Will suicide send you to hell?
Let’s take a break from the Angie conversation. This is a question several people have asked me over the last couple of years, so I thought I’d write a blog about it.
Most Christians recognize that suicide is wrong, but there’s a few historical observations that are kind of interesting. It seems that a lot of Jews in the first century actually thought suicide was, in some cases, an honorable way to die. Josephus writes about two mass suicides in The Jewish War. In both cases, the Romans were about to capture a group of Jews and probably execute some and sell the others into slavery. Rather than being captured, they decided to commit suicide instead, because it was the honorable thing to do. I remember reading somewhere that Christians were thought to be an odd group because they refused to ever commit suicide.
But anyway, I think suicide is wrong, because it involves the unjustified taking of human life. I don’t want to argue that point, though. Let’s just assume it’s wrong and go from there.
It seems from reading the New Testament, that absolute perfection is required to avoid judgment. But none of us are perfect. That’s why we need Jesus. He lived a sinless life, and when he died for our sins, his righteousness was credited to us. We are declared righteous because of him.
If it’s true that perfection is required, then any sin at all can send us to hell. If suicide is a sin, then suicide can send us to hell.
But the question is, will a person who commits suicide necessarily go to hell? Or can they be forgiven?
The only unforgivable sin mentioned in the Bible is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, so it would seem that suicide is forgivable. If so, then suicide will not necessarily send a person to hell.
Why do people raise this issue, though? I think it’s because when a person commits suicide, they have no opportunity to repent. If they succeed, they then die. They can’t even ask for forgiveness. Since they lack these opportunities, then they will go to hell for their sin.
Here’s why I don’t buy that argument. Everybody sins, right? That includes Christians. Every single Christian sins sometimes. Let’s suppose some Christian who is otherwise in good standing commits a sin. Let’s say he tells a lie. And let’s suppose further that just as he gets this lie off his tongue, a sniper from out of nowhere shoots him in the head and kills him. In that case, he dies immediately after (or while) committing a sin, and has no opportunity to repent or ask forgiveness. If the reasoning above is sound, then it would follow that this person will go to hell. But that seems absurd. If it is absurd, then the reasoning above must also be absurd, since it’s the same reasoning.
Here’s another way to look at it. If the reasoning above is sound, then it follows that a person loses his salvation every single time he sins. Think about it. If a person who sins goes to hell because he lacks the opportunity to repent, then it follows that he loses his salvation each time he sins until he repents. That, too, seems absurd.
So basically, I don’t think a person who commits suicide necessarily will go to hell.
But there is another question people sometimes raise. Would a person who was truly saved every commit suicide? If you say no, then it would follow that the person would go to hell, not just because they committed suicide, but because they were unsaved. The act of suicide is not, by itself, what causes them to go to hell, but it may be an indication that they will go to hell, because it tells us that they were not saved. They wouldn’t have committed suicide if they were not saved.
I’m not sure I entirely buy that one either. If you read 1 John, you definitely will get the impression that a truly committed Christian would not live in continual sin. It follows that if some person is living in continual sin without any desire or inclination whatsoever to straighten up and fly right, then we are within our epistemic rights in questioning their salvation. But you also get the impression from 1 John that even devout Christians will sin at some point, and that’s why we have an advocate.
What doesn’t seem evident in 1 John or anywhere else is how low a Christian might stoop. Should we assume that a Christian might perhaps lie or even steel, but a true Christian would never commit adultery or murder? If so, what justification could we offer? On what basis would we draw a line between things a Christian will do, and things no Christian would ever do?
To commit suicide, a person only needs to reach a hopeless state of despair for a very brief period of time. We are all different. We all handle stress differently. Though I think suicide is inconsistent with Christianity, so is lying. But it doesn’t seem totally absurd that a Christian could, in some circumstances, reach such a state that would render them capable of either. So I don’t think a person who commits suicide will necessarily go to hell.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Conversations with Angie: answer to Angie on prayer
Angie,
By golly, you're debating with me! LOL
You make some good points, and the points you raise are exactly why I don't find these answers very satisfying myself.
I especially think your point about lack of faith is valid. The "lack of faith" response to unanswered prayers is the least satisfying of all to me. Exactly how much faith is "the faith of a mustard seed"? And exactly what did Jesus mean by "moving mountains"? The whole thing sounds like you can accomplish quite a bit with a small amount of faith, but I've gotta be honest with you and admit that my faith in the efficacy of prayers is pretty small.
The only thing I have to say about your response to "sin in our lives" is that it seems to assume God is a machine. The output of a machine is completely predictable. A given input should produce a predictable output. But God is a person, and as a person, God must make judgment calls. Since (1) we all sin, and (2) sin can hinder our prayers, it follows that (3) God must make judgment calls about his willingness to answer prayers in spite of sins. Since his responses are a matter of judgment calls, rather than mechanistic reactions to stimuli, I don't think the "sin in our lives" answer is without some merit.
