Does What You Believe Really Matter?
Feb.18, 2009 in
Podcast Episodes
It seems that often, a certainty about a particular truth can lead to a lack of humility about that belief. While it’s true that certainty doesn’t always equal arrogance, it’s equally true that humility doesn’t equate to a lack of belief or certainty.
So, when people express humility about their beliefs, or a willingness to admit that they might not be entirely correct, are they saying that it doesn’t matter what they believe? Or might there be other ways of looking at the issue?
Ray and Steve discuss this topic while exploring a variety of rabbit trails in their usual style! 😉
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (35.5MB) | Embed
February 19th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Another great episode guys. My mother is visiting and now has an iPod. I think I’ll send her home with a few episodes of BtB. She’s very religious, but has struggled seriously with it recently. In large part, I think it’s a reaction to the institution and not the religion. You guys would likely give her lots to think about on her eight hour drive.
By the way, as someone who believes The Enlightenment is the best thing that humans have ever accomplished, I’d have to agree with your fellow religionists in one aspect. Feelings are not to be trusted.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Good episode. Love is indeed essential. But again, real love does not seek itself – nor does it produce that effect in the object. So if it ends at feeling, then what love is that? God made me feel good? That’s why I think it is important to define love. REAL GODLY LOVE MUST result in someone seeking to please the Lord and honoring Him. I think it is important that Jesus made it clear that the way we work the works of God is we have to believe on Jesus Christ. Like you said, it isn’t an intellectual assent (though that must be involved). But those that terminate that in feeding the poor and relieving oppression in this realm are missing the point. Those are good things (and a true believer, I believe, will do those things) but the love spoken of there is the same love that Christ had when He single-mindedly did His Father’s work. So if we are looking at others rather than God, we are not working His works. Our will vs. His will (if you will…). His will is both a means and an end – and often we don’t see the end. That’s where faith comes squarely into play.
I won’t belabor the point, but merely point out (with regard to the angry God segment) that God is indeed angry with the wicked as we read in Psalm 7:11-12. I think that falls into the category of recognizing that God’s anger and love can easily coexist. Both burn…
February 19th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Sid, thanks for thinking that your mom could benefit from our podcast. It amazes me that one with your particular position would actually recommend us to others. Do you have some subversive plan to use us to eventually convert people to atheism? 😉 hehe
WT, is it possible that God was angry in the past, but has repented of that anger and been overcome by compassion?
That sounds really bizarre to you, I’m sure, but let me explain: The NT makes it abundantly clear that God reached out to us while we were still his enemies, wicked and dead in our sins. Verses like “God demonstrated his love for us…”, “God so loved the world…”, and one that I think shows amazingly the kindness of our Father toward the wicked: Ephesians 2.
In that chapter, Paul makes it very clear that we were wicked and that God acted in kindness and grace before we ever came to him. I’ll quote merely verses 4-7 here, but I encourage everyone to read the entire chapter.
Notice the words “rich in mercy”, “great love…even when we were dead”, “made us alive”, “by grace”, “riches of His grace”, and “kindness toward us.” And that’s just from four verses in context with each other.
I will also point out that we don’t have to come up with some definition of love. Love has been defined for us very clearly both in the person of Jesus and in the rest of the NT (especially 1 Cor 13). As for “end[ing] in feeling”, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. But love and feelings are not mutually exclusive, nor is it necessary to define love in such a way as to avoid feelings.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Steve wrote:
WT, is it possible that God was angry in the past, but has repented of that anger and been overcome by compassion?
I don’t see that it is necessary. These are not mutually exclusive “states”. In fact, if God didn’t care about us – if He didn’t love us – then He wouldn’t be upset with us other than if (were it possible) He were personally inconvenienced by our rebellion. When God speaks about being either hot or cold and not lukewarm, I think it’s a “clue” to His love being utter. So if we are not “passionate” (i.e. if we are not totally and utterly devoted to one side or another), we will not reflect God’s boundless love. If God didn’t want what was best for us, He wouldn’t be so angry with wickedness. Contrary to being exclusive of emotion, it very much is evident in emotion at either polarity. In fact, I would say that since those times of ignorance were winked at but now there is no excuse for ignorance that the anger God has for wickedness would (if it were possible) be hotter. It may not be that He is always displaying it, but that goes to His mercy – His longsuffering with that which He hates and which He cannot abide in His creation. I would say a hearty “Amen” to the paragraphs that you have penned BECAUSE of the great burning that describes God’s love. For the repentant, it is underscored just how deep His love and mercy is. To the wicked, all he can see is punishment because that is his end. By definition he cannot be thankful for God’s love and mercy. It isn’t one-sided (on either side).
