Hard questions from an agnostic

Editor's note: CC.com is taking the unusual step of presenting a detailed response to a Readers' Forum writer. The letter in question was so thought-provoking that managing editor David Dawes chose to email a lengthy reply. The writer has graciously consented to allow the results to be presented online. What follows is her original, unedited letter (in blue), interspersed with the reply (in red). David Dawes notes: "I undertook this response as an individual Christian, not as a representative of Christian Info Society."

Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 7:58 PM

Subject: General Inquiry on Christian Belief

Hello,

My name is Donna Fennell, I'm 22 years old and from B.C. I was wondering if you would be able to explain some things about your religion for me.

To me, this is not about a 'religion.' It is about one person, in whom I devoutly believe. As you know, many negative things have been done in the name of various religions -- certainly including Christianity. But the mistaken actions of some 'religious' Christians down through history should not be confused with the person of Jesus Christ.

Please note: I am in no way trying to offend or poke fun at your views . . .

I don't take any offense at someone asking honest questions. Also, it's clear that you are not mocking our beliefs.

. . . just hoping you could explain why you have them.

I'll give it a shot. Remember, this is just one flawed human being's perception of a very complex subject. I can't promise to give you definitive answers. Feel free to stay skeptical. I am only giving you the reasons why I have my beliefs. I'm not telling you what you should believe.

For years, I have always found it absolutely bewildering that so many people find solace in believing in God/Jesus (or some other kind of Deity) and do so without finding the whole thing the slightest bit far-fetched.

I was an agnostic from my mid-teens till my mid-30s, so I totally empathize with you.

It's understandable that we as a society simply function better by putting everything we are and everything that ever was under the watchful presence of a creator. It's an acute fear of the unknown (not knowing where, when, how and most of all, why we came to be and need to live out our lives) that drives many to seek a reason we can attach our existence to -- because, if we don't, we may realize how truly insignificant and 'by-chance' we actually are in the vast expanse of the cosmos.

I can understand why one could come to that conclusion. But in my view, there is clear evidence that the earth's ecology is intricately designed. What we now know about all the information contained in DNA should be enough to support the concept of design. There is no logical argument I've heard which supports the idea that all the phenomena comprising the universe could possibly have come about by random chance. Indeed, believing the latter idea takes a lot more faith than believing in a conscious designer. One of our scriptures states: "The heavens declare the glory of God."

If it works for you, great -- but do not get it confused. The power of belief is the underlying cause here, not the existence of a god.

I beg to differ. I know it's true that many people believe irrational things. But for someone like me to go from complete spiritual skepticism to firm faith in the reality of God could not have been based merely on 'wanting to believe.' If anything, I earnestly wanted to NOT believe. But then I had experiences which caused me to completely rethink what I had heard about the historical figure of Christ. Before I became a believer, I was totally disdainful of all spiritual beliefs. My turnabout came because of my new perception of this one individual person.

But here's my first question for you: As I understand it, God/Jesus (I know you regard this as 2 things, but for the sake of argument I will refer to them as a single item) . . .

In a very real sense, Christians regard Jesus as one thing -- both God and human simultaneously. This is perhaps a kind of divine paradox, and is not easy to explain, but it is what the Bible clearly teaches.

. . . was, is and always will be an all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect being in every aspect. We were created by him.

Christians would accept all of the above.

Why now, would a PERFECT being need to test his own creation to see if we are worthy to be allowed to grace heaven with our presence? I mean, seriously why bother?

A good question. Biblically speaking, as I understand it, God is not testing us "to see if we are worthy." According to Christian theology, none of us is worthy, because every one of us has done wrong in God's eyes. If I really search my soul, I have to admit that I have never been a truly 'holy' person. Only God is absolutely holy. If that is the case, how (or why) should such an exalted Being tolerate the presence of anything unholy, especially for the whole of eternity? So: the story of Christ tells us how God resolved this dilemma. Christ willingly went to the cross to rescue us -- to pay the penalty for the wrongs committed by all human beings. He died in our place. By accepting this by faith, we are 'sanctified.' Eventually, according to scripture, we will achieve a state of holiness -- not through our own efforts, but as a gift of God.

If he truly loved us, why wouldn't he spare us the pleasantries and just send us to the finish line?

I seriously doubt that you, or any other strong-minded individual, would want your free will taken away from you. As I see it, God wants us to freely choose to believe in him, and then to follow his ways. He could have made us automatons, and sent us to heaven directly. Instead, he gave us the choice. In my view, God never sends anyone to hell. People choose to go there of their own free will, by consciously rejecting the gift of God's grace.

We were made by a perfect creator -- we should all be perfect, right?