To an extent, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the "God's sovereign will" response to unanswered prayers. While answering that "God's ways are above our ways and understanding," may not exactly be satisfying--especially when you really want to understand--I nevertheless think it's legitimate. Why should we EXPECT to know everything? Not even parents explain everything to their children. Sometimes, "Because I said so," is about all the response a kid can get out of his parents. That response may be terribly unsatisfying to the kid, but it would be hasty to assume the parent doesn't have good reasons just because the parent chooses not to explain them to the child. Often, the whole reason parents refuse to explain things to their children is because they know the explanation would simply not be understood by the child. In the same way, I think it would be hasty to assume God has no good reasons for his lack of response just because we happen not to know what they are.
Praying that God reveal his sovereign will to us doesn't solve the problem; it just postpones it. It may not be part of God's sovereign will to reveal his sovereign will to us, so that prayer would justifyably go unanswered as well.
I was talking to a friend of mine about unanswered prayers last week, and he made the point that sometimes prayers are answered, but not in the way we asked, or in our timing. Again, none of these answers are completely satifying. To be satisfying, they'd have to answer all of our questions. My whole position is that we don't need all of our questions to be answered. All we need to know is whether or not it's possible that there are good reasons for why our prayers are not answered. As long as it's possible, unanswered prayers only amount to a probablistic argument against Christianity at best.
Regarding God as our Father, I think I said something about that in a previous email. Basically, "Father" is just one role God has among many. God is also king, judge, ruler, etc. He fills all of these roles. His role as a judge may, in some cases, be inconsistent with his role as a Father. We shouldn't expect, then, for God to behave just as any earthly Father would behave.
All of this sort of leads in to the next part of your email I wanted to talk about, which is the problem of evil. Why does a loving God allow, and sometimes cause, so much suffering? Is there a contradiction between the existence of suffering in the world and the existence of an all good and powerful God? Coming soon in an email near you!
Sam
Conversations with Angie: Are God's roles inconsistent with each other?
By golly, you're debating with me! LOL
You make some good points, and the points you raise are exactly why I don't find these answers very satisfying myself.
I especially think your point about lack of faith is valid. The "lack of faith" response to unanswered prayers is the least satisfying of all to me. Exactly how much faith is "the faith of a mustard seed"? And exactly what did Jesus mean by "moving mountains"? The whole thing sounds like you can accomplish quite a bit with a small amount of faith, but I've gotta be honest with you and admit that my faith in the efficacy of prayers is pretty small.
The only thing I have to say about your response to "sin in our lives" is that it seems to assume God is a machine. The output of a machine is completely predictable. A given input should produce a predictable output. But God is a person, and as a person, God must make judgment calls. Since (1) we all sin, and (2) sin can hinder our prayers, it follows that (3) God must make judgment calls about his willingness to answer prayers in spite of sins. Since his responses are a matter of judgment calls, rather than mechanistic reactions to stimuli, I don't think the "sin in our lives" answer is without some merit.
To an extent, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the "God's sovereign will" response to unanswered prayers. While answering that "God's ways are above our ways and understanding," may not exactly be satisfying--especially when you really want to understand--I nevertheless think it's legitimate. Why should we EXPECT to know everything? Not even parents explain everything to their children. Sometimes, "Because I said so," is about all the response a kid can get out of his parents. That response may be terribly unsatisfying to the kid, but it would be hasty to assume the parent doesn't have good reasons just because the parent chooses not to explain them to the child. Often, the whole reason parents refuse to explain things to their children is because they know the explanation would simply not be understood by the child. In the same way, I think it would be hasty to assume God has no good reasons for his lack of response just because we happen not to know what they are.
Praying that God reveal his sovereign will to us doesn't solve the problem; it just postpones it. It may not be part of God's sovereign will to reveal his sovereign will to us, so that prayer would justifyably go unanswered as well.
I was talking to a friend of mine about unanswered prayers last week, and he made the point that sometimes prayers are answered, but not in the way we asked, or in our timing. Again, none of these answers are completely satifying. To be satisfying, they'd have to answer all of our questions. My whole position is that we don't need all of our questions to be answered. All we need to know is whether or not it's possible that there are good reasons for why our prayers are not answered. As long as it's possible, unanswered prayers only amount to a probablistic argument against Christianity at best.
Regarding God as our Father, I think I said something about that in a previous email. Basically, "Father" is just one role God has among many. God is also king, judge, ruler, etc. He fills all of these roles. His role as a judge may, in some cases, be inconsistent with his role as a Father. We shouldn't expect, then, for God to behave just as any earthly Father would behave.
All of this sort of leads in to the next part of your email I wanted to talk about, which is the problem of evil. Why does a loving God allow, and sometimes cause, so much suffering? Is there a contradiction between the existence of suffering in the world and the existence of an all good and powerful God? Coming soon in an email near you!
Sam
Conversations with Angie: Are God's roles inconsistent with each other?
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Conversations with Angie: Angie on prayer
Sam,
I've heard all of these arguments before. Actually, I'm sure I've presented/discussed them with others before. But I agree with you: they are very unsatisfactory.
1. Lack of faith
This I don't buy at all. The Bible says that if we have the faith of a mustard seed, we can move mountains. I'm thinking that if someone has enough faith to pray, then they have faith the size of a mustard seed, at least.
