How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[dkp993]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

 

[dkp993]

smited

Maybe, but certainly not damn eternally.

*yes I realize you were mostly joking.

 

[Mister CIA]

But if we (this discussion or any other) are talking about organized religion I disagree with your “there are much better questions to be asking”. If I’m being asked to devote my life to something I’m going to ask all the pertinent questions I feel are relevant to be convinced.

Thanks. We can disagree there. I personally don't think I'll find completely satisfying or convincing answers to the "Why did God create man?" type questions.

But that also doesn't make me dismiss the whole thing.

As I understand Jesus' teachings, I don't have to have an answer there first in order to follow him.

At some point, I think it's less about a logical and documented victory in a debate or argument, and there's an element of faith that comes into play. It's an "I don't have all the answers, but I'm taking this step of faith" type thing. At least it was for me.

@Paddington can answer any questions you may have. Haha, I kid, sort of.

You used the expression "an element of faith that come into play." What else is there but faith? ... Well, there are an infinitite number if things besides faith that can mold us, but the best you can hope to be without it is Christ-like*, which I've been informed is insufficient.

*I'm inserting words into your mouth, but fairly, I hope.

 

[Zow]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

How is that obvious? If he created us to serve him that seems quite obvious it was for his benefit.

When you had kids, were you motivated by how having kids around would benefit you personally?

So my kids whole job on this planet is to serve and worship me? We are very different parents I guess.

No, I'm saying that probably neither of us had kids for the purpose of "serving us," and perhaps we should consider that God thinks of us in roughly the same way.

Again none of that is “obvious”.

And I for one would never damn my kids to hell for eternity for, well, anything. So I’m not sure how the parent analogy holds up.

Are you sure it's not obvious?

If I said, "the main reason why you had kids is so that they could serve you because you are a self-centered tyrant," would you seriously entertain that as a possibility or would you dismiss that observation out of hand as being very obviously wrong?

 

[Joe Schmo]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

Been following this convo and I have an answer: worship appeases god else he determines to either wipe out all and start over or picks an individual to torment as an example of what happens when we don't adhere to the proper levels of respect. That's always been my reading of the bible version of the Christian God.

 

[dkp993]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

In creating us for that sole purpose that is the very definition* of ego.

*”obviously” using a figure of speech here.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

How is that obvious? If he created us to serve him that seems quite obvious it was for his benefit.

When you had kids, were you motivated by how having kids around would benefit you personally?

So my kids whole job on this planet is to serve and worship me? We are very different parents I guess.

No, I'm saying that probably neither of us had kids for the purpose of "serving us," and perhaps we should consider that God thinks of us in roughly the same way.

Again none of that is “obvious”.

And I for one would never damn my kids to hell for eternity for, well, anything. So I’m not sure how the parent analogy holds up.

Are you sure it's not obvious?

If I said, "the main reason why you had kids is so that they could serve you because you are a self-centered tyrant," would you seriously entertain that as a possibility or would you dismiss that observation out of hand as being very obviously wrong?

What if you had an example of me giving my kid the back of my hand and him making me hurt him because he didnt do as I asked?

 

[Zow]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

That God genuinely enjoys some supreme power over a creation that he very clearly demands worship him or he sends them to eternal damnation. In other words, it's fun being the King.

You know, like Jeff Goldblum's Zeus in that new-ish show. I can't how but think of that when I read religious principles like Joe cited.

Or, again, this very simple meme that really describes it:

Knock knock

Who's there?

It's me, God. Let me in.

Why?

So I can save you.

Save me from what?

From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in.

 

[dkp993]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

How is that obvious? If he created us to serve him that seems quite obvious it was for his benefit.

When you had kids, were you motivated by how having kids around would benefit you personally?

So my kids whole job on this planet is to serve and worship me? We are very different parents I guess.

No, I'm saying that probably neither of us had kids for the purpose of "serving us," and perhaps we should consider that God thinks of us in roughly the same way.

Again none of that is “obvious”.

And I for one would never damn my kids to hell for eternity for, well, anything. So I’m not sure how the parent analogy holds up.

Are you sure it's not obvious?

If I said, "the main reason why you had kids is so that they could serve you because you are a self-centered tyrant," would you seriously entertain that as a possibility or would you dismiss that observation out of hand as being very obviously wrong?

When said “service and worship” is a requirement not to be tortured for all of eternity I would absolutely say it’s obvious that’s a self centered tyrant. Anything else is far from obvious.

 

[Zow]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

How is that obvious? If he created us to serve him that seems quite obvious it was for his benefit.

When you had kids, were you motivated by how having kids around would benefit you personally?

So my kids whole job on this planet is to serve and worship me? We are very different parents I guess.

No, I'm saying that probably neither of us had kids for the purpose of "serving us," and perhaps we should consider that God thinks of us in roughly the same way.

Again none of that is “obvious”.

And I for one would never damn my kids to hell for eternity for, well, anything. So I’m not sure how the parent analogy holds up.

Are you sure it's not obvious?

If I said, "the main reason why you had kids is so that they could serve you because you are a self-centered tyrant," would you seriously entertain that as a possibility or would you dismiss that observation out of hand as being very obviously wrong?

When said “service and worship” is a requirement not to be tortured for all of eternity I would absolutely say it’s obvious that’s a self centered tyrant. Any thing else is far from obvious.

Pretty much. I can definitely understand how a person of faith can argue against this and explain that it's a lot more complicated and we probably aren't intelligent enough to truly understand and all that.

But, IK, you have to at least understand and acknowledge that this simplistic takeaway is nonetheless logical and rational, right?

 

[dgreen]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

It seems you have:

A - God damns his children to Hell
B - The parent-child analogy helps us understand God

By saying B doesn’t hold up, it assumes A must be true. A lot of people have wrestled with this. Obviously people like Paddington express the common doctrine of hell that we have probably all heard. I think it’s pretty typical for us to take the faith we have been handed and assume that it must be the correct interpretation of who God is. (I’m not accusing Paddington of an unexamined faith. I think it is clear he has done a lot of examination to reach his current conclusion.) When we start to ask questions we might reject the whole faith rather than assume that the faith we were handed might have some problems.

