Edwards first reply

Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:31:48 +0100
Subject: Re: Reaction to the letter for me

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the extended letter. You provide thought provoking material and I like that. I especially liked lastwednesday-ism. I wasn't familiar with that yet!

You describe your religious development as someone who believed in both Christianity as well as evolution, to someone who believes in the possible existence of a God and in evolution, to someone who no longer believes in God but still in evolution but who's still seeking. It seems to me that, as you've said, your seeking of the historicity of the Bible caused you to pass these phases. Now you state that you only want to study the historicity of Jesus and what he meant as a person, then your seeking should be over. Very clear.

If you let me I'd like to comment on that. I don't think I'm stating anything new if I say that it seems to me that this development is directed by your knowledge and 'reasoning' to find the truth. You're using arguments from science and counter-arguments from creationists. As such I don't think it's wrong, I think you're sincere and balanced in this, but I already know where this leads to. You will conclude that Jesus probably existed but that there are insufficient facts to prove he was actually raised from death. You take it for granted that there might have been 500 witnesses and that it's very rare that Jesus' followers, without benefiting in any way, were tortured to death and persisted in stating that it really happened. You happen to trust the state of science today [more than] the noted testimony of 'prejudiced' people. Is that correct? Apparently you cannot believe in something that is unprovable. That's what my previous letter was about. I wanted to show you that science is based on an believed assumption. You stated that this is not the case for beta sciences, but who designed gravity, the centrifugal force, the movement of atoms and whatever else that could have lead to the process of evolution? You agreed with me, and backed up with numbers, that many scientists have a religious belief outside of science. Of course they do, because science can only explain through reason what can be explained through reason. Still it was science that you've allowed to 'touch' your faith. You mainly touch on the historicity of the creation and of Jesus. Of course you mean by that what we can factually claim about then with the help of beta sciences and this has lead to yo 'losing' your faith which I think is just replacing it with faith in science. I think you have it in you to want to believe in something but it currently seems that you only want to believe something that is in line with your faith in science, in reason, in 'evidence'. I have a few questions about that, as you can expect. Here they are.

Firstly, I find it hard that you can make claims on one faith about another (with science you claimed God's death, just like Nietzsche). Is that correct? You do this often. If God is all powerful, can He create a rock that He cannot lift? Think about that a little. He can't, can He, so I think you conclude that that God cannot be all powerful. But then you put God in your system of gravity, mass and movement. However, it's questionable if God is part of that system. This system is the only thing we can measure and prove, but is God part of it and can we use it to get to a conclusion on God's existence? No, I don't think so, [only] when He chooses to reveal himself in that system can we learn something about Him. Even then we should not try to analyze what He revealed according to the rules of the system, because that could only lead to observation, not understanding. Let me explain. Suppose a watchmaker creates a watch and places it in a world where a watch never existed before. [People] in that world will analyze that object according to their rules. A chemist will come to conclusions on the composition of the material, a physicist will come to conclusions on the movements inside the object etc. Who of them will be able to say if the watch is good? None of them, because to be able to judge if an object is 'good', you have to know what the purpose of that object was and you will not find that in the observation of the scientists but in the idea that the maker had when creating it. If he wanted to show time with it that will have the be the criterion for judging the object. Other aspects like composition, movement, form and appearance play a role but are inferior to the purpose. A chemist who concludes that the watch keeps time correctly goes outside of his field. That is the field of a watchmaker. Can you see that? If we talk about the purpose of our being, why we are here and who God is, I think we should ask the Watchmaker or search in the places of His revelation in the way He laid it down.

Phew, that requires quite a shift and I question if you can come along, but I just stated my position against yours and I hope I did that correctly.

Frankly I don't really want to have a discussion because I tend to notice that positions get firmer and understandings diminish while we need understanding to advance. I'd like to understand you better. I hope you'll view the following criticism in that light. I have a few remarks on your criticism on the Christian faith that are in line with what I stated above.