2. Sin in our lives
No human is completely without sin. So, if sin prevents the answer of prayers, no one's prayers would be answered. Some people argue that it's not that one commits a sin that prevents the prayer being answered, but it's a sinful lifestyle and/or a lack of submission that result in the prayer going unanswered. I suppose this is the argument that could be made regarding the friend you mentioned. She was living with her boyfriend, and because of her sinful lifestyle and failure to submit that area of her life to God, her prayers were not being answered. But is her sin really any worse than the person who thinks lustful thoughts, and whose prayers are being answered? No, because even the lustful thought makes one guilty of fornication.
Also, many people who are not walking with God claim that he answers their prayers, and is always faithful to do so. They have some faith in God, but no conviction. Yet, they will claim that he answers their prayers. If it is true that living a sinful life prevents your prayers being answered, then many who claim that their prayers are always answered shouldn't be receiving those responses, right?
I think that whether one perceives their prayers as being answered or going unanswered depends almost solely on the way that they believe.
3. God's will
Obviously, if you ask something that is contrary to God's moral law, He will not grant it. It would be a violation of His character.
Regarding God's sovereign will -- I suppose people often pray for things that are not in line with His plan. But at the same time, many people pray to ask that he reveal his will to them so that they'll know how to pray/act, and this prayer often goes unanswered.
I've found that when the possible explanations have been exhausted in this type of discussion, people will simply end by saying, "Well, it is beyond us to understand God or His ways. We're just humans. His understanding and wisdom is far beyond us, etc., etc..." Once I could rest in that, but not anymore.
Above all, the lack of response to prayer bothered me b/c it didn't correspond to what I had been taught regarding the human relationship with God. Paul said in Romans that we received the Spirit of Adoption, that we may call him Father. And in many other places, it says that we can call on him as a father and that he will care for us as a father. Ignoring prayers and needs does not sound like fatherly care to me.
I guess that's it for now...
~Angie
Conversations with Angie: Answer to Angie on prayer
I've heard all of these arguments before. Actually, I'm sure I've presented/discussed them with others before. But I agree with you: they are very unsatisfactory.
1. Lack of faith
This I don't buy at all. The Bible says that if we have the faith of a mustard seed, we can move mountains. I'm thinking that if someone has enough faith to pray, then they have faith the size of a mustard seed, at least.
2. Sin in our lives
No human is completely without sin. So, if sin prevents the answer of prayers, no one's prayers would be answered. Some people argue that it's not that one commits a sin that prevents the prayer being answered, but it's a sinful lifestyle and/or a lack of submission that result in the prayer going unanswered. I suppose this is the argument that could be made regarding the friend you mentioned. She was living with her boyfriend, and because of her sinful lifestyle and failure to submit that area of her life to God, her prayers were not being answered. But is her sin really any worse than the person who thinks lustful thoughts, and whose prayers are being answered? No, because even the lustful thought makes one guilty of fornication.
Also, many people who are not walking with God claim that he answers their prayers, and is always faithful to do so. They have some faith in God, but no conviction. Yet, they will claim that he answers their prayers. If it is true that living a sinful life prevents your prayers being answered, then many who claim that their prayers are always answered shouldn't be receiving those responses, right?
I think that whether one perceives their prayers as being answered or going unanswered depends almost solely on the way that they believe.
3. God's will
Obviously, if you ask something that is contrary to God's moral law, He will not grant it. It would be a violation of His character.
Regarding God's sovereign will -- I suppose people often pray for things that are not in line with His plan. But at the same time, many people pray to ask that he reveal his will to them so that they'll know how to pray/act, and this prayer often goes unanswered.
I've found that when the possible explanations have been exhausted in this type of discussion, people will simply end by saying, "Well, it is beyond us to understand God or His ways. We're just humans. His understanding and wisdom is far beyond us, etc., etc..." Once I could rest in that, but not anymore.
Above all, the lack of response to prayer bothered me b/c it didn't correspond to what I had been taught regarding the human relationship with God. Paul said in Romans that we received the Spirit of Adoption, that we may call him Father. And in many other places, it says that we can call on him as a father and that he will care for us as a father. Ignoring prayers and needs does not sound like fatherly care to me.
I guess that's it for now...
~Angie
Conversations with Angie: Answer to Angie on prayer
Monday, June 20, 2005
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for unanswered prayers, part 3
continued...
Besides these three Biblical reasons for why prayers might not be answered, there are other reasons that seem pretty obvious. Suppose there's this stock, call it XYZ. Several people buy that stock hoping it will go up in price. But then there's another group of people who want to short the stock.* The people who buy the stock are praying it goes up, and the people who short the stock are praying it goes down. Obviously, the stock can't both go down and go up at the same time, so some prayers are going to go unanswered. Likewise, when any two people are praying mutually exclusive prayers, they can't both be answered.
To summarize about my views on unanswered prayers, I share your discomfort with them. They are one of my major causes for doubt. But they are not enough to shake my belief in Christianity because (1) there are possibly good reasons for why they aren't answered whether I know what those reasons are or not, and (2) the doubt they cause is not nearly enough to overcome the reasons I have for thinking Christianity is true.