Indeed we should. However, humanity rejected God's grace right from the beginning. We have inherited the tendency to want to fulfill our own desires, contrary to God's clear wishes (if one accepts the guidelines of the Bible). So we have made ourselves imperfect. I think the history of humanity -- wars, atrocities, torture, rape, greed, lust, sexism, etc -- gives ample evidence that humanity is capable of great evil. We are also capable of love, compassion, social progress and great artistic achievement -- which demonstrates the divine spark within us. I am convinced that, if we are all honest with ourselves, we would see that we are all capable of both good and evil -- and frequently choose evil.

It's like we are simply an ant-farm and he enjoys watching us squirm.

I empathize with that. Even as a believer, I still sometimes get angry with God, and wonder why he won't change some things in my life. But I always come back to renouncing my anger -- trusting that he has his reasons, and that I'm not meant to know everything he has planned for my life. I recall C.S. Lewis writing about when he was angry with God, and thought of him as a cold scientist experimenting with his helpless laboratory rats. Lewis changed his mind later. As I see it, God grieves over the choices people make. I'm sure much of what we do deeply saddens him. I see him as a faithful lover, who has been repeatedly wronged by his beloved. The best picture of God, in my view, is in Christ's parable of the Prodigal Son. The son spends his inheritance foolishly, then returns home to beg his father's forgiveness. The father, who has been watching the road and hoping for his son's return for many months, welcomes him with open arms and joyful tears.

If he wanted us to do right and to make it to heaven and everything, the least he could do is write "BELIEVE IN ME" across the sky each night for all to see, or maybe show his presence in a tangible and undisputed fashion ONCE in all the thousands of years since the first believer.

Of course he could do that. I understand the desire for a sign. But the ultimate faith is to accept the truth of God without the need of proof. The resurrected Jesus said to his doubting disciple Thomas: "You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If that isn't a sufficient argument, consider this: God has already given us several major signs. We can believe in him, based on what he has clearly shown us. He sent his Son, who died to rescue us from our own follies. The tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was empty, and the body was never found; hundreds of people testified to having seen the risen Christ. Many willingly died for their faith. And down through history, the Holy Spirit has inspired countless people to live for Christ, and to do self-sacrificing deeds in his name.

Next: During Jesus' time when he lived among us, there were historians living also whose job it was to document important occurrences in civilized society for future generations to read. Not one of them wrote anything of Jesus.

That is simply not true. I don't have all the info at my fingertips. But I have access to books which quote directly from documents by non-biblical writers during the early decades of Christian faith. At least one, Josephus, was Jewish. Several others were Romans -- hardly what you would call friends of Christian faith in the 1st century. So if Jesus' existence was acknowledged by people hostile to the faith, it is reasonable to assume that there is some truth behind their writing. You can find some of the basic info here: http://www.ucg.org/booklets/JC/jesus-christ-existence.asp

Now, come on . . . If there actually was a MAN walking about, turning 2 fish into many and performing visually accountable miracles, somebody would have jotted it down besides the so-called self-publication that is the bible. (Biased information is useless information)

See my answer above. Yes, the Bible is biased. That doesn't prove that it is factually wrong. I'm sure many history books are written to reflect certain biases, but they are accepted as essentially factual. The main problem regarding the gospels is that many people can't accept that Christian faith is based on a key supernatural event; but that is their own bias. I can only respond that I have personally experienced the supernatural, and many others down through history attest to the same. The gospel writers believed with all their hearts that Christ had been resurrected, and they put their lives on the line for that belief. It is well known that many Christians went to their deaths during the early centuries of Christianity. Does it make sense that they would do it for something they knew was a lie? Further: the Bible says the first person to proclaim Christ's resurrection was a woman. Jewish custom dictated that women were not considered reliable witnesses. If the gospel writers were concocting this story, why would they hurt their case by making one of their chief witnesses female? Finally, the gospels are based on eye-witness accounts. This fact was crucial in the case of a 19th century skeptic who set out to prove the story of Jesus was a hoax. Norman Greenleaf was considered one of the greatest experts in law. His attempt to discredit the gospels ended with him accepting them as truth -- the kind of truth which would stand up in a court of law. You can find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_of_the_Evangelist

I find it sad that people walk around with their head in the clouds and their mind believing there is something waiting for them at the end.

It would indeed be a tragic delusion, if you are right. For all I know, you may indeed be correct. I can only go by what I deeply believe, and hope that there is indeed a Saviour.