I honestly don’t have a very strong opinion on hell because I haven’t looked into it too much, so I can’t really expand in that sense. But I do know that there are a lot of people who see things differently. There are Christians who have more of a universalist theology, which would basically say that God is going to save everyone. Love Wins by Rob Bell is probably the popular book on this. (I haven’t read it.)

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

That God genuinely enjoys some supreme power over a creation that he very clearly demands worship him or he sends them to eternal damnation. In other words, it's fun being the King.

You know, like Jeff Goldblum's Zeus in that new-ish show. I can't how but think of that when I read religious principles like Joe cited.

Or, again, this very simple meme that really describes it:

Knock knock

Who's there?

It's me, God. Let me in.

Why?

So I can save you.

Save me from what?

From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in.

What if it's more about what we do to ourselves if we don't let him in?

For example, if you raised a child with no discipline, no rules of any kind, no moral guidance, etc., would you expect that child to grow up to be the best version of themselves? Why not think of God as kind of like that?

 

[Zow]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

That God genuinely enjoys some supreme power over a creation that he very clearly demands worship him or he sends them to eternal damnation. In other words, it's fun being the King.

You know, like Jeff Goldblum's Zeus in that new-ish show. I can't how but think of that when I read religious principles like Joe cited.

Or, again, this very simple meme that really describes it:

Knock knock

Who's there?

It's me, God. Let me in.

Why?

So I can save you.

Save me from what?

From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in.

What if it's more about what we do to ourselves if we don't let him in?

For example, if you raised a child with no discipline, no rules of any kind, no moral guidance, etc., would you expect that child to grow up to be the best version of themselves? Why not think of God as kind of like that?

Because that's not a rational takeaway from the very straightforward religious principle that Joe cited. If we take an OP-style approach, a literal interpretation of that very straightforward principle seems the most appropriate and your interpretation seems like somebody trying way to hard to defend God when, again from an OP-style approach, he's made his message very damn clear (that we are damned if we don't worship him as he wants).

 

[Zow]

To be clear, I'd want to believe in a God that is the type that IK describes and I wish the parent-child analogy was an accurate one. But I just don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Christian principles and beliefs - especially if one believes the Bible is God's word.

Frankly, this conversation (which is a good one - love this thread because we can have discussions like these) exemplifies a big factor in my conclusion that there is no God because the Christian-God is frankly a bit of an ******* (creates us to be fallible then punishes us severely when we are) and I just don't think an omniscient, loving God would act that way.

 

[dkp993]

To be clear, I'd want to believe in a God that is the type that IK describes and I wish the parent-child analogy was an accurate one. But I just don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of Christian principles and beliefs - especially if one believes the Bible is God's word.

Frankly, this conversation (which is a good one - love this thread because we can have discussions like these) exemplifies a big factor in my conclusion that there is no God because the Christian-God is frankly a bit of an ******* (creates us to be fallible then punishes us severely when we are) and I just don't think an omniscient, loving God would act that way.

Yep

 

[dkp993]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

That's not obvious at all from any angle - especially considering the link Joe put in his post.

When you think of God as benefitting somehow from human worship, what do you have in mind?

That God genuinely enjoys some supreme power over a creation that he very clearly demands worship him or he sends them to eternal damnation. In other words, it's fun being the King.

You know, like Jeff Goldblum's Zeus in that new-ish show. I can't how but think of that when I read religious principles like Joe cited.

Or, again, this very simple meme that really describes it:

Knock knock

Who's there?

It's me, God. Let me in.

Why?

So I can save you.

Save me from what?

From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in.

What if it's more about what we do to ourselves if we don't let him in?

For example, if you raised a child with no discipline, no rules of any kind, no moral guidance, etc., would you expect that child to grow up to be the best version of themselves? Why not think of God as kind of like that?

I hate to harp on a point, but how is any of this obvious when it requires massive amount of interpretation? Especially when there are countless interpretations.

The only “obvious” viewpoint to me is the literal interpretation of the Bible (Paddingtons viewpoint). And that interpretation makes no sense to me.

 

[dkp993]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

It seems you have:

A - God damns his children to Hell
B - The parent-child analogy helps us understand God

By saying B doesn’t hold up, it assumes A must be true. A lot of people have wrestled with this. Obviously people like Paddington express the common doctrine of hell that we have probably all heard. I think it’s pretty typical for us to take the faith we have been handed and assume that it must be the correct interpretation of who God is. (I’m not accusing Paddington of an unexamined faith. I think it is clear he has done a lot of examination to reach his current conclusion.) When we start to ask questions we might reject the whole faith rather than assume that the faith we were handed might have some problems.

I honestly don’t have a very strong opinion on hell because I haven’t looked into it too much, so I can’t really expand in that sense. But I do know that there are a lot of people who see things differently. There are Christians who have more of a universalist theology, which would basically say that God is going to save everyone. Love Wins by Rob Bell is probably the popular book on this. (I haven’t read it.)

Thanks d. I find your viewpoint fascinating. The idea of not really thinking about Hell when it’s such a core tenant of the faith, is interesting. But I guess if you (the metaphorical “you”, ie others that share a similar viewpoint) feel you’ve met your faith’s requirements to be saved, Hell wouldn’t be much of a consideration.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But if we (this discussion or any other) are talking about organized religion I disagree with your “there are much better questions to be asking”. If I’m being asked to devote my life to something I’m going to ask all the pertinent questions I feel are relevant to be convinced.

Thanks. We can disagree there. I personally don't think I'll find completely satisfying or convincing answers to the "Why did God create man?" type questions.

But that also doesn't make me dismiss the whole thing.

As I understand Jesus' teachings, I don't have to have an answer there first in order to follow him.

At some point, I think it's less about a logical and documented victory in a debate or argument, and there's an element of faith that comes into play. It's an "I don't have all the answers, but I'm taking this step of faith" type thing. At least it was for me.

@Paddington can answer any questions you may have. Haha, I kid, sort of.

You used the expression "an element of faith that come into play." What else is there but faith? ... Well, there are an infinitite number if things besides faith that can mold us, but the best you can hope to be without it is Christ-like*, which I've been informed is insufficient.