In response to your last paragraph on love, I say love and feelings are definitely not mutually exclusive. I think it is James (?) that speaks of those that are “past feeling”. And either Peter or Paul refers to “bowels of compassion”. There is a clear understanding that God’s love is so deep that it CANNOT HELP but bring forth emotion.
But that’s the thing. That’s what I am trying to say with regard to love. It must be that feelings are more a “symptom” than a “cause”. I don’t use those words for their connotation but rather for their order. First love, then emotion. Emotion then love is suspect (at best).
Take an example…Paul speaks of those whose “…god is their belly…”. These men walk around guided by their own feelings. Their desires. Their lusts. Their inclinations. The feelings do the leading. But God’s love produces many things – among which are deep feelings or emotions. But just like the natural can replace the spiritual, the emotions can replace the love of God and men can become “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God”. If they get that feeling, that’s what they are after and that’s what they get and they are just walking after feelings.
What I’m trying to say is there is a HUGE difference (spiritually) between following feelings or emotions and having those feelings or emotions follow something.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I didn’t ask if it was necessary. I asked if it was possible.
How one can look at words like “mercy”, “love”, “grace”, “kindness”, etc. and see “anger” is beyond me. Hence my question.
Take an example…Paul speaks of those whose “…god is their belly…”. These men walk around guided by their own feelings.
Or, perhaps, Paul was referring to gluttony?
But that’s the thing. That’s what I am trying to say with regard to love. It must be that feelings are more a “symptom” than a “cause”.
With respect, that isn’t what your original comment said. You talked about love “ending in feelings”, and now you say that you’re arguing against feelings coming first (or one may say, “starting with feelings”). With that, then, you are debating a point that I have not seen anyone make, either here in the comments or in the original podcast. It makes your comments very hard to respond to when you set up a straw man to debate.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Let me repeat this for everyone, and not just in response to WT: Scripture defines love for us, both in the person of Jesus Christ and in passages such as 1 Cor 13. The rare cases of anger Jesus showed was toward people who were 1) righteous in their own eyes, AND (not or) 2) leading others down that same path. He did not show anger toward “sinners”. That is who our Father is, since Jesus revealed the Father to us.
And for those who don’t click the link for 1 Cor 13, let me quote this relevant part:
That is who our Father is (since “God is love” – 1 John 4:8).
We do not need to discuss other definitions of love, especially if they explain away or contradict these very statements.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Steve said (with regard to God repenting of anger):
I didn’t ask if it was necessary. I asked if it was possible.
——————————————–
No, I don’t believe that it is possible, but further than that (to avoid the assumed contradiction) I don’t believe that it is necessary. If we have such a situation then, in some way, we have Jesus vs. the Father in a way similar to that which many propose (i.e. loving, merciful Jesus protecting us from the vengeful, wrathful Father). So one either (then) has to come to terms with a Father who changed or the Son who appeased the Father. I believe it is neither. It is man that has been changed. He knows where he stands before God and can appreciate and receive what Christ came for. God’s anger with wickedness is no less, but those terms “Love”, “Mercy”, “Grace” and “Forgiveness” now bear real, deep significance to a people who know that the antithesis must be just as real. If you love someone very deeply, their slight will be torture to you. Their rejection of you will incite deep feelings that give you some sense of the depth of God’s feeling towards your rebellion. If that person means nothing to you, their actions would have to be very rash to have any sort of effect on you – and even then it would not likely be lasting. That’s how I can’t separate God’s “anger” from His “love”. The two – while not the same thing – spring from the same well. His burning hatred of sin makes His mercy and longsuffering kindness more unbelievable. We are temporal creatures, so I could see us not being able to experience that which God does (if what I see is correct) by having a hatred of and anger with sin at the same time as He exercises patient kindness with us. For if there were no need of patience and we deserved His kindness and there was nothing to be merciful over – these would be rather meaningless things and worth little. Who is forgiven much loves much.