I, for one would spit in his face if god/Jesus dared show himself in the end. I never want to share the same cloud SYSTEM. let alone the same cloud with such an evil, ego-maniacal narcissist who sits idly by as his creations suffer in turmoil,disease and malice and has the nerve to expect people to blindly trust he's gonna show up when they die . . . threatening of eternity in turmoil for disobeying? Please . . . one life of turmoil should be enough, yes? And dangling a carrot of the greatest off-chance (heaven) that has ever been told.

I respect your reasons for coming to that conclusion. That argument, regarding why an all-powerful God does not end human suffering, has caused some to reject faith in him. But I am convinced God does not "sit idly by" while evil goes unchallenged. For one thing, he has inspired countless people down through history to do good. One clear example is William Wilberforce, the British politician whose devout faith motivated him to help bring the British slave trade to an end. There's more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Another key factor: As I said above, God gives us free will. Most of us, indeed, would demand to have free will. Therefore, God allows humans to do things our way. Often, that way leads to various degrees of evil. God also allows natural disasters. The Bible indicates that the entire creation itself "groans" because of the evil brought into the world by humans' free choice.

Yes, it is perplexing sometimes, why God allows so much pain and anguish. But Christ gave an excellent challenge to us, to do something about human suffering. As he is quoted in Matthew 25: 34-40, he calls us to go into the world and help wherever we can. Finally, according to the Book of Revelation, God will bring all earthly suffering to an end.

I'm very passionate about reality and the factual point of view. Such important things should never be so shadowed in doubt and suspicion, don't you think?

I couldn't agree more. That's why we're exchanging views.

I look forward to any response to these enquiries, and I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thanks for giving me a thought-provoking exercise. I hope my rough attempt to address your questions will at least prompt you to look into some of these things further. In conclusion, if you're curious to know more about the factors which led me to my own faith, you can see my personal story on our website, at this URL: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/bc.cgi?bc/bccn/0905/03how

Continue article >>

Previous article Have you ever considered doubting your doubts?	Next article Woodstock legacy remains contentious
Page 16	Page 17

Potter glorifies ‘good’ witchcraft

I would like to voice my dismay at your handling of reviews, in regards to the Harry Potter films (‘Half-Blood Prince a cliffhanger lacking in momentum,’ August).

The first time I saw a BCCN review of a Potter  movie, it praised a film whose main theme was witchcraft. It even talked about Christian parallels that could be used in sermons.

If I was to use Harry Potter  in a sermon, it would be to demonstrate the pitfalls of whitewashing darkness to make it acceptable.

I let that one slide without responding, but immediately started screening your newspaper before allowing it into my church. Scripture clearly condemns witchcraft.  

The media are full of supernatural shows like The Medium, Twilight, Speaking with the Dead, The Seer and Charmed. It is a definite ploy by Satan to have his dark arts okayed in society – and especially by the church.  

Movies like the Narnia series and The Lord of the Rings  have a heavy connection in this occultish area as well; but there is, I believe, a difference. In those films, witchcraft is not the focus, and they are not trying to make witchcraft acceptable. It is presented as a metaphor of the supernatural power of God’s good against the dark power of Satan’s evil.  

The problem with Harry Potter  films is that they glorify ‘good’ witchcraft and make it acceptable, because the ‘good witches’ are fighting evil witches or demons.  

The Half-Blood Prince  review bolsters the characters of Dumbledore, headmaster of the school of magic; and Slughorn, the potions professor.  Can you explain to me why these obviously non-Christian characters are being praised for anything?  

There is not one Christian point of view in the entire article. Peter Chattaway pans the film’s storyline, but says nothing to disavow the movie based on its ungodly content.  

I will continue to monitor your newspaper  – and I find it disturbing that I need to do that with a Christian paper.

I have a problem with scripturally clear, ungodly things being made to appear acceptable by Christian publications.

Pastor George Ewald, Port Hardy Christian Fellowship

Editorial defamed solo parents

I found your editorial, ‘Why marriage still matters: it’s about the kids’ (July), both discriminatory and defamatory.  

John Robson asserts that “children from other types of homes are more likely to flunk out of school, go to jail, get hooked on alcohol or drugs, and have other things go wrong with their lives.”

This is a thinly veiled, contemptuous stab at honest, hard-working solo parents.  Robson fails to recognize that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increases in direct proportion to the divorce rate, and that governments promote divorce because it increases revenue.

A husband and wife who stay together over a lifetime, live conservatively and have a savings plan, actually lower the GDP of that particular country or province. This is according to research conducted by David Suzuki.

I am not promoting divorce. I am simply stating facts based on hard research.

Most solo parents raise hard working, high achieving students, despite the hardships they face and the criticisms they come under.   It does not take money to learn to read, write and do arithmetic. I homeschooled on a miniscule budget, with outstanding results.

