s existence." What is it? Tempt or test? [It's actually tempt] Another reason you need to update your Bible sources, the KJV had a "tempt/test" problem in the translation. Many scholars, reviewing the original Hebrew and Greek faulted the KJV for its confusion of those two words.
Certainly one is not to "tempt" God. For instance, if I say "God, if you make me win the Lottery tonight, I'll believe in you." What good is that? I don't really believe in Him anyway. Like Satan, I just want Him to "show me the money". Note that the folks that God answered were all true believers. God proved nothing to them they didn't already believe, Thomas being the exception [proximity].
2. "To test for God would remove faith." Why would anyone who believes in God have to test for Him? [again its "tempt"] What did they believe in the first place? Some Christians are afraid to study the Big Bang, string theory, evolution, or anything that might challenge their faith, and that's a shame. "Seek and you shall find" - seeking is testing.
3. "Who are you to question God's word?" Ah, yes. "You gotta believe!" The College of Yogi Berra Apologetics never existed because "you gotta believe" is not an argument. Look up Joshua 24:15 probably one of the most pivotal moments in all the Bible - you are free to question God's Word because you are a child of His, and He is free.
Last, your question to Ben - Why did you choose the particular form of theism you practice now over other forms of theism? IMO I am the particular form that was chosen to be, not God. That is logical - if God exists "what form of theism" I "practice" is a moot point, no? I am growing in my relationship with God; a work in progress.
My last thought, if you don't choose anything, you will be chosen by something else. As Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody".
I hope this response enhances the conversation.
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 am
Jim, thanks for your response and welcome to our blog. Yes, be careful about any theology that involves Britney Spears as an example ;).
I was trying very carefully in my comment above not to seem like I was trying to explain away the "problem of miracles" while making some pointers on drunkentune's post. I think, far to often, believers are seen chickening out on miracles and trying to use clever (or not so clever) arguments to wiggle out of the whole thing. I was wondering if you felt the same and would agree that we don't want to send the message that we are avoiding the miracle or supernatural thing.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:11 am
Hi soulster
Miracles happen all the time. Diseases go away or people see a transformation in someone (I received the complement once that it was as if I’d been “abducted by aliens”) etc. As for supernatural - “above nature” - I think they’re is ample evidence of a driving force both physical and spiritual. What is life itself but that signal we’re looking for in the SETI program which stands out against the backdrop of nature? On one hand we avoid being shut into the atheists’ box, I don’t avoid miracles or the supernatural. Often the problem is semantic, as I think this one was.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 am
Jim,
These examples you give don't sound like miracles to me, a "transgression of a law of nature…" (Hume, 123) They sound like people changing their habits or recovering from diseases. No laws of nature are bent or broken so that someone may recover from a disease. There is something called a regressive fallacy. There are natural and inevitable fluctuations of things when ascribing causes to them (Gilovich 1993: 26). Diseases naturally fluctuate in severity, as do people's moods. While you may believe these situations to be miracles, they can all be described as naturally occurring phenomenon without resorting to another hypothesis. When explaining reasons for an event, don't posit more than is necessary.
I don't see evidence for this. SETI is looking for intelligent life through radio waves. Our television signals "stand out against the backdrop of nature", but they are still natural. Instead, they are searching for patterns that could be advanced technology.
Positing that there is a "driving force both physical and spiritual" is different than showing that this force exists. Hume gives an eloquent example of this. The more ancient a people are, the greater the tendency for miracles to flourish.
This does not mean that miracles do not occur. The evidence points to miracles being a process of attributing results to magical answers, not magic itself.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:13 am
soulster,
Thanks for the extended comment. You brought up some insightful ideas that I’m still mulling over. I’d like to respond to a few passages.
I think this is a very interesting take on the matter. I’m not sure I agree with it, since there are difficulties in ascribing commandments to the Israelites or Gentiles.
I think it’s a moot point. If their argument falls apart because of your refutation, than I should be able to test for God.
I like your position on this. I certainly don’t agree with it, but it makes sense in a biblical framework.
While this may be true, I’d counter, there are a number of holy men from the Bible (some quoted above) that experience God firsthand, or use his existence to win an argument (such as against the followers of Baal). In the case I set forward, I wouldn’t be trying to control or manipulate his existence.
That’s a good point, but couldn’t a Christian then “ask God to unlock a sealed box as evidence for his existence.�
I think this is fair. Perhaps we will some day.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
I like the convo and the posts you have going on in here (I will also add you as a link) - it’s not everyday you meet some of these thinkers you have posting on here - I feel very enlightened by their words (encouraged even).