*I'm inserting words into your mouth, but fairly, I hope.

Thanks. Please don't insert words I'm not saying. I think we all do best when we refrain from that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

creates us to be fallible then punishes us severely when we are

To be fair though, Christians who believe the bible believe while we did fall short on our own, the entire point is a chance at redemption through Jesus.

The chance at redemption part left out there is essentially the whole focus of our faith.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

Joe, Ivan it seems like you are completely ignoring the post that Zow is replying to. I'm on your side in the replies to Zow, but on Zow's side in that his interpreting of this is more than fair.

People much more knowledgeable than I am have spent tons of time on these questions. The Westminster Catechism is one document that covers a lot of this in shorter concise points.

Resources - Cambridge Presbyterian Church

Cambridge Presbyterian Church

www.cambridgepres.org.uk

3. Why did God create man?​

Man was created by God that man should serve his Creator. God does not exist for man’s sake but man exists for God’s sake, to serve and to glorify Him forever.

I also understand people that say they don't like that God created man to serve him and and glorify him.

I don't think that's the kind of parent @IvanKaramazov is. I'd hope you know that.

That makes him a better father than how God is described. At least if we use the words used as how they would be commonly understood. That is Zow's point. That the "father" described (in ordinary language) in the Westminster Catechism is one that descent people should not be worshipping and glorifying. Maybe fearing. (And that, even with our faith seems like it should be obvious. At least until-

I think there's probably some disconnect in how we think of "serving".

I think the disconnect is that we don't have the words to explain this even if we did understand, and when we try, we inevitably create God in our image rather than the other way around. And for reasons I hope are obvious, God falls short. Like what happened here.

Now unlike some, I doubt that my mind will ever stop pondering such questions. My faith always wins out in the end, which ultimately is the biggest question of all. Why can I share Zow's opinion on these few sentences in the Westminster Catechism, but Zow doesn't share my gift of faith to get past it? I think that while many of us believers cringe with @Paddington's approach - especially with this audience, we ultimately share the desperate desire to share our gift of faith. It is just so obvious most of the time, how can it not be for "you"?

 

[Zow]

I don't want to fully quote @Bottomfeeder Sports entire post (due to its size) but he makes some really good points and illustrates how some religious principles can really just appear "obvious" (to use IK's word) to a believer but from the perspective of a non-believer it's far from such and both viewpoints are genuine.

I can relate because when I believed and was a very devout Catholic, I shared that same "how do you NOT believe and how is this NOT obvious to you" because, to me at the time, it was so "obvious" because of that overriding faith - which my now atheistic approach views as near-sightedness - filled in all those gaps that logic and critical thinking can't.

 

[Mister CIA]

But if we (this discussion or any other) are talking about organized religion I disagree with your “there are much better questions to be asking”. If I’m being asked to devote my life to something I’m going to ask all the pertinent questions I feel are relevant to be convinced.

Thanks. We can disagree there. I personally don't think I'll find completely satisfying or convincing answers to the "Why did God create man?" type questions.

But that also doesn't make me dismiss the whole thing.

As I understand Jesus' teachings, I don't have to have an answer there first in order to follow him.

At some point, I think it's less about a logical and documented victory in a debate or argument, and there's an element of faith that comes into play. It's an "I don't have all the answers, but I'm taking this step of faith" type thing. At least it was for me.

@Paddington can answer any questions you may have. Haha, I kid, sort of.

You used the expression "an element of faith that come into play." What else is there but faith? ... Well, there are an infinitite number if things besides faith that can mold us, but the best you can hope to be without it is Christ-like*, which I've been informed is insufficient.

*I'm inserting words into your mouth, but fairly, I hope.

Thanks. Please don't insert words I'm not saying. I think we all do best when we refrain from that.

I'm hopeless.

 

[dkp993]

But if we (this discussion or any other) are talking about organized religion I disagree with your “there are much better questions to be asking”. If I’m being asked to devote my life to something I’m going to ask all the pertinent questions I feel are relevant to be convinced.

Thanks. We can disagree there. I personally don't think I'll find completely satisfying or convincing answers to the "Why did God create man?" type questions.

But that also doesn't make me dismiss the whole thing.

As I understand Jesus' teachings, I don't have to have an answer there first in order to follow him.

At some point, I think it's less about a logical and documented victory in a debate or argument, and there's an element of faith that comes into play. It's an "I don't have all the answers, but I'm taking this step of faith" type thing. At least it was for me.

@Paddington can answer any questions you may have. Haha, I kid, sort of.

You used the expression "an element of faith that come into play." What else is there but faith? ... Well, there are an infinitite number if things besides faith that can mold us, but the best you can hope to be without it is Christ-like*, which I've been informed is insufficient.

*I'm inserting words into your mouth, but fairly, I hope.

Thanks. Please don't insert words I'm not saying. I think we all do best when we refrain from that.

I'm hopeless.

I have faith in you.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yeah, the whole "God created us to serve Him" principle doesn't make God look all that great and seems to reaffirm that he's a jealous, self-centered tyrant (at least as he's described in the Christian faith and the OT).

It's not for God's benefit, obviously. It's for ours.

Joe, Ivan it seems like you are completely ignoring the post that Zow is replying to. I'm on your side in the replies to Zow, but on Zow's side in that his interpreting of this is more than fair.

People much more knowledgeable than I am have spent tons of time on these questions. The Westminster Catechism is one document that covers a lot of this in shorter concise points.

Resources - Cambridge Presbyterian Church

Cambridge Presbyterian Church

www.cambridgepres.org.uk

3. Why did God create man?​

Man was created by God that man should serve his Creator. God does not exist for man’s sake but man exists for God’s sake, to serve and to glorify Him forever.

I also understand people that say they don't like that God created man to serve him and and glorify him.

I don't think that's the kind of parent @IvanKaramazov is. I'd hope you know that.

That makes him a better father than how God is described. At least if we use the words used as how they would be commonly understood. That is Zow's point. That the "father" described (in ordinary language) in the Westminster Catechism is one that descent people should not be worshipping and glorifying. Maybe fearing. (And that, even with our faith seems like it should be obvious. At least until-

I think there's probably some disconnect in how we think of "serving".

