I'm an evangelical Christian - ask me anything

[Insieme]

I'm happy to answer questions, though I'm not interested if people just come on to be insulting.

I can only give my views and talk about what I believe - evangelicalism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs and I can only speak for myself.

Ask away!

How do you reconcile your just and loving God with someone who created bone cancer in children, for example?

Lookmore You're right when you say that if I'm correct, then it will matter to you because it's your future existence at stake. At this point, believing in God becomes the better bet, if I can put it like that.

I know it's not as easy as just deciding to believe, and I can tell that you have some antagonism to God, or at least the God you think I'm offering. But doesn't it at least need thinking about?

Sure it makes sense to hedge our bets just in case but deep down, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Before Christianity there were pagans who worshipped the sun god and celebrated it coming back for longer after the shortest day, they celebrated Easter as a time of fertility etc. The Christian religion tagged their own festivals onto these original festivals to make it easier to convert people, but not only that, it seems to me that the stories are a more elaborate twist on the pagans beliefs with the added bonus of their best guess at how we came about, which us humans are all wondering about.

I believe Jesus existed, I don't believe he was conceived immaculately, however I don't doubt that he himself believed that. And as all we have are books which were written quite sometime after Jesus was alive, I believe that there was an element of Chinese whispers to the stories, exaggerated over time, with the added benefit to them of being used to control the masses.

I think believing that this life isn't it and that we will live in some happy place after (let's just ignore those not so lucky) gives us humans a sense of hope, we are so self important that we can't believe we are so insignificant and this life is all we have. But I'm fairly sure that's the truth, and I'm ok with it. 😉

ILikePaperHats asked

How do you reconcile your just and loving God with someone who created bone cancer in children, for example?

That's pretty much the most extreme example of individual suffering we can imagine; a small child in their (relative) innocence, suffering from a painful illness that seems to strike at random, and that may ultimately kill them. How can God allow that? It's a good question. The answer is not simple or presented glibly, I can assure you. We've all seen suffering. We've all lost loved ones. Most of us have suffered pain.

I'm hoping the question is not too close at home for you. If I knew you in RL I'd know your circumstances. I'm assuming you're asking a philosophical question rather than typing into your phone while at a hospital bedside. Because if it is very personal, then theological debate can wait.

The question of suffering is one we all struggle with.

God made the world perfect, and people have ruined it. He gave us free will, and people used that to mistreat each other, destroy the environment, and act selfishly. The result of that is that much of the suffering in the world is man-made: war, famine, land for crops destroyed, seas and air polluted, violence etc etc.

But most suffering seems random. Jesus addressed this when some people asked him why a man had been born blind: had he sinned, or was it his parents' fault, they asked? Jesus's reply was that neither was the case. His blindness was not a punishment for something he or his family had done. It was a result of the world being 'fallen', that is, ruined or destroyed by the selfishness of people in general.

It's impossible to say why a particular person may get cancer: it could be environmental - who knows what damage pollution causes?. It could be genetic - a fault in a gene that's passed on through generations. But I think I can be definite that while mankind in general might have ultimately caused the genetic / environmental damage, it's not the fault of the sufferer himself. I suppose there are in some cases lifestyle factors, but probably not in the case of a child.

So a consequence of God allowing us to choose our behaviour, is that bad things happen and random illness will occur.

God could have prevented this, but only by not allowing us any freewill. We'd then be automatons, acting almost like robots.

There are other arguments why suffering occurs. Some of them seem flimsy to me, some of them are hard to hear.

For example: God uses suffering to draw people to himself. Not that he deliberately inflicts it, but he uses the illnesses we suffer to turn our thoughts to the 'why' questions we all have. I think this is a pretty poor argument. It may be true that people do sometimes turn to God for comfort, but I dont think it explains why suffering happens in the first place.

Or there's this: it gives an opportunity for people to help and comfort each other. Again, I'm not sure that's a reason why, it's more of a consequence.

So overall, I would say God ALLOWS suffering rather than inflicts it. If he didn't allow it, he would have to make us slaves to his will by denying our free will. That's not fair or loving either.

It's a tough subject. Why do you think children get bone cancer? Is it chance? I'd be interested in seeing a non-God way of looking at it.

If you want a better explanation than mine, C S Lewis wrote a really moving and tender book on this subject, called The Problem of Pain. He doesn't give simplistic answers. He knew a lot about bone cancer, sadly. You might find it interesting.

I'm always amazed at the contortions of thinking some believers are capable of when trying to align beliefs that seem to me to be entirely incompatible with reality or ethics.