You state that when God knows all I no longer have free will. That's a hard subject but I still don't think that's the case. Our free will is exactly that which distinguishes us from animals. We can choose to love, to follow our instincts or have others decide what we do. Our environment influences us, our nature and our personality and then we choose. (I believe) God made us like that. Does this limit Him? In the execution of his plans this could slow him down or have Him search other methods to execute his plan. Two remarks. Firstly, God is not bound to time, so He's yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is. So He is tomorrow. He sees what I will do tomorrow. He does not cause me to do it but He sees it. I choose, He anticipates. He did not program us. He is however in a relation to us, associated Himself with us and that's why there is a mutual influence. At least, that's how it was in paradise. That way God was able to reveal himself to us. That was disturbed by original sin and that made it harder to get to know God and be convinced of his existence. The relation has been severed. Now, that's the gospel and you know that but it's relevant for our conversation and for the next criticism you had against faith, but first the second remark. If this is the case, what about the evil in the world? Didn't He foresee that? That is a hard question which is still unclear among all combined theologians. I myself think that he did foresee it but considered it a side effect of the free will that He wanted to provide to us because only with free will can we love and because God is love he wants to give and receive love. That is only possible from free subjects. If there is love, there's also the possibility for the lack of it just like when there is light there's the possibility for darkness. With love, there was also the option of evil. God dis not and does not want that evil to surface, that's why He wants to lead our life. But we have to choose that. He enabled that though the cross.

Now I still arrive on your second point on the fairness of God which you claim conflicts the love of God. I am aware if the chapters and verses you cite and I's surprised that they are in the Bible. But still, I still believe God is love. How? I can't really explain it and that's why I'd like to ask you another question. God's love cannot be understood, so deep, it happens to not be a sentimental, emotional love but a deep seeding, practical, active love. He himself showed on the cross what Love is. If you understand that, I think only then you'll understand Num. 23 and Ps. 137:9, at least, then you can accept that God is love despite the suffering we're confronted with. If you sincerely want to investigate if God is love then I think you'll have to dive into the Bible and investigate the following parts:

• Isa 53

• Matt 26:36-46

• also the parts on the crucifixion that you're probably familiar with (Matt 26, 27, Luke 22, 23, John 19)

• Rom 3:21-26 and 8:31,32

• Heb 2:5-18

• Eph 3:14-19

Well, that's quite a bit on your plate. I'm not sure if you're motivated to do this or if you'll get it. It comes down to this being the way that God underwent the suffering to make us part of His nature (by himself becoming part of our nature) and rise us up and get us in contact with Him so we can once again live as intended. So you're not predetermined to be damned for eternity because Jesus was damned to rise you up for eternity.

You point that science leaves ever so less room for God is logical since science only wants to view God with reason and in their system to they by definition will not find God because He only allows to be found by people who want to seek Him with their whole heart, soul and mind, but not only with their mind. You have to surrender your whole life, then you'll find Him.

By the way, you were also bringing up justice. Now I'm not a lawyer but I have an issue with your reasoning. Once again, you apply human criteria to God. If you need to punish inter-human behavior with equal proportions (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a biblical principle), that does not imply that God has to as well. If we sin against the Holy God then the relation is severed because God cannot and will not to what is not holy (immaculate, pure, clean), because this would defile Him. He doesn't want that but has no choice since He would no longer be able to be himself. That's why eternal punishment applies to us, through death. Only salvation from that punishment would clear the road to Him. That's why Jesus is called the Savior. Regarding the point of sins of the parents applying to children, that's harder but I can say something on that. My granddad was an authoritarian man. My dad thought that was terrible. He did not want to be like that. He decided to raise his kids gently. Yet, somehow he was not able to because at some moments the shell busted and the authoritarian feelings were exposed. I was enraged every time during those bursts and decided to be even gentler. Three guesses what's stirring in me. Is that character? No, that's sin. That's our nature which goes from father to son. Kan it be interrupted? Yes, I discovered this pattern (and other patterns with a similar trajectory) and put the to God and my father (not all of them yet) and prayed for forgiveness and recovery and I notice a change. What I want to say is this. I'm my father's son, genetically, emotionally and socially. I'm connected to him in lots of ways. I'm not a separate individual. I am a person who's related to others, my father among them. What I do has repercussions on all my relations. I think that's true on a spiritual level as well. Even if current practice of law does not acknowledge this does not mean that it isn't the case. In other words, I think this biblical principle is truer than current law acknowledges and when this is studied more we'll be better equipped to see and judge these connections. However, this will probably not satisfy you completely. Let's keep it at that this is the way that I connect my faith to these biblical issues.

Well, that was quite a bit again, maybe this time you'll have to read it more than three times but I hope it touches the issues you're dealing with and that you can take away something from it.

Kind regards,

Edward