I think the disconnect is that we don't have the words to explain this even if we did understand, and when we try, we inevitably create God in our image rather than the other way around. And for reasons I hope are obvious, God falls short. Like what happened here.

Now unlike some, I doubt that my mind will ever stop pondering such questions. My faith always wins out in the end, which ultimately is the biggest question of all. Why can I share Zow's opinion on these few sentences in the Westminster Catechism, but Zow doesn't share my gift of faith to get past it? I think that while many of us believers cringe with @Paddington's approach - especially with this audience, we ultimately share the desperate desire to share our gift of faith. It is just so obvious most of the time, how can it not be for "you"?

Thanks. I'm doing a terrible job if it seems i'm completely ignoring @Zow's post. I hope he doesn't think that. I acknowledged it even before he said it as I know it's an important thing for him as he's said it regularly in these threads numerous times. It's why I said, "I also understand people that say they don't like that God created man to serve him and and glorify him."

And yes, I agree with you I think we ultimately share the desperate desire to share our gift of faith.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But if we (this discussion or any other) are talking about organized religion I disagree with your “there are much better questions to be asking”. If I’m being asked to devote my life to something I’m going to ask all the pertinent questions I feel are relevant to be convinced.

Thanks. We can disagree there. I personally don't think I'll find completely satisfying or convincing answers to the "Why did God create man?" type questions.

But that also doesn't make me dismiss the whole thing.

As I understand Jesus' teachings, I don't have to have an answer there first in order to follow him.

At some point, I think it's less about a logical and documented victory in a debate or argument, and there's an element of faith that comes into play. It's an "I don't have all the answers, but I'm taking this step of faith" type thing. At least it was for me.

@Paddington can answer any questions you may have. Haha, I kid, sort of.

You used the expression "an element of faith that come into play." What else is there but faith? ... Well, there are an infinitite number if things besides faith that can mold us, but the best you can hope to be without it is Christ-like*, which I've been informed is insufficient.

*I'm inserting words into your mouth, but fairly, I hope.

Thanks. Please don't insert words I'm not saying. I think we all do best when we refrain from that.

I'm hopeless.

I have faith in you.

Me too.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But if we (this discussion or any other) are talking about organized religion I disagree with your “there are much better questions to be asking”. If I’m being asked to devote my life to something I’m going to ask all the pertinent questions I feel are relevant to be convinced.

Thanks. We can disagree there. I personally don't think I'll find completely satisfying or convincing answers to the "Why did God create man?" type questions.

But that also doesn't make me dismiss the whole thing.

As I understand Jesus' teachings, I don't have to have an answer there first in order to follow him.

At some point, I think it's less about a logical and documented victory in a debate or argument, and there's an element of faith that comes into play. It's an "I don't have all the answers, but I'm taking this step of faith" type thing. At least it was for me.

@Paddington can answer any questions you may have. Haha, I kid, sort of.

You used the expression "an element of faith that come into play." What else is there but faith? ... Well, there are an infinitite number if things besides faith that can mold us, but the best you can hope to be without it is Christ-like*, which I've been informed is insufficient.

*I'm inserting words into your mouth, but fairly, I hope.

Thanks. Please don't insert words I'm not saying. I think we all do best when we refrain from that.

I'm hopeless.

I'm with @dkp993. I have faith in you.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the disconnect is that we don't have the words to explain this even if we did understand, and when we try, we inevitably create God in our image rather than the other way around. And for reasons I hope are obvious, God falls short. Like what happened here.

Yes.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't want to fully quote @Bottomfeeder Sports entire post (due to its size) but he makes some really good points and illustrates how some religious principles can really just appear "obvious" (to use IK's word) to a believer but from the perspective of a non-believer it's far from such and both viewpoints are genuine.

I can relate because when I believed and was a very devout Catholic, I shared that same "how do you NOT believe and how is this NOT obvious to you" because, to me at the time, it was so "obvious" because of that overriding faith - which my now atheistic approach views as near-sightedness - filled in all those gaps that logic and critical thinking can't.

That's a great point. I urge my Christian friends to not use "insider" or "churchy" language as it's arrogant to assume someone who thinks differently than us will know what we mean or see it that way. I apologize if I've done that here and it's a good reminder for me to be more clear. What's clear or obvious to one person often isn't to another.

 

[dgreen]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

It seems you have:

A - God damns his children to Hell
B - The parent-child analogy helps us understand God

By saying B doesn’t hold up, it assumes A must be true. A lot of people have wrestled with this. Obviously people like Paddington express the common doctrine of hell that we have probably all heard. I think it’s pretty typical for us to take the faith we have been handed and assume that it must be the correct interpretation of who God is. (I’m not accusing Paddington of an unexamined faith. I think it is clear he has done a lot of examination to reach his current conclusion.) When we start to ask questions we might reject the whole faith rather than assume that the faith we were handed might have some problems.

I honestly don’t have a very strong opinion on hell because I haven’t looked into it too much, so I can’t really expand in that sense. But I do know that there are a lot of people who see things differently. There are Christians who have more of a universalist theology, which would basically say that God is going to save everyone. Love Wins by Rob Bell is probably the popular book on this. (I haven’t read it.)

Thanks d. I find your viewpoint fascinating. The idea of not really thinking about Hell when it’s such a core tenant of the faith, is interesting. But I guess if you (the metaphorical “you”, ie others that share a similar viewpoint) feel you’ve met your faith’s requirements to be saved, Hell wouldn’t be much of a consideration.

I'll admit that at one time my lack of interest in hell was driven by me meeting my faith's requirement to be saved. Now it has more to do with my belief that this just isn't something we are supposed to be primarily focusing on. I like to think that my view of God is bigger than it used to be. I'm not reducing him to a magic genie who hands out salvation cards to those who check the right boxes.

I have three kids. One is baptized (my faith tradition's marker for 'saved') and she is questioning a lot about faith right now and hasn't been to church in a while. She's struggling. My two sons are not baptized and are mostly just having fun as teenagers. I don't worry about any of them in regards to their salvation. I don't have a goal to make sure my boys jump in that baptistry asap so they don't burn in hell. I'm not pestering my daughter about her supposed lack of faith.

