First I want to applaud you for struggling with your faith. It's a difficult and lifelong pursuit and I'm confident that pursuing these questions will serve you well.
Second, God will never be the conclusion of any logical argument. Philosophy can be helpful but it will only take you so far. No one has ever created a bulletproof argument for or against God.
Third, you have rejected a label -- "Christian" -- without defining it. What is your relationship to the Jesus you find in scripture? To the Jesus you hear about from the pulpit? To the Cosmic Christ? Ultimately, the question that Jesus asks Peter is the one we are all invited to answer. "Who do you say that I am?"
Thank you sir! Whilst I agree philosophy can only take us so far I think it's still the best method we have for assessing these issues.
In regards to the term Christian, I guess it basically means a follower of Christ, but I would also assume that entails some sort of formal membership in a Church, regular spiritual practice, and a set of beliefs.
My relationship to Jesus is a funny one. I think the character we meet in the Gospels is interesting and very mysterious, and certainly has some wise words. I also think the overall story of a God who became man in order to save us is a beautiful one. Unfortunately, I just no longer think it's true.
Ben, this just popped back up on my feed. I'm not sure why I didn't have anyting to say in February but I do in March. Philosophy may or may not be the best method we have but it certainly isn't the only one. Silence. Meditation. Interfaith dialog. These all have their place.
The apostles weren't formally members of a church. I think you can follow Jesus the Christ without being a member of an institutional church. I also think it's difficult if not impossible to do it alone.
Believing that God became man in order to save us may not be required to follow Jesus. There must be some reason to think he is worth following. It should probably have something to do with the reason he has the title Messiah/Christ. There is nothing in scripture that says you must believe that God is three in one. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't declared to be orthodoxy until the mid 300s.
Why would the authors of the gospels be willing to die rather than recant if they weren’t 100% sure it was true? If they hadn’t witnessed it or, in the case of Luke and Mark, had total confidence in the accounts of those who had?
1. There is no evidence that the majority of the Apostles were martyred outside of Christian tradition. It's not that Christians are unreliable, but that there are no contemporary sources to verify the claims.
2. Even if the Apostles did die rather than recent (again, for which there is no evidence), that only proves they were either sincere in their beliefs, or that recanting would've lead to a fate worse than death.
There is no evidence from outside of Greek sources that Socrates existed and was martyred. Therefore, there is no evidence at all for the existence of Socrates. This critique takes all of history with it until the very recent past. Most history is local history.
You’re also not getting it, it’s not about beliefs. If the Apostles fabricated the claims about Jesus’s resurrection, they knew they fabricated it. There’s a huge difference between a follower accepting on faith their beliefs and being willing to die for them, that happens all the time whether the beliefs are true or not. What I’m not sure makes any sense and don’t see any evidence has ever happened is for people to be willing to die in unison for something that they knew they made up lol. Especially since they were raised in a spiritual tradition which would condemn such behavior, so they’d essentially have to be godless and faithless people to make up that Christ resurrected and was the son of God and basically consign themselves to the hatred of the “real God” they were very much raised to believe in
Also, there wasn’t considered a worse punishment in Roman law than crucifixion. It was what was given to rebel slaves and violent criminals. It’s one of the most painful ways to die and several apostles died of crucifixion
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Apart from Peter (and James of course), there is, to my knowledge, no contemporary primary sources that document the death of the Apostles, Christian or otherwise. All of the stories crop up centuries after the lives of the Apostles. The only source that mentions Peter's death is 1 Clement, and all it says is:
"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
It's not at all clear from this under what circumstances Peter was martyred or whether he recanted his beliefs.
I must not have articulated my position clearly. By saying that "God will never be a conclusion for a logical argument," I meant an argument of pure reason ala Anselm. There are other possible sources of information about God (tradition, scripture, nature, etc.) and reason is critical to sorting them out and discerning which are reliable paths to truth. I am confident that the evidence for the existence of a Deity with many of the traits posited by the Abrahamic religious is more compelling than the evidence for Hindu monkey gods.
We can appeal to logic, reason, and normal metrics when they apply: archeological dating, text criticism, contemporaneous writings, etc. I can't tell from your tone if you would like a serious conversation or if you are taking the seagull approach: fly in, squawk, crap all over everyone, and fly away. (No judgment.). If you have a real interest, I'll be happy to lay out my case in more detail.
You’re welcome. I hope one day you will look into the academics of textual criticism. I suspect you would benefit from a better understanding of the field. May the Lord (in whom you don’t believe) bless you and keep you.