As far as the belly and gluttony, I don’t see it. The passage sees Paul characterize these men as those who “mind worldly things”. I suppose gluttony would be a possibilty – but only in the sense that it is an issue of lust (i.e. self-guided, self-trusting, following one’s own desires). Which is really, looking a little broader, a picture of all those that reject God. They reject the Lord’s will and prefer to follow their own. They are self-driven and, as such, are focused only on things that are related to the “I” (i.e. temporal, worldly, fleshly things).
That’s what it seems to me Paul is talking about.
—-
Steve said (on feelings):
With respect, that isn’t what your original comment said. You talked about love “ending in feelings”, and now you say that you’re arguing against feelings coming first (or one may say, “starting with feelings”). With that, then, you are debating a point that I have not seen anyone make, either here in the comments or in the original podcast. It makes your comments very hard to respond to when you set up a straw man to debate.
—————————————-
They are all saying the same thing – maybe I’m not expressing it clearly, but it all has to do with love creating (generating, ending int, producing etc…) feeling or emotion rather than emotion being a supposed primary aspect. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments doesn’t mean “If you have feelings for Me you will keep My commandments”. It may be true (and the way many will read it), but that’s not what Jesus was saying. The undercurrent of love being (as opposed to “creating”) warm emotion is what I was addressing. When anger and love are contrasted and pitted against one another, that is the implication – that love has to do only with “happy positives” (sorry…I don’t know what else to say). But when Jesus ties love more directly to something deeper and more concrete (devotion that exists both in the good and the bad, through anger and attraction) then it has to be that the foundation must be set beyond the realm of effect (release, ecstasy, liberty etc…) and in the realm of cause (persistent adherence in all situations etc…)
I realize this may sound either like lunatic ramblings or obscure ideas – but the fact that anger is seen as being incompatible with love leads me to believe that these things are at issue.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:18 am
With respect to I Corinthians 13, Steve said:
We do not need to discuss other definitions of love, especially if they explain away or contradict these very statements.
———————————————-
You must either, then, have a God who changes or a contradictory set of scriptures which are pitted against one another instead of harmonized. That is, if you require anger to be in direct contradiction to love. I find the harmony of those characteristics much more complete and indicative of a God much Higher than I showing love far deeper than any man I know of. That’s why I can’t see the exclusive, either/or proposition you guys seem to be following.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Hey Steve,
Thanks for fixing the website. While non-religion is ideal, I’ll always promote smart religion over bad religion.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:53 am
Sid,
You said:
By the way, as someone who believes The Enlightenment is the best thing that humans have ever accomplished, I’d have to agree with your fellow religionists in one aspect. Feelings are not to be trusted.
I can see where you are coming from. I should apologize by saying that I do not mean to undercut the entire effect of the Enlightenment. Sometimes in trying to expose the extreme of one position you can find yourself in the ditch of the other. I also believe that the Enlightenment had some very positive effects on Western society (ie. people thinking for themselves instead of blindly adhereing to someone elses perceptions of truth). I would say that my beef is with the tendency found post-Enlightenment that says you either live by feelings or reason. This is the part of modernism that gives me trouble. Everything seems to be presented in the form of either/or propositions. Sometimes it’s just not that irreducibly simple. Do you live by reason or by feelings? Yes! I think that Geology is a wonderful scientific discipline that has made good contributions to society, but should this then become a substitute for rock-climbing? One is the study of rocks, the other is the experience of said rocks. I guess it would be great to read a book on anatomy with your wife, but wouldn’t you also like to… 😉
I believe that reason and experience/feeling can and should coexist if we are to move beyond simply trying to understand life and actually live. 🙂
William Tyndale,
You said,
If God didn’t want what was best for us, He wouldn’t be so angry with wickedness
Do you think that it’s possible that God is angry with the sin and not the person who commits it? Do you think that it’s possible that God is simply angry with the sin not just because of His holiness, but rather because it destroys persons which He loved and created and for whom Jesus gave His life?
Thanks everyone for your thoughts 🙂
February 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Raborn said:
Do you think that it’s possible that God is angry with the sin and not the person who commits it?
————————————–
I think I understand the distinction, but for those who cling to their sin I don’t believe God makes a significant distinction – other than to lead those men from their sin. So far as they cling to it, they are identified with (and maybe even BY) it. As such, I don’t think God always does separate the two.