With my daughter, this is actually a new revelation to us. I figured it was coming. She shared with my wife recently that she's struggling. She hasn't talked to me. For now, I'm taking an approach of waiting for her to talk to me if she wants to. I know many of my friends would take a different approach with their children. They'd force the conversation and try to give her all the "right" answers. While my faith journey has been impacted by different issues than hers, I think it can help her if she hears from me. I hope to do that someday. I feel like the father in the prodigal son parable, looking out at the horizon just waiting for her to come to me to talk.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

It seems you have:

A - God damns his children to Hell
B - The parent-child analogy helps us understand God

By saying B doesn’t hold up, it assumes A must be true. A lot of people have wrestled with this. Obviously people like Paddington express the common doctrine of hell that we have probably all heard. I think it’s pretty typical for us to take the faith we have been handed and assume that it must be the correct interpretation of who God is. (I’m not accusing Paddington of an unexamined faith. I think it is clear he has done a lot of examination to reach his current conclusion.) When we start to ask questions we might reject the whole faith rather than assume that the faith we were handed might have some problems.

I honestly don’t have a very strong opinion on hell because I haven’t looked into it too much, so I can’t really expand in that sense. But I do know that there are a lot of people who see things differently. There are Christians who have more of a universalist theology, which would basically say that God is going to save everyone. Love Wins by Rob Bell is probably the popular book on this. (I haven’t read it.)

Thanks d. I find your viewpoint fascinating. The idea of not really thinking about Hell when it’s such a core tenant of the faith, is interesting. But I guess if you (the metaphorical “you”, ie others that share a similar viewpoint) feel you’ve met your faith’s requirements to be saved, Hell wouldn’t be much of a consideration.

I'll admit that at one time my lack of interest in hell was driven by me meeting my faith's requirement to be saved. Now it has more to do with my belief that this just isn't something we are supposed to be primarily focusing on. I like to think that my view of God is bigger than it used to be. I'm not reducing him to a magic genie who hands out salvation cards to those who check the right boxes.

I have three kids. One is baptized (my faith tradition's marker for 'saved') and she is questioning a lot about faith right now and hasn't been to church in a while. She's struggling. My two sons are not baptized and are mostly just having fun as teenagers. I don't worry about any of them in regards to their salvation. I don't have a goal to make sure my boys jump in that baptistry asap so they don't burn in hell. I'm not pestering my daughter about her supposed lack of faith.

With my daughter, this is actually a new revelation to us. I figured it was coming. She shared with my wife recently that she's struggling. She hasn't talked to me. For now, I'm taking an approach of waiting for her to talk to me if she wants to. I know many of my friends would take a different approach with their children. They'd force the conversation and try to give her all the "right" answers. While my faith journey has been impacted by different issues than hers, I think it can help her if she hears from me. I hope to do that someday. I feel like the father in the prodigal son parable, looking out at the horizon just waiting for her to come to me to talk.

I'm with you. Parenting is challenging on many fronts. Adding the faith element is another layer.

In my experience, you're doing the right thing in letting them find the way. I see some young people who are clearly living their parents faith. Not their own. And I'm of the opinion that it has to be your own. My parents did that for me. I grew up understanding the gospel and teachings. But I was in my 30's before I truly found it for myself. It's of course difficult to see your kids struggle. But I think unfortunately, it's part of the growing up process in many ways.

 

[dgreen]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

It seems you have:

A - God damns his children to Hell
B - The parent-child analogy helps us understand God

By saying B doesn’t hold up, it assumes A must be true. A lot of people have wrestled with this. Obviously people like Paddington express the common doctrine of hell that we have probably all heard. I think it’s pretty typical for us to take the faith we have been handed and assume that it must be the correct interpretation of who God is. (I’m not accusing Paddington of an unexamined faith. I think it is clear he has done a lot of examination to reach his current conclusion.) When we start to ask questions we might reject the whole faith rather than assume that the faith we were handed might have some problems.

I honestly don’t have a very strong opinion on hell because I haven’t looked into it too much, so I can’t really expand in that sense. But I do know that there are a lot of people who see things differently. There are Christians who have more of a universalist theology, which would basically say that God is going to save everyone. Love Wins by Rob Bell is probably the popular book on this. (I haven’t read it.)

Thanks d. I find your viewpoint fascinating. The idea of not really thinking about Hell when it’s such a core tenant of the faith, is interesting. But I guess if you (the metaphorical “you”, ie others that share a similar viewpoint) feel you’ve met your faith’s requirements to be saved, Hell wouldn’t be much of a consideration.

I'll admit that at one time my lack of interest in hell was driven by me meeting my faith's requirement to be saved. Now it has more to do with my belief that this just isn't something we are supposed to be primarily focusing on. I like to think that my view of God is bigger than it used to be. I'm not reducing him to a magic genie who hands out salvation cards to those who check the right boxes.

I have three kids. One is baptized (my faith tradition's marker for 'saved') and she is questioning a lot about faith right now and hasn't been to church in a while. She's struggling. My two sons are not baptized and are mostly just having fun as teenagers. I don't worry about any of them in regards to their salvation. I don't have a goal to make sure my boys jump in that baptistry asap so they don't burn in hell. I'm not pestering my daughter about her supposed lack of faith.

With my daughter, this is actually a new revelation to us. I figured it was coming. She shared with my wife recently that she's struggling. She hasn't talked to me. For now, I'm taking an approach of waiting for her to talk to me if she wants to. I know many of my friends would take a different approach with their children. They'd force the conversation and try to give her all the "right" answers. While my faith journey has been impacted by different issues than hers, I think it can help her if she hears from me. I hope to do that someday. I feel like the father in the prodigal son parable, looking out at the horizon just waiting for her to come to me to talk.

I'm with you. Parenting is challenging on many fronts. Adding the faith element is another layer.

In my experience, you're doing the right thing in letting them find the way. I see some young people who are clearly living their parents faith. Not their own. And I'm of the opinion that it has to be your own. My parents did that for me. I grew up understanding the gospel and teachings. But I was in my 30's before I truly found it for myself. It's of course difficult to see your kids struggle. But I think unfortunately, it's part of the growing up process in many ways.