How can Christians thank god for their food which is on the table in front of them almost entirely because of human actions but think god irrelevant and entirely humans to blame when it comes to anything bad?

How can god be perfect when the bible is full of accounts of terrible things attributed directly or indirectly to god that break both old and new testament commandments (multiple vengeful deaths, seizing of lands in war, taking slaves as mistresses)? From a historic point of view the bible was written by many hands, translated, changed, pruned and altered many times across the centuries, and that is probably why it is so full of uncertainty and contradiction which makes it an interesting text but it is held to be the source of truth by many Christians.

I guess my point is not totally backed up but so don't know if DC will give me time to explain a better reply! I just mean it's all in the language, surley anyone looking at either gender lustfully would be a sin. Not just a man looking at a women.

I also am very much interested in the roots of Christianity in paganism. Even son of God being born which was always celebrated at the winter solstice as the sun being reborn anyway. I think I would be more inclined to be a believer if things were not so obviously changed from the old nature ways which make so much more sense.

I understand that Christian festivals have been tacked onto previously existing Pagan ones.

I feel sad that virtually all of it has been replaced by consumerism. I feel a sad empty feeling but try as I might, I cannot get my head round Christianity.

Can you explain the 40 years in the desert?

I was actually thinking of the commandment that talks about not coveting your neighbour's wife, ass, male slave, female slave.

Also there are other passages about slavery and who you can buy slaves from, take slaves from, nowhere does it say you are not to have slaves. If the Bible gives rules for a situation that existed thousands of years ago how can it be relevant now?

The part you are referencing, is that Exodus? 20 or 21, but I'm working from memory that says it's OK to beat your slave as long as they live more than 3 days after the beating.

As for adultery, that only applies to married people. Isn't there a command that a woman has to marry her rapist? Again I'm thinking exodus, or maybe Deuteronomy.

On the subject of adultery and Jesus saying, 'he who is without sin throw the first stone', wouldn't it be better if he had said, "yes she's guilty, don't stone her but however you punish her punish the man the same"

It's one thing that is supposed to show Jesus' mercy but he doesn't seem bothered that men are not punished.

Another question. What do you think the role of Paul is in the establishment of the Christian church(es)? The earliest written parts of the New Testament were written by Paul and the Gospels were written later and, with the possible exception or Mark, from second hand accounts.

Skye either sex can sin by looking lustfully. Jesus gave an example of a man doing so, but the commandment applies to men and women equally.

Ok thank you. I do not know the wording of it all

Sashh the 490 years in the wilderness is because of the incident with the 12 spies. When the Israelites escaped from Egypt and approached Cannon, Moses sent out 12 spies to look at the promised land and make plans to conquer it. 40 days later they returned and 10 of them said it would be impossible to conquer, and the rest of the Israelites believed them.

God then decided that as a consequence of their lack of faith, none of the Israelites alive at that time would ever get to enter Canaan as the promised land. The only exceptions were the remaining two spies who had had faith that God would help them.

So the Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness, waiting for that generation to die. Eventually, only the two spies were left (Joshua and Caleb) of those who had been alive at the time, and God led them into the promised land. The story is clearly told, including the reasoning, in Exodus.

Obviously that should say 49 years, not 490!

Skyejuly that's what I was trying to say but you said it so much more concisely!

40! This keyboard will drive me nuts!

Sashh said

If the Bible gives rules for a situation that existed thousands of years ago how can it be relevant now?

I've tried to answer this question earlier, but here goes! Plenty of situations in the Bible no longer occur, simply because we live in different times and a different culture. So any rules about slaves no long apply literally.

However, that doesn't mean the rule is useless. If we look at the point behind the rule, then we can see the motivation behind it, and how it might apply to us now. So no one sane would suggest we should keep slaves or mistreat them. The principle still applies though - we should treat people under our control with respect. I gave previous examples of how employers might need to take particular care to treat employees well.

The point about the adultery commandment is that Jesus said it really does apply to everyone, not just the married people. The principle behind it is that sex is for marriage, and that we should not objectify (look lustfully) each other.

The point about a woman marrying her rapist doesn't mean she HAS to marry him. There's a passage in Exodus that explains it more fully. Exodus 22:17.

If a man faces a woman, then HE has to marry HER. So he can't abandon her. In a culture where unfortunately women who had been raped could be seen as spoilt goods, she may actually think marrying him was not the worst option. That seems horrible to us, but we live in different times, thank goodness. Certainly Tamar wanted to marry Amnon (who had raped her), although she didn't in the end.