Sam
*I don't know whether or not you know what that means, so I'll explain it just in case. When you short a stock, what you do is borrow the stock from somebody else, and sell it. Say the stock is worth $20, so you now have $20 in your account. Then you sit back and pray that the stock goes down. Let's say it goes down to $10. At that point, you buy the stock back at $10, and give it back to the person you borrowed it from. Now you've got $10 profit. So you can actually make money on stocks when they go down.
Conversations with Angie: Angie on prayer
Besides these three Biblical reasons for why prayers might not be answered, there are other reasons that seem pretty obvious. Suppose there's this stock, call it XYZ. Several people buy that stock hoping it will go up in price. But then there's another group of people who want to short the stock.* The people who buy the stock are praying it goes up, and the people who short the stock are praying it goes down. Obviously, the stock can't both go down and go up at the same time, so some prayers are going to go unanswered. Likewise, when any two people are praying mutually exclusive prayers, they can't both be answered.
To summarize about my views on unanswered prayers, I share your discomfort with them. They are one of my major causes for doubt. But they are not enough to shake my belief in Christianity because (1) there are possibly good reasons for why they aren't answered whether I know what those reasons are or not, and (2) the doubt they cause is not nearly enough to overcome the reasons I have for thinking Christianity is true.
Sam
*I don't know whether or not you know what that means, so I'll explain it just in case. When you short a stock, what you do is borrow the stock from somebody else, and sell it. Say the stock is worth $20, so you now have $20 in your account. Then you sit back and pray that the stock goes down. Let's say it goes down to $10. At that point, you buy the stock back at $10, and give it back to the person you borrowed it from. Now you've got $10 profit. So you can actually make money on stocks when they go down.
Conversations with Angie: Angie on prayer
Friday, June 17, 2005
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for unanswered prayers, part 2
continued...
Praying according to God's will is, I think, probably the major reason prayers don't get answered, but it's still not very satisfying to me. There are two senses in which a thing can be "according to God's will." There's the moral sense and the sovereign sense.
God's moral will consists of his moral requirements. In that sense, prayers such as, "God, would you please send me a prostitute?" are probably not going to be answered. Likewise, prayers such as, "God, I know I shouldn't have done what I did, but would you please help me to avoid the consequences?" may not be answered, because reaping what we sow is part of God's design for the universe. There are some cases that God will cut you some slack, but we shouldn't expect it in situations like that. God disciplines those he loves. I can speak from personal experience when I say that reaping what you sow can straighten out your lifestyle, as painful a process as that may be.
It's a little more tricky with God's sovereign will. God's sovereign will is basically what God has determined to do, and his will can't be thwarted. God has a master plan for the universe that is, for the most part, hidden from us. If God is enacting some kind of master plan, and our prayers are inconsistent with that plan, then obviously, they're not going to be answered. The unsatisfying thing about praying according to God's will is that we don't always know what God's will is. In Romans, Paul says that when we don't know what to pray for, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. Often, it's impossible for us to know the long-term consequences of things, and we just have to trust God's sovereignty. That, I think, is why appeals to the hidden soveriegn will of God as a response to unanswered prayers are unsatisfying. It just seems inconcievable that God would be silent in our desparate times of need, especially when we can't think of any good reason for his failure to act.
Let me give you a Biblical example that may illustrate my point. You remember the story about how Joseph's brothers threw him in a well, then sold him into slavery, all because they were jealous of him? Well, I imagine in a situation like that Joseph was probably praying. "God, please don't let me be sold into slavery. Just let me make it back home to dad, and I'll never wear this coat of many colours again." Now I don't know what was going through Joseph's head at the time, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that he might've prayed something like that. Maybe he didn't, but even if he did, God probably would not have answered that prayer. The reason is because God allowing Joseph to be sold into slavery was all part of a larger master plan that nobody could've forseen. In the end of that story, when Joseph is second in command in Egypt, and his brothers realize who he is, they were begging for forgiveness. Joseph said to them, "You meant this for evil, but God meant it for good." Joseph being sold into slavery was all part of a big plan to deal with an upcoming famine, and save a lot of lives. Of course that raises other obvious questions like, "Well couldn't God have just prevented the famine?" Sure, but before we can start coming up with alternative plans for God, we have to first know the WHOLE picture. Otherwise, how do we know where the famine fits into it?
to be continued...
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for unanswered prayers, part 3
Praying according to God's will is, I think, probably the major reason prayers don't get answered, but it's still not very satisfying to me. There are two senses in which a thing can be "according to God's will." There's the moral sense and the sovereign sense.
God's moral will consists of his moral requirements. In that sense, prayers such as, "God, would you please send me a prostitute?" are probably not going to be answered. Likewise, prayers such as, "God, I know I shouldn't have done what I did, but would you please help me to avoid the consequences?" may not be answered, because reaping what we sow is part of God's design for the universe. There are some cases that God will cut you some slack, but we shouldn't expect it in situations like that. God disciplines those he loves. I can speak from personal experience when I say that reaping what you sow can straighten out your lifestyle, as painful a process as that may be.