Agree. I think what’s hurt me most about this isn’t that she is questioning her faith but the realization that I may not have the type of relationship with my daughter where she’d share this type of thing with me. I understand there are things a daughter will never share with their dad, but she takes all of her big conversations to mom. I’m glad they have that and I’m hoping she can feel comfortable coming to me at some point.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What if the analogy does hold up and it’s the presupposition about God that doesn’t hold up?

Expand on this please

It seems you have:

A - God damns his children to Hell
B - The parent-child analogy helps us understand God

By saying B doesn’t hold up, it assumes A must be true. A lot of people have wrestled with this. Obviously people like Paddington express the common doctrine of hell that we have probably all heard. I think it’s pretty typical for us to take the faith we have been handed and assume that it must be the correct interpretation of who God is. (I’m not accusing Paddington of an unexamined faith. I think it is clear he has done a lot of examination to reach his current conclusion.) When we start to ask questions we might reject the whole faith rather than assume that the faith we were handed might have some problems.

I honestly don’t have a very strong opinion on hell because I haven’t looked into it too much, so I can’t really expand in that sense. But I do know that there are a lot of people who see things differently. There are Christians who have more of a universalist theology, which would basically say that God is going to save everyone. Love Wins by Rob Bell is probably the popular book on this. (I haven’t read it.)

Thanks d. I find your viewpoint fascinating. The idea of not really thinking about Hell when it’s such a core tenant of the faith, is interesting. But I guess if you (the metaphorical “you”, ie others that share a similar viewpoint) feel you’ve met your faith’s requirements to be saved, Hell wouldn’t be much of a consideration.

I'll admit that at one time my lack of interest in hell was driven by me meeting my faith's requirement to be saved. Now it has more to do with my belief that this just isn't something we are supposed to be primarily focusing on. I like to think that my view of God is bigger than it used to be. I'm not reducing him to a magic genie who hands out salvation cards to those who check the right boxes.

I have three kids. One is baptized (my faith tradition's marker for 'saved') and she is questioning a lot about faith right now and hasn't been to church in a while. She's struggling. My two sons are not baptized and are mostly just having fun as teenagers. I don't worry about any of them in regards to their salvation. I don't have a goal to make sure my boys jump in that baptistry asap so they don't burn in hell. I'm not pestering my daughter about her supposed lack of faith.

With my daughter, this is actually a new revelation to us. I figured it was coming. She shared with my wife recently that she's struggling. She hasn't talked to me. For now, I'm taking an approach of waiting for her to talk to me if she wants to. I know many of my friends would take a different approach with their children. They'd force the conversation and try to give her all the "right" answers. While my faith journey has been impacted by different issues than hers, I think it can help her if she hears from me. I hope to do that someday. I feel like the father in the prodigal son parable, looking out at the horizon just waiting for her to come to me to talk.

I'm with you. Parenting is challenging on many fronts. Adding the faith element is another layer.

In my experience, you're doing the right thing in letting them find the way. I see some young people who are clearly living their parents faith. Not their own. And I'm of the opinion that it has to be your own. My parents did that for me. I grew up understanding the gospel and teachings. But I was in my 30's before I truly found it for myself. It's of course difficult to see your kids struggle. But I think unfortunately, it's part of the growing up process in many ways.

Agree. I think what’s hurt me most about this isn’t that she is questioning her faith but the realization that I may not have the type of relationship with my daughter where she’d share this type of thing with me. I understand there are things a daughter will never share with their dad, but she takes all of her big conversations to mom. I’m glad they have that and I’m hoping she can feel comfortable coming to me at some point.

I think that's natural. I have two sons and two daughters and they've moved back and forth over the years between my wife and I on who they're more comfortable talking to on different topics.

I think as long as they know for certain you're there and open and would love to listen, that's good. As you well know, it can't forced. But sometimes it may take a little reassuring that it's ok. At least in my experience.

 

[Paddington]

I am not allowed to give examples because it violates the rules here. Last time I said a word and was banned for a month, even though that word isn't necessarily a Political word. So, under the current rules of the Forum, I cannot fully make my point. I do believe that certain groups do have generalized tendencies, but I don't believe it's fair to make blanket statements and claim that all of the people from any group have those characteristics.

so you believe there are "some good ones" out there huh? ...Archie Bunker take

Well, yes there are "Good people" that are non Christians, but we are ALL sinners. None of us can get to heaven without Jesus because we are not perfect.

Right. God created us to be fallible and will send us to an eternal Hell unless we adore him. Nice, reasonable, totally not self-aggrandizing guy that God.

False. God didn't create us imperfect. God created hell for the devil and his fallen angels. The first Man, Adam chose to sin against God and in essence, because we were all in Adam at the time, he doomed the human race. But because God is gracious and Good, He sent His only Son to leave His throne in heaven, come to live in a rat hole as a poor man, be mocked and ridiculed and beaten and tortured to death, so that you could still go to heaven. All you have to do is Trust in Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for you to pay for your sins. THEN He wants to make YOU royalty in heaven for all of eternity to rule over His creation with Him. It's a great deal and He promises to never leave you nor forsake you.

If man wasn't created imperfect he wouldn't have been capable of sin.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Well, that's not entirely true. Man wasn't perfect in the sense that he was incapable of sin, but rather, man was innocent of sin. In order to give man a choice to love God or reject Him, God gave Adam one possibility of sin. By nature, Adam did everything else perfectly, the way that God would have him. satan was also allowed by God to tempt man, in order to see if man will choose to believe God or satan. satan was able to deceive the woman into eating of the tree and sinning. She gave to her husband and he knowingly sinned. Why? Probably because of his bond with her, he wanted to remain with her and knew he was destroying himself by doing so.


1Adam being the first man had the DNA of every subsequent human being inside of himself from the beginnin.
2)Adam sinned before reproducing any children.
3) When Adam sinned, it changed his very nature from an innocent, sinless creature into a sinful one. It permeated every part of his being.
4) Therefore, when he had children from then on, he passed his sin nature down to every person that came after him.