Divine hiddenness, theodicy, and eternal punishment are ones I've struggled with myself, and ultimately found comfort in what the Bible teaches more than any articulation of the tradition of man.
The Bible consistent describes God as "clothed in darkness". We also see the darkness as that which precedes the light. How can this be, if st John says "God is light" and God is before all things?
The narrative of Scriptures constantly asserts several things:
- God loves the whole world
- God actively upholds the whole world through his word and Spirit
- God wishes to save men from death
- More than simple obedience, God wishes our hearts, our wills and desires, to be oriented towards him
This naturally brings up the questions you have and many have had before you: Why doesn't God just save the whole world? Why does the world exist at all if God is already perfect? Why doesn't God reveal himself to everyone?
Consider the Bible's answer: We live in a world that belongs not to God, but to Satan, who is called "the ruler of this world" and "Prince of the power of the air". God, being a good God, cannot simply take by force what belongs to Satan - yet if he left Satan to his own devices, he would simply die, because God is the source of all life. And so God sends his Son and his Spirit to uphold creation and redeem it, turning the things that belong to darkness into things that belong to light. Because Satan, being everything God isn't, finds no value in the poor, in those who reject power, in those who seek after the things of God. Anyone who takes on suffering voluntarily for others is repulsive to him - therefore he gives up his inheritance for an empty field, for a bowl of soup, which will surely have an end. This is what Jesus means when he said he is "binding the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house. The work of Jesus doesn't just free us from evil,it takes what would have been evil and turns it into good.
Consider the pictures God gives us for redemption:
- Adoption into God's family - why doesn't God "just redeem everyone" so they can be a part of his family? The same reason we know its bad parenting to simply force an unruly child to look like his parents on the outside while his heart is filled with hate. It's not loving to prefer a beautiful lie over an ugly truth. God is not a tyrant.
- Child of God - why doesn't God just make it so nobody ever suffers? The same reason we know that sheltering our kids from evil is selfish cruelty posing as kindness. Not only does it not prepare them, it robs them from adventure and the meaning found in overcoming suffering. God did not with old his own Son, his own self, from this suffering and adventure of overcoming it - indeed, he even took on the wrath of God and overcame, something we cannot do. It would be unloving to simply make us ignorant obedient servants as in the garden instead of if true sons and daughters.
- Marriage to Jesus - why doesn't God just make the church redeemed, let us into heaven? The same reason a man should not marry by forcibly taking a woman and forcing her to become a perfect bride - we can all agree a perfect man would not do such a thing. No, Jesus woos, he slowly reveals himself, and he invites us to do the same. God has no desire to rape us, even "for our own good". He wants our consent to be union with him, and he wants to dance with us in participation and relationship.
The answer is that all things hold together in love. Consider what love is, and you will find God.
Interesting perspective! The only thing I take particular issue with in your presentation is the idea that this world belongs to Satan. Jesus contradicts this by saying "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matt 28:18). Indeed, part of the reason that Christ allegedly came and was resurrected was to defeat Satan. The Orthodox tradition leans heavily on the 'christus victor' model of atonement.
It's complicated - Jesus has all authority, but Satan is still the ruler of *this* world, which will pass away. Even then, Jesus uses his authority to redeem things and people into eternal life.
I don't think christus victor or penal substitution or even ransom theory are mutually exclusive - I think they are all narrative threads in Scripture about how God redeems us from sin and death that together point to an unarticulatable spirit between all of them which is the reality of salvation.
We're on similar journeys, which is why I've subscribed to your Substack. We even use similar titles for our Substacks, although I only started posting a month ago. From what I've read so far, we left the faith for similar reasons too. Look forward to reading more of your journey.
It feels like I've followed a similar path. Dropped my faith early on due to being upset by intellectual and moral inconsistencies/problems that I couldn't see resolved, was passively areligious in highschool and actively areligious in college. But I never stopped searching for truth amidst it all. After college I've hit a turning point: I had an experience in which it wasn't me finding truth, but the truth finding me - I came back to the church (for me, that means the Catholic one, as that is/was the church of my upbringing) as part of an experience of finding inner conviction in God and the spiritual. I'm finding great things in a more thorough engagement with my faith as an adult than I was capable with as a child. Unfortunately, the problems that I had with Christianity that made me turn away as a child are still there (many the same as you list above), and my copious reading and praying has not yet managed to bring me to a resolution as to whether I will accept these difficulties along with the faith or reject these difficulties along with the day. To accept them is tantamount to ignoring them, as so many of my religious educators tended to do, and I don't want to do that; else, it would seem to lump me with those who say "I don't agree with the church about X Y and Z, but I'm still a Catholic." That, to me, is to making yourself your own Pope, deciding that you know better than the Church. Unfortunately, there are many places where I am very tempted to say that the church IS actually wrong! I am a real human being and not a puppet, I have agency and I'm not dumb, I can see when something doesn't make any sense and there's just a heap of rationalizations propping it up, and I shouldn't be made to feel guilty for questioning that (I'm in particular looking at the doctrine of hell). Nor should you. I don't know what to do, but I wish you luck, and insofar as I still believe that God found me and took me by the scruff of my neck to put me back in church, I'll pray for you that you know the truth, wherever in the end it may be.