It's a little more tricky with God's sovereign will. God's sovereign will is basically what God has determined to do, and his will can't be thwarted. God has a master plan for the universe that is, for the most part, hidden from us. If God is enacting some kind of master plan, and our prayers are inconsistent with that plan, then obviously, they're not going to be answered. The unsatisfying thing about praying according to God's will is that we don't always know what God's will is. In Romans, Paul says that when we don't know what to pray for, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. Often, it's impossible for us to know the long-term consequences of things, and we just have to trust God's sovereignty. That, I think, is why appeals to the hidden soveriegn will of God as a response to unanswered prayers are unsatisfying. It just seems inconcievable that God would be silent in our desparate times of need, especially when we can't think of any good reason for his failure to act.
Let me give you a Biblical example that may illustrate my point. You remember the story about how Joseph's brothers threw him in a well, then sold him into slavery, all because they were jealous of him? Well, I imagine in a situation like that Joseph was probably praying. "God, please don't let me be sold into slavery. Just let me make it back home to dad, and I'll never wear this coat of many colours again." Now I don't know what was going through Joseph's head at the time, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that he might've prayed something like that. Maybe he didn't, but even if he did, God probably would not have answered that prayer. The reason is because God allowing Joseph to be sold into slavery was all part of a larger master plan that nobody could've forseen. In the end of that story, when Joseph is second in command in Egypt, and his brothers realize who he is, they were begging for forgiveness. Joseph said to them, "You meant this for evil, but God meant it for good." Joseph being sold into slavery was all part of a big plan to deal with an upcoming famine, and save a lot of lives. Of course that raises other obvious questions like, "Well couldn't God have just prevented the famine?" Sure, but before we can start coming up with alternative plans for God, we have to first know the WHOLE picture. Otherwise, how do we know where the famine fits into it?
to be continued...
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for unanswered prayers, part 3
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for why prayers aren't answered, part 1.
Angie and I exchanged a few more emails talking about our church background and such. Her answer to my last email was basically to say this:
********
Okay, I guess I'll get back to the prayer thing. As I said, there's a few Biblical reasons for why our prayers might not be answered, and as I also said, I don't find them particularly satisfying.
There are three reasons off the top of my head--lack of faith, sin in our lives, and not praying according to God's will.
Regarding lack of faith, I find this one to be a little paradoxical. What is to be the basis of our faith in future prayers if past prayers haven't been answered? It seems like before there can be grounds for our faith in prayer, we first have to have prayers that have been answered. But according to the Bible, faith must come BEFORE prayer, not AFTER. That bothers me.
Regarding sin in our lives, this one make a little more sense to me. A lot of us want to think of ourselves as basically good people, because we're grading ourselves on a bell curve. If we are as good as anybody else, then we're alright. But the Biblical standards of morality are pretty high, and keeping God's law is so important that John equates our obedience to God with our love for God. A friend of mine who had been living with her boyfriend for a couple of years was complaining one day that God doesn't answer her prayers. I guess in her mind, living with her boyfriend wasn't so bad. I mean she wasn't committing murder or anything. She wasn't hurting anybody. But Paul said in 1 Corinthians that we ought to flee from sexual immorality, because while all other sins are committed outside the body, those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies, and our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Granted, none of us are capable of moral perfection, but in 1 John, you can see that what is expected of us is a much cleaner life than most of us are living. If anything, I probably ought to be surprised that God answered ANY of my prayers. I'm far from being a model of the ideal Christian life. He has answered some, though. I guess the objection that is most often raised to this argument is that a loving God surely wouldn't judge us. But if God doesn't hold us to any standards, who will? If God has no standards he expects us to live by, then for all practical purposes, there ARE no standards, except the ones we invent, and we can change those whenever we feel like it. But what do those standards have to do with God? God isn't just the big teddy bear in the sky. He's not just our loving Father. He's also the creator and sustainer of the universe. He's the king, the ruler, the governor, etc.
to be continued...
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for unanswered prayers, part 2
In answer to your question, yes, I followed your argument (at least I think I did :). As for what I think of the methodology... I'm not entirely sure, but I will say that I'm not entirely at ease with it. In my experience, church leaders tended to de-emphasize reason (although not intelligence) and emphasize faith, so sometimes it's difficult for me to reconcile certain arguments with faith.At some point I sent her an email dealing with the issue of faith and reason, but I'm skipping that, too. I went on to give some Biblical reasons for why some prayers aren't answered.
********
Okay, I guess I'll get back to the prayer thing. As I said, there's a few Biblical reasons for why our prayers might not be answered, and as I also said, I don't find them particularly satisfying.
There are three reasons off the top of my head--lack of faith, sin in our lives, and not praying according to God's will.
Regarding lack of faith, I find this one to be a little paradoxical. What is to be the basis of our faith in future prayers if past prayers haven't been answered? It seems like before there can be grounds for our faith in prayer, we first have to have prayers that have been answered. But according to the Bible, faith must come BEFORE prayer, not AFTER. That bothers me.