However, if the woman's father wasn't willing for the rapist to marry her, then he (the rapist) had to pay the bride price instead. What father would give his daughter to her rapist? There are no examples of a woman marrying her rapist in the Bible, so I think it's likely they were all made to pay the bride price instead.

None of this is 'right' to our modern minds, but in the culture of the time, this rule was an improvement on the pagan culture of the time where the woman had no rights or defence at all.

Thanks Insieme for your really careful and tender answer on the subject of suffering.

I don't really have anything to add from a 'this is the answer' point of view, but only from a living in pain point of view and still retaining faith - a faith which fires me and sustains me daily. I've lived with a chronic degenerative disease since I was a baby, so grew up knowing long periods of sickness and on constant medication. It's only grown worse over the years, though I still have good days where I can cope with things. Sometimes though I am in screaming, agonising pain, and I call out to God, 'why'?

You're probably wondering why on earth I would keep faith in a God who appears to be silent in my own pain. But instead, what I've discovered is a profound depth of empathy and sympathy from God within the pain, a depth which somehow contains my pain and, while not making it lesser, gathers it up and brings me hope in the midst of it all. Paul talked about a peace 'beyond comprehension' and that's the only way I can describe it - it's a peace which underlies all that I am struggling with, a peace which is as deep as my deepest places, which fills me and lightens me in a way I can hardly describe. In my pain I go to God precisely because the Christian God is a God who actually gets it, because of the cross - an unprecendented aspect of this faith. The first chapter of John's gospel includes the words 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us', and this is the truth I have found, that this God is among us. That this God knows. That this God weeps with us.

I fully realise it doesn't provide an answer, as experiences rarely do, but it is still my lived-out experience and has been for many, many years. In my brokenness I reach out and God is here, underneath and around, and the peace is immense. And in worship I find a release of pain, not a healing as such in terms of illness, but a place my soul is completely at ease, and a place hope soars and I am liberated - even within my bonds.

It's been hard to write this because it feels quite raw, but I hope it adds something to the discussion - something not so much theoretical but still grounded very much in reality.

Thank you.

On the subject of adultery and Jesus saying, 'he who is without sin throw the first stone', wouldn't it be better if he had said, "yes she's guilty, don't stone her but however you punish her punish the man the same"

Jesus had two objectives in this incident. One was to get the men to let the woman go. He didn't want her stoned at all. So if he'd said, however you punish her, punish him the same, he'd be telling them to punish her. He didn't want her punished!

The second objective (and this I think is more important) was that he wanted to men to reflect on their own behaviour. He wanted them to realise that they had sinned too, and that as sinners, they shouldn't be judging the woman so harshly.

Jesus was radical in his culture in his treatment of women, but the point of this encounter was not to demand equality for women, it was to deal with a group of judgemental men.

this rule was an improvement on the pagan culture of the time where the woman had no rights or defence at all.

That's rather insulting to the other religions around at that time, pagan or otherwise.

In zoroastrianism the woman receives the fine/payment rather than her father/husband in certain circumstances.

Also this is supposed to be GOD, why does he have to bow down to the mores of the time?

Jesus was radical in his culture in his treatment of women

I don't think most people appreciate the truth of this. In that era men would have no interaction at all with women outside of their family, let alone women from other tribes/cultures. His being so much the opposite really set him apart.

Also this is supposed to be GOD, why does he have to bow down to the mores of the time?

Because the point of His appearance at that time and place was to create a movement that would spread His teachings. Doing so required some accommodation to the customs and culture.

Just dropping by to stick up for the poor Pagans, who could be quite thoughtful and enlightened at times.

From Ephesians written by St Paul or one of his early followers :

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

From a letter written by the Stoic (Pagan) philosopher Seneca who was a contemporary of St Paul :

Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies. It is just as possible for you to see in him a free-born man as for him to see in you a slave. … Associate with your slave on kindly, even on affable, terms; let him talk with you, plan with you, live with you.

I grew up with a very christian friend and went to church etc.

Never really believed and i still say to this today, if a Christian could explain to me one thing in a way that made sense, it might sway me.

The bible ostensibly is there to explain where we come from - and who made us. However it just punts the question we were trying to answer one step back - where did we come from.

Or, if god made us, who made god? Surely then they are the bigger god?

Saying god has always existed and just is, is no answer.

So why are only heterosexuals allowed to have loving relationships and homosexuals have to bee celibate their entire lives? Forgive me if that's already been answered.

Women were treated better in society before organised religion. I just can't understand how humanity lived peacefully for so long nd then organised religion came in and the world's gone awry.

Why do you think your god treats people who believe in him but happen to live in third world countries less favourably than those who don’t believe in developed countries?