Raborn also said:
Do you think that it’s possible that God is simply angry with the sin not just because of His holiness, but rather because it destroys persons which He loved and created and for whom Jesus gave His life?
———————————————
Absolutely!
February 21st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
William Tyndale,
If it’s true that God is angry with sin because it destroys those whom He created and loves, how can it also be true that He doesn’t make a distinction between sin and the one who commits it? I think that it is incorrect to miss the distinction between the two. If sin and the one who commits it are not to be distinguished, then why did Jesus come? To rescue sin?
Maybe an illustration will help 🙂
I once heard a story of a woman who was allergic to bees. One day she was outside with her son enjoying the sunny weather. As she sat on her porch and enjoyed the day, her son was off playing in the yard. He wandered into a bees nest and began screaming as he kept getting stung. With no thought for her own safety, the mother ran to her son with a wild fury. She began to swap at the bees and rescue her son, never paying attention to the deadly bees that surrounded her. Now, when the son saw her running toward him he could have thought “Oh no, my mom must be really mad at me for getting into this bees nest.” After all, she had possibly warned him of the danger of bees nests. This could have led to him running in the opposite direction, misunderstanding his mother’s anger. Her anger was not focused on her son. Rather, because of her great love for her son, she was angry with the bees who were harming her child.
Maybe Father’s love for us is the same way. Maybe we misunderstand His hatred for sin by misunderstanding His great love for us.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 am
I guess there is substantial agreement between us, but there is still something at the heart that I won’t say is a point of disagreement, but one which I think is avoided (not intentionally, but a critical distinction nonetheless). I don’t have a problem with that analogy and at the same time I see a problem with it. But then that must be the case with all analogies…at some level anyway.
I agree fully – the Father’s love for man is immense. We have Jesus Christ as the manifestation of that love. Anyone who takes the time to really meditate on the depth of love shown in His life, ministry, death and resurrection cannot fail to come to grips – to at least some degree – with just how much He loved (and loves) us.
Where I think the gap is, is in the way sin itself is looked at. I won’t get into detail now, but I think it has something to do with the fact that “sin” is not fully understood. Some understand it as a “bad deed”. Others understand it as “failing”. Many understand it like a “disease” (and I do admit to using this in at least one analogy!). Still others understand it as something like “the spawn of Satan”. All of those things, on their own, present an unbalanced and imperfect view of what sin actually is. Taken together, it gives more of a view of what is being dealt with.
The “bad deed” view tends to trivialize the powers and principalities and wickedness in high places that we really contend with and sticks to tackling isolated symptoms, really.
The failure approach, taken alone, makes us into people who have not realized our full potentials and can only do so when we aspire to a higher goal. Basically, a self improvement approach.
Sin mainly as a disease tends to isolate the individual from the sin and also tends to beg the question of why doesn’t God just simply cut it out without us asking (if He really does love us that much, that is)? And if it’s a cancer, why not just apply healing as the Omnipotent God He is? While I do think there is some merit to this approach, I do see that it can “depersonalize” sin and separate the sin from the sinner until responsibility is in question.
Sin as the “spawn of Satan” is really true – but to see a devil behind every bush is just as unbalanced as declaring demons do not exist and all is just our own struggle to “breathe free” or find a spiritual breakthrough. It is very true, but if we don’t recognize our own role and God’s as well, then even the truth of this view skews sin.
I will say that sin is not the same thing (necessarily) as evil. So when God says “I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.”, He isn’t contradicting the verse that says that He isn’t the “author of confusion”. God is not the creator of sin. Sin, in that sense is (as far as I can tell) what was brought forth in Satan’s self-assertion and rebellion against the Most High. So sin is rebellion. It’s symptoms are legion – and its end result is death. As we identify with it, we not only identify with its “symptoms” but also with the one who conceived it. That’s why Jesus called the Pharisees He confronted “children of the devil”. He didn’t say they had the sickness, He didn’t say they needed to get better, He said they WERE evil because they were liars and murderers just like the devil was from the beginning. So, avoiding the debate over whether that is true of all men or not, the sin He was addressing was not just a passive thing they had, but an active thing they did. And while it is true that there is something indwelling that brings this about, it is also true that God holds all those personally responsible for that sin. So the analogy of external things as sin (even, to some extent, disease) misses the critical point that sinners “are”, they don’t just “have”.
I think that may be at least a good portion of what I’ve been trying to get at.