Regarding sin in our lives, this one make a little more sense to me. A lot of us want to think of ourselves as basically good people, because we're grading ourselves on a bell curve. If we are as good as anybody else, then we're alright. But the Biblical standards of morality are pretty high, and keeping God's law is so important that John equates our obedience to God with our love for God. A friend of mine who had been living with her boyfriend for a couple of years was complaining one day that God doesn't answer her prayers. I guess in her mind, living with her boyfriend wasn't so bad. I mean she wasn't committing murder or anything. She wasn't hurting anybody. But Paul said in 1 Corinthians that we ought to flee from sexual immorality, because while all other sins are committed outside the body, those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies, and our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Granted, none of us are capable of moral perfection, but in 1 John, you can see that what is expected of us is a much cleaner life than most of us are living. If anything, I probably ought to be surprised that God answered ANY of my prayers. I'm far from being a model of the ideal Christian life. He has answered some, though. I guess the objection that is most often raised to this argument is that a loving God surely wouldn't judge us. But if God doesn't hold us to any standards, who will? If God has no standards he expects us to live by, then for all practical purposes, there ARE no standards, except the ones we invent, and we can change those whenever we feel like it. But what do those standards have to do with God? God isn't just the big teddy bear in the sky. He's not just our loving Father. He's also the creator and sustainer of the universe. He's the king, the ruler, the governor, etc.
to be continued...
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for unanswered prayers, part 2
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Conversation with Angie: How I deal with problems I can't solve
Angie and I went back and forth a few more times on the issue of certainty and reasonableness, and some clarifications were made on both sides. I want to skip that and move on to the next part. I wanted to start with the most difficult issue for me, which was God's apparent unresponsiveness to prayer.
********
Angie,
[deleting some stuff]
This is what you said: "And, if what the Bible says is true, why do prayers, needs, etc., so often go unanswered and unmet?"
I relate with this more than anything else you said. God's apparent unresponsiveness to prayer is one of the major causes for doubt in me. Now I can't claim that I've never had prayers answered before, but when you compare reality to some of the things that are said in the Bible, it doesn't seem to match up. For example, Jesus said that anything we ask in his name will be done for us. Does that correspond to reality? There seems to be a disconnect, even if you grant the answers I HAVE received to prayer.
The Bible gives several reasons for why our prayers may not be answered, but I'll be honest with you in saying that I don't find those answers very satisfying. Since I don't find those answers very satisfying, of course I can't hope to satisfy YOU with them. Before I go into them, let me tell you, in general, how I deal with objections to Christianity that I just can't answer.
Imagine one of those balance scales with a tray on either side suspended by a tiny little chain connected to an arm that rests on a fulcrum. I'd draw you a picture if I could, but I think you get the idea. On one side of the scale, you pile all the reasons for why Christianity is probably true. On the other side, you pile all the reasons for why Christianity is probably not true. If the case for Christianity is stronger than the case against, then the scale will tilt toward affirming the truth of Christianity. And if the case against is stronger, the scale will tilt the other way.
Do you see how this sort of flows from what we were talking about before? I don't require absolute certainty, which could only be had if there were an irrefutible argument for Christianity and no arguments at all against Christianity. I only require that Christianity is more reasonable than not--that is, the case for is stronger than the case against.
With this epistemological method, it isn't even necessary for me to be able to refute all of the arguments against Christianity. If I could refute any of them, I could take them off the scale. But even leaving them on the scale, and agreeing that they do count against Christianity, my belief in Christianity is still rational since the weight of the case against Christianity cannot overcome the weight of the case for Christianity on the other side.
Put simply, I base my beliefs on what I DO know rather than what I DON'T know. I may not be able to tell you why God didn't answer a prayer, or why some evil happened, but I don't need to answer those questions in order for me to be rationally justified in believing that Christianity is true.
So that's basically how I deal with arguments against Christianity that I can't answer.
The only exception to this method is the rare instance of an irrefutable air-tight argument. You could pile on the arguments for Christianity all you want, but all it takes is one irrefutable argument against Christianity to outweight them all. This works the other way, too.
Let me give an analogy to explain what I mean. Let's suppose we want to know if it's true that "all crows are black." To find out, we go out in the wild and look at as many crows as we can. The more black crows we observe, the higher the probability is that the claim that "all crows are black" is true. We can never know with 100% certain that it's true unless we could observe every crow that exists, and even then, whose to say the next crow won't be born white? But the more we observe, the closer to certainty we become. Now all it takes to disprove the claim is one white crow. You could have ten million black crows on one side of the scale proving that all crows are black, and yet one white crow on the other side of the scale will outweight them all and prove the claim that "all crows are black" is false.
So far, I have yet to discover any such argument either for or against Christianity, so the truth of Christianity lies in the realm of possibilities. There are reasons for and against, and I simply weigh the evidence and find Christianity more likely to be true than not. Do you follow me so far?
As unsatisfying as some of the Biblical reasons are for why prayers aren't answered, as long as it's at least possible that there are legitimate reasons, the argument against Christianity from unanswered prayers is not air-tight. It's only a probabilistic argument. At best, it makes Christianity less likely to be true. And let's face it; if there ARE legitimate reasons for why prayers aren't answered, they would have to be God's reasons, since God is the one who answers prayers. If they're God's reasons, it shouldn't surprise us at all that we don't happen to know what they are.