Referring to Adam here:

Romans 5:12 (KJV)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The good news is that Just As Adam passed his sin nature on all men, Jesus Christ died rose again, Sacrificing Himself for our sins, so that ALL men might be saved, But only those who apply it to their lives will be saved. This is because God won't force anyone to serve Him.


1 Corinthians 15:22 (KJV)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If you read this first post, it explains this in more detail. God bless and feel free to ask me anything.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm with you. Parenting is challenging on many fronts. Adding the faith element is another layer.

That reminds me of one of life's most awkward moments, but from an unexpected angle.

When my son was 12 he went to a mainstream church, mostly because his friends invited him. I had no problem with that. There was no mystery about my beliefs (same as they are today), and/but inevitably he invited me to attend a Christmas related service one evening. I had no problem with that either; i might see or hear something interesting.

Where things went south was, lo and behold, this was a service intended to bring home as many Prodigal Sons as possible for a mass baptism (I was the product). And of course given where I'm located, lots came home, but I was not one.

I know my son was crestfallen (he's fine now, obviously), and man, was I furious for a little while. I hope it doesnt still seep out in here, but apologies if it does.

 

[Captain Cranks]

No, I'm saying that probably neither of us had kids for the purpose of "serving us," and perhaps we should consider that God thinks of us in roughly the same way.

The decision to have children, either intentionally or by accident is an inherently selfish act from the human perspective. I don't think you'd want to map that onto God.

 

[Paddington]

No, I'm saying that probably neither of us had kids for the purpose of "serving us," and perhaps we should consider that God thinks of us in roughly the same way.

The decision to have children, either intentionally or by accident is an inherently selfish act from the human perspective. I don't think you'd want to map that onto God.

God told men to be fruitful and multiply, so it's not a sin or wrong to want kids.

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

 

[fatness]

I have three kids. One is baptized (my faith tradition's marker for 'saved') and she is questioning a lot about faith right now and hasn't been to church in a while. She's struggling. My two sons are not baptized and are mostly just having fun as teenagers. I don't worry about any of them in regards to their salvation. I don't have a goal to make sure my boys jump in that baptistry asap so they don't burn in hell. I'm not pestering my daughter about her supposed lack of faith.

With my daughter, this is actually a new revelation to us. I figured it was coming. She shared with my wife recently that she's struggling. She hasn't talked to me.

Do you think your daughter is struggling due to other life issues besides religion? Maybe that is all, but maybe there are other things going on with her.

I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything, but you and I have spent well over a decade trapped together in Dan Snyder's Sewage Treatment Plant Of Ever-Worsening Suffering, and you're someone I've respected and liked for years now, and I feel obliged to ask. It may just be a faith thing. It may be another life thing or things going on with her. Might be something a good dad like you could listen to or help with over time.

I'm not asking for an answer in this thread or by PM. Just asking you to think about what I asked in my initial question. As kids hit late teenage years and head into the rest of their lives there are lessening opportunities to play "good dad", and being "good dad" involves more and more listening. If I've overstepped, call me Albert Haynesworth.

 

[dgreen]

I have three kids. One is baptized (my faith tradition's marker for 'saved') and she is questioning a lot about faith right now and hasn't been to church in a while. She's struggling. My two sons are not baptized and are mostly just having fun as teenagers. I don't worry about any of them in regards to their salvation. I don't have a goal to make sure my boys jump in that baptistry asap so they don't burn in hell. I'm not pestering my daughter about her supposed lack of faith.

With my daughter, this is actually a new revelation to us. I figured it was coming. She shared with my wife recently that she's struggling. She hasn't talked to me.

Do you think your daughter is struggling due to other life issues besides religion? Maybe that is all, but maybe there are other things going on with her.

I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything, but you and I have spent well over a decade trapped together in Dan Snyder's Sewage Treatment Plant Of Ever-Worsening Suffering, and you're someone I've respected and liked for years now, and I feel obliged to ask. It may just be a faith thing. It may be another life thing or things going on with her. Might be something a good dad like you could listen to or help with over time.

I'm not asking for an answer in this thread or by PM. Just asking you to think about what I asked in my initial question. As kids hit late teenage years and head into the rest of their lives there are lessening opportunities to play "good dad", and being "good dad" involves more and more listening. If I've overstepped, call me Albert Haynesworth.

i definitely don’t see this as overstepping. But I’m also not sure what you have in mind when you ask about life issues besides religion. Whatever you mean by it, I’m sure I’d take no offense.

She’s been open with my wife that she has a big problem with how the church treats the LGBT community. She’s been at a Christian college in a southern state, so she encounters quite a bit of the stereotypical southern conservative evangelical attitudes on that topic. That’s not something she would have heard from us nor very much at our home congregation in NoVa. She’s known that’s out there and I think she’s seeing it firsthand.

My daughter found a Bible professor at the university who she really likes and she’s had some great conversations with him. Apparently she told him that she feels worse when she attends church there and he suggested that it might be a good idea for her to take a break. She’s engaged and her fiancé feels the same way she does, so they haven’t been going. Being home for winter break, she’s gone with us on Sunday mornings and to Christmas Eve service. I loved sitting next to her and hearing her sing.

If she talks to me, I definitely plan on doing a lot of listening and asking questions. I’d like to share my journey with her. Not as a way to give her the answers, but just to be in conversation about our experiences.

 

[Paddington]

The Baptism that saves is by the Holy Spirit, not water Baptism:

1 Corinthians 12:13

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[-fish-]

The Baptism that saves is by the Holy Spirit, not water Baptism:

1 Corinthians 12:13

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

It seems like you aren't able to separate the figurative and the literal. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan. Obviously, he would have no need to be "baptized in the holy spirit" as you suggest.

Baptism is a symbolic gesture. What Paul is referring to is not the physical act of baptism. It's a metaphor.

 

[-fish-]

I particularly enjoy the fact that God is a gambler (did you read Job?) on top of being jealous and vengeful. But although we were made in his image and fully capable of sin (and not just sin, but sin that was a requirement for reproduction, which is a directive), we were made perfect in Paddington's version, but also should be punished for it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm with you. Parenting is challenging on many fronts. Adding the faith element is another layer.