Many married couples with high incomes raise low-achieving delinquents, who are continually ‘rescued’ from the police and the law through their parents’ high income, or social status – or simply ‘moved’ to yet another private school. They never have to face the actual consequences of their actions.  

These delinquents often become the multiple offending adults who hide behind income, education and social status, who are simply never caught – or if caught, never prosecuted for their crimes. This is why they are not found in the statistics.  

Your editorial not only lacks compassion, it also lacks intelligence. It is one of the worst examples of pontificating and insidious religious hypocrisy I have ever seen. It does not represent true Christian values.

Mrs. B. D. Peterson, Surrey

Apologies to sanctuary recipient

This is my response to ‘Sanctuary recipient must apologize’ (Readers Forum, August).

Forgive us, Mr. Lennikov. You were continually approved by the government to continue to live in this country for over 12 years, teasing you with our democracy and showing you how Canadians live free of political upheaval and interference.  

Forgive us for showing you our comfortable homes, and our abilities to make  a living in a free and compassionate society.

Forgive us for trying to tear your family apart by suggesting your wife and son may stay, but you must leave immediately.      

Forgive us for not seeing the worth of a family that has been faithful to our country, and for forcing you to take desperate measures by seeking sanctuary in a church.

The only guilt I see in you is that you came to love our country. We need to apologize and ask you and your family for forgiveness.    

Barbara Mayer, North Vancouver

Olympics article was inadequate

‘Christians disagree over 2010 games’ (August) did not fully represent the issues faced by Christians regarding the Games.  

Streams of Justice has worked hard to inform the Christian community of the issues that need to be examined, including: the massive amount of funds diverted to the Games by all three levels of government; the corporatization of the Olympics; the restriction of personal freedom during the Games; and the inability of most residents to afford ticket prices. These concerns are well documented on various websites.  

I do not think the position taken by More Than Gold, to “make use of this opportunity for God’s kingdom” through cooperation with VANOC, is the right position.  

Wouldn’t Christians truly be ‘advancing the kingdom’ if we defied powerful corporate interests to speak on behalf of the poor and marginalized? Shouldn’t we proclaim that we are called to ensure no one has to beg for food or live in unsafe housing?  

What would happen if the Christians co-operating with VANOC would draft a letter to the Premier, asking for the minimum wage to be raised or welfare rates revised?  

We all need to be creative in our response to the Olympics. For some, it might be a total boycott; others might contribute funds or volunteer with organizations working to mitigate the effects of the Games; still others might prophetically demonstrate the kingdom of God through civil disobedience.

Jesus threw the moneychangers from the temples. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow to the king’s golden idol.

Annie McKitrick, Victoria

Climate change: the new religion

If I question the new religion which is based on unproven science regarding global warming, then according to the New York Times I am guilty of treason against the planet – as well as being irresponsible and ignorant.

The left-leaning mainstream media have done a pretty good job of snowing the public. But the so called ‘inconvenient truth’ climate change propaganda is more of a lie than truth, and more about power than science.      

If the ‘Cap-and-Trade’ theory becomes law, ordinary citizens will be forced to spend a fortune to upgrade homes and businesses with new items of energy efficiency. Many believe this will bankrupt a lot of businesses, and unemployment and inflation will skyrocket – yet these ‘saviours of the planet’ forge ahead with their apocalyptic message of certain doom if we don’t ‘act now.’

They ignore real  ‘inconvenient truths,’ like declining bird populations due to heavy snowfalls, below average temperatures in some cities and historic winter storms.      

Does God care about his creation? Of course. He has plans for a completely renovated earth – free of thorns, thistles, pollution, terrorists and endangered species.

Gerald Hall, Parksville

Salvation will not be ‘universal’

Regarding ‘Christ crucified is all we need to know’ (Readers’ Forum, July): I agree that Christ’s death and resurrection have won eternal forgiveness for me from God.  

However, I would disagree that discussions about doctrines such as universalism – the idea that Christ’s death has achieved salvation for all people, irrespective of their beliefs – are “irrelevant.”  

I very much doubt that Christians who have given up their lives for the gospel, in countries such as Iran and Yemen, believed in universalism.

I don’t think people would risk death, beatings or imprisonment to preach the gospel, if they thought everyone will ultimately go to heaven.

No, what impels a Christian to bring the good news to people in the Muslim world is the conviction that solely through faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.  

In multicultural Canada, it seems to be almost a taboo to proclaim this gospel. Yet there are millions of Canadians who have never heard the good news about Jesus.

Is it, perhaps, because we lack the conviction to tell them about him?  

Robin Arnfield, Osoyoos

September 2009