All I've done in this email so far is to give you the method I use in answering your prayer concern. I meant to actually go through some of the Biblical answers, but since it took so long just to explain my epistemological method, and since I have to get ready for work, I'll save the actual answering for another email. I want to know what you think of the method and if I explained it clearly.
By the way, it just makes my day that you are so willing to discuss these things with me. I'm enjoying it. Anybody who can get my brain working is alright with me!
Sam
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for why prayers aren't answered, part 1
********
Angie,
[deleting some stuff]
This is what you said: "And, if what the Bible says is true, why do prayers, needs, etc., so often go unanswered and unmet?"
I relate with this more than anything else you said. God's apparent unresponsiveness to prayer is one of the major causes for doubt in me. Now I can't claim that I've never had prayers answered before, but when you compare reality to some of the things that are said in the Bible, it doesn't seem to match up. For example, Jesus said that anything we ask in his name will be done for us. Does that correspond to reality? There seems to be a disconnect, even if you grant the answers I HAVE received to prayer.
The Bible gives several reasons for why our prayers may not be answered, but I'll be honest with you in saying that I don't find those answers very satisfying. Since I don't find those answers very satisfying, of course I can't hope to satisfy YOU with them. Before I go into them, let me tell you, in general, how I deal with objections to Christianity that I just can't answer.
Imagine one of those balance scales with a tray on either side suspended by a tiny little chain connected to an arm that rests on a fulcrum. I'd draw you a picture if I could, but I think you get the idea. On one side of the scale, you pile all the reasons for why Christianity is probably true. On the other side, you pile all the reasons for why Christianity is probably not true. If the case for Christianity is stronger than the case against, then the scale will tilt toward affirming the truth of Christianity. And if the case against is stronger, the scale will tilt the other way.
Do you see how this sort of flows from what we were talking about before? I don't require absolute certainty, which could only be had if there were an irrefutible argument for Christianity and no arguments at all against Christianity. I only require that Christianity is more reasonable than not--that is, the case for is stronger than the case against.
With this epistemological method, it isn't even necessary for me to be able to refute all of the arguments against Christianity. If I could refute any of them, I could take them off the scale. But even leaving them on the scale, and agreeing that they do count against Christianity, my belief in Christianity is still rational since the weight of the case against Christianity cannot overcome the weight of the case for Christianity on the other side.
Put simply, I base my beliefs on what I DO know rather than what I DON'T know. I may not be able to tell you why God didn't answer a prayer, or why some evil happened, but I don't need to answer those questions in order for me to be rationally justified in believing that Christianity is true.
So that's basically how I deal with arguments against Christianity that I can't answer.
The only exception to this method is the rare instance of an irrefutable air-tight argument. You could pile on the arguments for Christianity all you want, but all it takes is one irrefutable argument against Christianity to outweight them all. This works the other way, too.
Let me give an analogy to explain what I mean. Let's suppose we want to know if it's true that "all crows are black." To find out, we go out in the wild and look at as many crows as we can. The more black crows we observe, the higher the probability is that the claim that "all crows are black" is true. We can never know with 100% certain that it's true unless we could observe every crow that exists, and even then, whose to say the next crow won't be born white? But the more we observe, the closer to certainty we become. Now all it takes to disprove the claim is one white crow. You could have ten million black crows on one side of the scale proving that all crows are black, and yet one white crow on the other side of the scale will outweight them all and prove the claim that "all crows are black" is false.
So far, I have yet to discover any such argument either for or against Christianity, so the truth of Christianity lies in the realm of possibilities. There are reasons for and against, and I simply weigh the evidence and find Christianity more likely to be true than not. Do you follow me so far?
As unsatisfying as some of the Biblical reasons are for why prayers aren't answered, as long as it's at least possible that there are legitimate reasons, the argument against Christianity from unanswered prayers is not air-tight. It's only a probabilistic argument. At best, it makes Christianity less likely to be true. And let's face it; if there ARE legitimate reasons for why prayers aren't answered, they would have to be God's reasons, since God is the one who answers prayers. If they're God's reasons, it shouldn't surprise us at all that we don't happen to know what they are.
All I've done in this email so far is to give you the method I use in answering your prayer concern. I meant to actually go through some of the Biblical answers, but since it took so long just to explain my epistemological method, and since I have to get ready for work, I'll save the actual answering for another email. I want to know what you think of the method and if I explained it clearly.
By the way, it just makes my day that you are so willing to discuss these things with me. I'm enjoying it. Anybody who can get my brain working is alright with me!
Sam
Conversations with Angie: Biblical reasons for why prayers aren't answered, part 1
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Conversations with Angie: More on certainty and reasonableness
continued...
With that in mind, I think this next part can easily be cleared up. You said:
>With this in mind, I'm not sure that I understand why you say, "Belief in
>Christianity is reasonable to me in the sense that it's a justified belief that
>falls short of absolute certainty."
By "belief," all I mean is that I think it's true. To believe something means to think it's true. If I believe there's milk in the refrigerator, all that means is that I think it's true that there's milk in the refrigerator.
"Justified," means I have reasons why I think there's milk in the refrigerator. Maybe it's because I remember putting milk in the refrigerator, and I'm the only one who lives here.
