[Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]]

From: Lucy Masters (masters@cox-internet.com)
Date: Fri May 25 2001 - 00:16:35 EDT

  • Next message: Bill Payne: "Re: So. Baptist Spin on BOE Vote"

    Hi, Bill! You're nice, too, and I think it's right at the heart of
    Christianity that we can all share ideas with one another and still
    embrace one another as fellow Christians.

    I still don't like the "proof" thing, but it's great to discuss it
    again. I remember about three years ago in a seminary class we
    discussed "proof" in relation to faith. Very heated debate as I recall
    - especially as the professor entitled the lecture, "God the Deal Maker
    and God the Bone Thrower."

    I loved this particular professor because he always cranked up the
    emotional heat. His opening remarks were something to the effect that
    he saw God's behavior as "scandalous" when performing these little
    miracle tricks and what not to get people's attention. The reason he
    considered it scandalous was because it directly violated the ONE BIG
    THING that God asked of all of us - faith. Faith is tough business. If
    you stick to your guns and NEVER throw any bone or provide any proof,
    just how many rightous folks will you end up with (how much wheat from
    the chaff)?

    Imagine your wife becomes increasingly whiny and every day she demands
    that you "prove" that you love her. If she nagged and nagged and nagged
    for weeks, you'd probably end up (a) cutting up all her blouses with
    pinking shears or (b) sitting her down and explaining to her that she
    must - absolutely must - develop some concept of faith. The strength of
    the relationship, in fact, would rest upon that unproven faith - and
    certainly not upon any "bones you throw" to prove yourself (diamond
    rings, mink coats, trips to visit her mother).

    Miracles are like Vegas light shows; they dazzle the senses. I wonder
    if God was angry about all the blazing hoops He had to jump through in
    order to glean a little "faith." Was it faith? I have some friends who
    are priests/preachers, and a couple of them have admitted (sheepishly)
    that they have actually prayed to God for some kind of sign that He's
    real. I told them both I thought they were very naughty (kindly, of
    course), and that they should take all that worry and try to channel it
    into strengthening their faith.

    I guess I see faith as "unconditional." For me, it cannot be dependent
    upon any kind of proof. I think I'd get really scared if I started
    thinking that way because it can flip-side. Imagine something happens
    in my life that makes me think I have proof that God doesn't exist?
    Lots of Jews lost their faith by letting proof impact faith. Yikes. If
    the bones that get thrown in my direction can prove God, can they also
    un-prove God? I just don't want proof mixed up with my faith in God.
    The strength that I feel in my relationship with God comes from the lack
    of proof. I hope He never shows me anything.

    Lucy


    attached mail follows:


    On Wed, 23 May 2001 23:04:47 -0500 Lucy Masters
    <masters@cox-internet.com> writes:

    > I am strongly opposed to the "design movement," "intelligent design,"
    > and so on for many reasons, but chief among them: (a) it involves no
    > faith but looks for proof instead (I believe faith precludes proof - I
    > mean - who needs faith if you have proof?)

    Let's flip that around. If God offers proof of His existence, would that
    force faith? Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead; what was the reaction
    of the chief priests? "So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus
    as well, for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus
    and putting their FAITH in him." (John 12:10-11)

    Romans 1:20 says "God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and
    divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has
    been made, so that men are without excuse." "Without excuse" means men
    have seen the proof of God's existence - proof sufficient to impose the
    death penalty for rejecting that proof.

    > and (b) it assumes that design exists objectively. In other words,
    Dempski does not
    > seem to share my viewpoint that all appearances of "design" are purely
    > subjective.

    I would say God gives each of us the _special_ revelation we need to
    believe ("Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands.
    Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
    - John 20:27). However, God's _general_ revelation to all mankind (cf
    Romans 1:20) is adequate proof of his existence and character, whether it
    is accepted or not.

    I don't see that faith and proof are necessarily related, certainly not
    coupled in the way you describe: "(I believe faith precludes proof - I
    mean - who needs faith if you have proof?)."

    I am strongly in favor of the ID movement; evolution is being used by
    many to undercut our faith by making God irrelavant - especially in our
    schools (IMHO).

    It's a pleasure to dialog with you Lucy. Thank you for being so polite.

    Father, I lift up George Hammond to you. I pray that you would touch his
    heart, just as you did mine. Thanks.

    Bill

    ________________________________________________________________
    GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
    Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
    Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
    http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 00:15:38 EDT