As far as testing God goes, well you do lay a good scriptural foundation down and even examples from the OT to the NT. I enjoy your research on the subject.
Test away. Who am I, as a Christian, to say not to? If you think this will reveal either the nature of God or the non-existence of God. I won’t be surprised either way if there is or isn’t no God or something doesn’t happen on your behalf - the box doesn’t get opened or maybe it does.
The real question might always be ending up with ‘why did or didn’t it happen?’. On this, you will find no answer except the one you choose to believe (ie: have faith in that answer).
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
[quote] 1. Why did you choose the particular form of theism you practice now over other forms of theism? 2. Why in the end did you choose faith?[/quote]
Answering #2 first, I chose faith partly because atheism depressed the hell out of me and seemed unlikely, and as long as I was 50/50 on what the truth was, I might as well go with the one that seems real on an intuitive level. Not exactly up to the standards of science, but life moves fast and I needed to begin.
The answer to #1 was long and convoluted, but ultimately I am Catholic because after lots and lots of searching, I belive that, if ANY religion is true, then it is. Well, either that or mmmaybe Eastern Orthodoxy. But my parents are Catholic, so there ya go. I suppose, in the eyes of some atheists, that last sentence somehow totally invalidates any other reason I might have for believing in God. Oh well.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
According to covenant theology in the narrative itself, the Law of Moses was something that the people agreed to accept. They did so both before and after the Law was given [Exodus 19, 24, Deuteronomy 29]. By definition, Jews considered Gentiles outside the covenant and outside the Law. Unbelieving Jews would also have fallen into this category and separated from the covenant community. (Now to those who think the Law non-divine — an adaptation of Gentiles documents available at the time, why would they care if you tested or not?)
Likewise, if the statment above was worded, “you shall not question George Bush, your president” and you were a Russian, you would not consider it applying to yourself (though, you might not even if your were an American). In the same way, someone who does not consider God Lord would not fit into this command. That doesn’t mean you can’t test, just that this rule wouldn’t apply to you. So you’re right. It is a moot point, but it might be helpful to point this out if believers raise objections in the future. It is the unfortunate habit of Christians to apply the Old Covenant, especially the Ten Commandments, on those to whom it does not apply without consideration of the implications, especially to themselves.
I agree. What you’re talking about would not be testing in a relationship with God since you do not consider yourself to be in one. I wasn’t giving that as a reason for not testing in your case, just giving what I think the correct view of the purpose behind the “you shall not,” which many believers miss.
Exactly. That’s why I suggest working with a believer on it.
What do you think of my comment that you need a stronger test? (If you haven’t caught on, I’m playing Elijah’s game here.)
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Hi drunkentune
You rebutted my remarks to soulster but not my remarks to you.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Jim,
Ok. I’ll respond to your first comment too.
Thomas may have known that Jesus the man existed, but he’s notorious for doubting Jesus’ resurrection. He asked for proof of the resurrection. For the sake of argument, I could acknowledge that there is a possibility that a man named Jesus lived during the first century ADE and was crucified, just as Thomas knew, and ask to see evidence for the resurrection.
While this is true, the Bible also has many examples of believers asking for proof of God’s existence, if not to convince them, then at least to convince other people. The quotation I use from 1 Kings 18:21-39 is a prime example, as is Judges 6:36-40.
This seems very convenient to me. Are you implying that God does not answer prayers or requests for proof?
I don’t understand this. Would you clarify this?
Wouldn’t God want me to know he exists?
I’m not asking God to appear. I’m only asking for enough evidence for me. Everyone has a different requirement. Some may believe after a family crisis, others may believe since they were a child, others may believe because it feels right, or they see evidence for believing. I am in the last group: I will believe if I see evidence.
If God exists, only God and I know what would be sufficient evidence for me.
I’m not sure of that theology as well. Your use of the word ‘reveal’ with Britney Spears doesn’t sound like the same way I am using it.
I meant ‘reveal’ as show his existence, just as with Elijah, God created fire as evidence for his existence.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:20 am
MeGod answers the way He pleases, and in His own time.
You This seems very convenient to me. Are you implying that God does not answer prayers or requests for proof?
Sort of. Did you watch Bruce Almighty? God can’t answer all prayers (then everybody would win the lottery etc.) but does answer prayers that are in His will. For example, if I pray that I’d get to sleep with a girl I’ve just met, would he grant my wish to fornicate?
Wouldn’t God be a separate entity anyway?