To fall short of absolute certainty doesn't mean that I think Christianity is only half way true or something. All it means is that I don't know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true. To have a justified belief just means to hold a belief for good reasons. I have a justified belief that there's milk in the refrigerator because I think it's true, and I have some REASONS to think it's true. But I nevertheless COULD be wrong, so I'm not absolutely certain--that is I don't know it beyond all doubt. Do you see what I mean?
Basically, I don't know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true. However, I do THINK it's true, and the reason I think it's true is because there are what seem to me to be good reasons to think it's true.
Moving on to the second point--about why you demand certainty. From what you said, it sounds like you were neither certain (in the epistemological sense) that Christianity was true, nor that it was false. In fact, you didn't even seem to hold a belief one way or the other. You were 50/50, so you could've gone either way. Eventually, the scales tipped in favor of denying that Christianity is true. But even then, I didn't get the impression that you knew beyond all doubt that Christianity was false. It seems to me, if I'm understanding you right, you still think it's as least possible, be it ever so unlikely, that Christianity MIGHT be true. Is that right?
If so, suppose the scales had tipped in the other direction. Instead of thinking it more likely that Christianity is false, you thought it was more likely that Christianity was true. At this point, you don't know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true, but you THINK it is because it seems more likely than not. What would you have done? Would you have remained a Christian?
And now to the final issue--about being dedicated to non-Christianity as oppossed to Christianity. All I mean by "dedicating your life" to something is simply living consistently with it. I don't mean you shout it from the roof tops or invest all your time promoting the idea. You agreed with me that you either are a Christian or you're not. It's in that sense that you either dedicate yourself to being a Christian or to not being a Christian. You live consistently with one point of view or the other. It sounds to me like you have given up actually being a Christian. I assume you no longer worship God since you don't believe in God. You probably don't pray to God. You don't trust in Jesus for your salvation. You're living your life consistently with the belief that Christianity is not true. In that sense, you've dedicated your life to not being a Christian. That's all I meant. It was probably a bad choice of words on my part. I chose those words because I apparently misunderstood how you were using them in your first email.
And now before going to bed, I think I'll pray that we understand each other so I can go on to the other parts of your email I wanted to talk about. Let me know something. And have yourself a holly jolly Wednesday.
Sam
Conversations with Angie: How I deal with problems I can't solve
With that in mind, I think this next part can easily be cleared up. You said:
>With this in mind, I'm not sure that I understand why you say, "Belief in
>Christianity is reasonable to me in the sense that it's a justified belief that
>falls short of absolute certainty."
By "belief," all I mean is that I think it's true. To believe something means to think it's true. If I believe there's milk in the refrigerator, all that means is that I think it's true that there's milk in the refrigerator.
"Justified," means I have reasons why I think there's milk in the refrigerator. Maybe it's because I remember putting milk in the refrigerator, and I'm the only one who lives here.
To fall short of absolute certainty doesn't mean that I think Christianity is only half way true or something. All it means is that I don't know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true. To have a justified belief just means to hold a belief for good reasons. I have a justified belief that there's milk in the refrigerator because I think it's true, and I have some REASONS to think it's true. But I nevertheless COULD be wrong, so I'm not absolutely certain--that is I don't know it beyond all doubt. Do you see what I mean?
Basically, I don't know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true. However, I do THINK it's true, and the reason I think it's true is because there are what seem to me to be good reasons to think it's true.
Moving on to the second point--about why you demand certainty. From what you said, it sounds like you were neither certain (in the epistemological sense) that Christianity was true, nor that it was false. In fact, you didn't even seem to hold a belief one way or the other. You were 50/50, so you could've gone either way. Eventually, the scales tipped in favor of denying that Christianity is true. But even then, I didn't get the impression that you knew beyond all doubt that Christianity was false. It seems to me, if I'm understanding you right, you still think it's as least possible, be it ever so unlikely, that Christianity MIGHT be true. Is that right?
If so, suppose the scales had tipped in the other direction. Instead of thinking it more likely that Christianity is false, you thought it was more likely that Christianity was true. At this point, you don't know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true, but you THINK it is because it seems more likely than not. What would you have done? Would you have remained a Christian?
And now to the final issue--about being dedicated to non-Christianity as oppossed to Christianity. All I mean by "dedicating your life" to something is simply living consistently with it. I don't mean you shout it from the roof tops or invest all your time promoting the idea. You agreed with me that you either are a Christian or you're not. It's in that sense that you either dedicate yourself to being a Christian or to not being a Christian. You live consistently with one point of view or the other. It sounds to me like you have given up actually being a Christian. I assume you no longer worship God since you don't believe in God. You probably don't pray to God. You don't trust in Jesus for your salvation. You're living your life consistently with the belief that Christianity is not true. In that sense, you've dedicated your life to not being a Christian. That's all I meant. It was probably a bad choice of words on my part. I chose those words because I apparently misunderstood how you were using them in your first email.
And now before going to bed, I think I'll pray that we understand each other so I can go on to the other parts of your email I wanted to talk about. Let me know something. And have yourself a holly jolly Wednesday.
Sam
Conversations with Angie: How I deal with problems I can't solve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)