That reminds me of one of life's most awkward moments, but from an unexpected angle.

When my son was 12 he went to a mainstream church, mostly because his friends invited him. I had no problem with that. There was no mystery about my beliefs (same as they are today), and/but inevitably he invited me to attend a Christmas related service one evening. I had no problem with that either; i might see or hear something interesting.

Where things went south was, lo and behold, this was a service intended to bring home as many Prodigal Sons as possible for a mass baptism (I was the product). And of course given where I'm located, lots came home, but I was not one.

I know my son was crestfallen (he's fine now, obviously), and man, was I furious for a little while. I hope it doesnt still seep out in here, but apologies if it does.

Thanks for sharing. That does sound awkward. I've never heard of event like that for "Prodigal Sons" but I do understand when people have a sincere and heartfelt desire to share their faith with others.

I think the key thing is trying to do it in a way that's well received.

I'm reminded of this clip from Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller Show when he talked about a person from their show proselytizing.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Captain Cranks]

God told men to be fruitful and multiply, so it's not a sin or wrong to want kids.

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

I was speaking in terms of human behavior. It's not wrong to want kids. In fact it's necessary for the continuance of our genes. However we don't want kids for the kid's sake. We want kids for our sake.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm with you. Parenting is challenging on many fronts. Adding the faith element is another layer.

That reminds me of one of life's most awkward moments, but from an unexpected angle.

When my son was 12 he went to a mainstream church, mostly because his friends invited him. I had no problem with that. There was no mystery about my beliefs (same as they are today), and/but inevitably he invited me to attend a Christmas related service one evening. I had no problem with that either; i might see or hear something interesting.

Where things went south was, lo and behold, this was a service intended to bring home as many Prodigal Sons as possible for a mass baptism (I was the product). And of course given where I'm located, lots came home, but I was not one.

I know my son was crestfallen (he's fine now, obviously), and man, was I furious for a little while. I hope it doesnt still seep out in here, but apologies if it does.

Thanks for sharing. That does sound awkward. I've never heard of event like that for "Prodigal Sons" but I do understand when people have a sincere and heartfelt desire to share their faith with others.

I think the key thing is trying to do it in a way that's well received.

I'm reminded of this clip from Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller Show when he talked about a person from their show proselytizing.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I've never heard of that either, but that 100% sounds like the sort of thing that (a) I could see happening in a certain type of church and (b) it would rub me the wrong way. For example, I do not like "alter calls" and stuff like that -- for me personally, it comes across as kind of performative. If I'm in a bad mood, it would feel as if I'm being put on the spot when I just wanted a refreshing Sunday morning. And I'm already "on the team." If I were an outsider, I would find this extremely off-putting.

Then again, some people do respond to that. Those churches exist, and they have congregations. It's certainly not for me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the disconnect is that we don't have the words to explain this even if we did understand, and when we try, we inevitably create God in our image rather than the other way around. And for reasons I hope are obvious, God falls short. Like what happened here.

Good post. I mostly agree. One area where I've changed my thinking a lot over the years is with the idea of "creating God in the image of man." I understand that when I compare a relationship like that between God and man to one between a parent and child, I'm walking directly into that line of critique. I used to avoid doing that, but on reflection, I think that's a mistake. If we are created in the image of God, then it stands to reason that we can learn a little bit about God by observing ourselves. Sure, that runs the risk of anthropomorphizing God, and we should keep that in mind, but it makes sense to me.

And besides, the Bible basically tells us that we should make those comparisons. It's probably not a coincidence that Jesus himself spoke in terms of the Father and the Son. That's a different context -- the "son" in this case isn't us, of course -- but it's telling that Jesus uses the metaphor of a human family to try to describe the trinity. And if you open the OT to a random page, there's a decent chance that you'll find some of kind of marital or romantic metaphor used to describe the relationship between God and Israel.

This kind of reasoning is mostly useless for apologetic purposes, I think, because it's always going to be vulnerable to the argument that I'm looking at the world and imagining a God that fits this world. And that is, actually, kind of exactly what I'm doing. But I do find it to be a helpful way to make sense of ideas that would be hard to process without that experience.

 

[dgreen]

I particularly enjoy the fact that God is a gambler (did you read Job?) on top of being jealous and vengeful. But although we were made in his image and fully capable of sin (and not just sin, but sin that was a requirement for reproduction, which is a directive), we were made perfect in Paddington's version, but also should be punished for it.

What do you mean by the bold

 

[Mister CIA]

Thanks for sharing. That does sound awkward. I've never heard of event like that for "Prodigal Sons" but I do understand when people have a sincere and heartfelt desire to share their faith with others.

I think the key thing is trying to do it in a way that's well received.

I'm reminded of this clip from Penn Jillette of the Penn and Teller Show when he talked about a person from their show proselytizing.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.

Speaking of awkward, in a previous life my boss's boss was also had a side-gig as a preacher at a local church; his congregation was about 200, iirc, and being the boss was actually the side-gig (grumble grumble, but I digress). Well one day I asked my boss about a religious textbook on his desk, and he informs me that he's participating in class being led by our boss. Being a dimwitted smart ***, I asked him, "Y'all aren't speaking in tongues, are you?", to which he replied with, "Yeah." End scene.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It wasn't specifically for prodigal sons; a better word choice would be "bring a friend who needs Jesus" kind of service (actually, it was a play, now that I recall). But it was definitely awkward.

Thanks. And as @IvanKaramazov said, different churches have different styles with a more intentional "call to action" to use a business word where they will more actively try to bring people in.

That style is often mocked or frowned upon as you experienced but it's also biblical as one of Jesus most important teachings, often referred to as "The Great Commission" is to go out and make disciples of the faith.

Matthew 28:16-20 New Living Translation

16 Then the eleven disciples left for Galilee, going to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him—but some of them doubted!

18 Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[a] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

It's what Penn Jillette was talking about in the video above about how he respected the guy proselytizing to him.

It's costly though. It's a lot easier to be chill and never call people to action. People who follow Jesus' teaching there are often labeled "Bible Thumpers" or mocked for following the command. It's life.