God didn’t ask for your permission to create the universe, why should He do what you say now?
Wouldn’t God want me to know he exists?
Are you sure He hasn’t given you a few signs like DNA, Pi, your brain, your ability to reason, etc.? He also would want you to choose Him freely. It’s a mystery when the fire finally falls on the nonbeliever. There are many hints in the Bible that even physical death isn’t even the end. We may have one more chance to believe after we die.
If God exists, only God and I know what would be sufficient evidence for me.
Half true. He knows but I’m not sure you know. Could you really be certain what would seal the deal for you? Thomas voices his desire to see the wounds of Jesus, and Jesus obliges him. Thomas was evidently sincere and he did follow up by going to the upper room so he would be there if Jesus showed up. Which reminds me, I wanted to ask you if you really did that box experiment?
Of course, I was just joking about Brittany Spears revelations (BS revelations?:).
Fun dialog. Keep up the good work.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The experiment’s been done, regardless of what the text says about whether one should do these sorts of tests. God not miraculously liberating innocents in Auschwitz is a much more potent presentation of the problem than God not rearranging the letters in DT’s vegetable soup.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Matthew,
Total buzzkill, but true. Now we’re getting to the Problem of Evil, something I thought we’d be covering much, much later in a different post. As of now, we were focusing on a hypothetical situation, but I’m fine with the progress of the comments so far.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Matthew:
I disagree. To say that people experience gravity every day is not the same thing as saying people are experimenting with gravitation everyday. Aushwitz was no experiment for the non-existence of God. Likewise, to say that people experience the non-action or absence of God is not the same as saying that they are experimenting for it. The holocaust was an experiment in certain horrible social theories for a few twisted individuals, although a poorly designed one at that (though mostly it was not an experiment at all). If we impose such thinking on the holocaust, I could say that the Allied intervention was God’s answer, or that there were many such ‘divine deliverances’ in various historical records, according to the literal reading of those records. But you cannot experiment on the past itself. The problem with history then becomes not whether God acts (factual), but why he did not act in the case of 6 million Jews (interpretive). To equate the problem of justice with non-action and the assumption that non-action means non-existence (or implies it) is problematic.
A personal experiment is a whole different thing than the problem of pain. You may use either in your search for truth about God, but they are not equal. They may both ask the question, “does God act upon the worldâ€, but the ways they can be answered and their meaning vary greatly.
For example, according to several prominent Jewish holocaust survivors, God is responsible for it because he does act upon the world and did not act in the case of millions of people. They do not see it at all as a test for God’s existence, and they instead question his innocence and justice. In other words, there are too many other factors for the holocaust to fit into the category of experiment.
On the other hand, if a person arranges an experiment to intentionally test for the existence of God, they should do so in such a way that excludes possibilities of alternate explanations, or at least limits them (such as God could, but he didn’t), otherwise all their experiment proves is that it was badly designed. For example, suppose you built a machine to test for the existence of radio waves. If you turn the machine on and it does not find waves, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no such thing as radio waves. It could mean you built a radio that does not work.
Drukentune, I agree that the problem of evil is important and that we will be getting around to it, but I agree that it deserves better placement then in the comments here and I would like to get some other things first (like finishing the drafts I have sitting there).
December 4th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
I’d like to point out that I am Jewish, so this is a very touchy subject for me. Millions of innocent human beings killed, a few lucky survivors, and the U.S. enters the war late? I don’t want to “impose” any thinking whatsoever on the Shoah. Do not give it meaning, for there is no meaning in death.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Drunkentune: If I offended you, I am sorry. It could be that to talk about anything so serious on this blog is out of bounds.
For clarity, the portion of my comment you quoted was encouraging Matthew not to impose his line of thinking on the Holocaust, but I was not attempting to impose my own. I was saying that for him to say it was a disproof of the action of God in retrospect would be like me saying that the aftermath was a proof for the action of God in retrospect. I do not think either claim should be made, and I advocate treading lightly in our interpretation of history. My comments were not intended to be interpretive with regards to the Shoah, just trying to warn Matthew about being so.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:08 am
soulster,
It’s fine. You didn’t offend me. I understood your comment, but I believed it skirted an issue that should be covered in other venues.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Enh, soulster is probably right. It does seem worthwhile to distinguish research from experimentation. (e.g. all these people are getting cancer, what’s a common factor, vs. do mice exposed to asbestos exhibit higher incidence of cancer.)
However, I still think that both are aiming to address the same human problem: I ask God to do something, and God doesn’t do something, why?