Enjoy your journey and remember not to look too hard for answers. Sometimes the contemplating of a question can be more illuminating than finding the answer. So if I may offer you something to think about, let me see if I can capture this idea in words.
I tend to think of all spirituality as a single mountain. One that has as many paths to the top as there are people willing to walk them. Some paths are more laid out and well trend with signs and milestones to keep you moving in the right direction. Some paths look more like wilderness that many wouldn't call a path at all and maybe they aren't perhaps you will have to turn around or take a fall. People might question your choice especially if you leave safer maintained trails for wild and dangerous ones. Sometimes you might find yourself traveling with a group all following the same way and other times you may take a road alone trusting only your own feet to find your way. One cannot see the whole mountain from below. So we climb to get a better view to reach toward that lofty peak hidden from our sight. We look at that mysterious height, hidden just beyond our vision and place upon it meaning and climb for our own reasons.
Thanks for the article, keep on writing and I will look forward to reading. Happy hiking!
I deconstructed my faith during COVID. Most painful experience ever at the time but also beautiful to finally be free of the guilt and shame that had plaged my life. Not sure if you've read about gnosticism but it has been something that has brought me some comfort. We all have a divine spark in us, we are here to learn, then go back to a wholeness. Anyway! Thanks for sharing. Great hearing others have been on this journey too and it's good to question things and believe things for yourself rather than being indoctrinated and turning your back on things that just make sense like accepting others for who they are, who they love and what they believe without condemnation as happens in the church. All the best and will be following your journey:)
I am also in a espiritual struggle. I did leave Church due to homosexuality and eternal hell concept. Then I went on a long search for truth that continues today. I have found that study other religions and authors have helped me, such as Buddha, Shankara. The Vedas and Bhagavad Gita, for example. Believe me: I tried it all as I went to Umbanda, Kardec's Spiritism, Ayahuasca rituals, Viapassana meditation. A lot of people see this in a very negative way, but those experiences gave me tão things: alternative perspectives (and what I have seen is that some "rules" about sex are not just limited to christianity) and personal experiences (not just book knowledge). Today I believe that every philosofical quest is personal and if I don't see this, I will fall on cold rationalism that grasps only theories and not real life. To apply just logic is not a wise take. It's important but not absolute and could be used in a detrimental way (for me the Schellemberg argumento makes no sense and leaves out importante things). Logic alone can lead one to justify dangerous things. I would take another route and agree with Socrates: I know nothing. What I know is knowledge (maybe opinions) from books, not first hand experiences (I have never seen God; but one time in a moment of distress I heard something from a calm voice that did not came from me -- I avoid to talk about as people just think I am crazy. I have had dreams. Yes, I know nothing, but I had experiences. To recognize my limitations was very liberating and that's why I try to approach everything with care, attention and love: if I don't know nothing, what can I say? I could quote here lots of arguments and theories (Unmoved Mover is logical), but I don't need that burden anymore. I know God - an Absolute Being, more like Plotinus said - does exists. I feel it in my heart, I believe it when I see the sun, stars and Cosmos. Dogmas could be disputed, but the existence of a Fountain of Good is certain to me. It could be proved logically but it's futile. Faith is to trust in things we cannot see (for now). Who know what awaits us after death? I don't believe that life ends on death.
While I enjoyed reading your article and you raise a number of issues, the decision whether or not to be a Christian is not based on any of these issues. Jesus says, But who do you say that I Am?” Jesus made claims about Himself that, if true, mean that He is God incarnate, who came to save us. If false then Christianity is a lie, we are dead in our sins, without hope and those of us who preach Christ are the biggest fools (1Cor 15:12-22). What Paul pits forth as the test of Christianity is whether Jesus died and rose again. If that happened then all men should repent and believe. The evidence for the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection are overwhelming but you seem to be focusing on issues that are not central to the claims of Christ.
Thanks for the comment! Firstly, I think all of the issues I discussed do bear on Jesus' claim to be the Son of God, and whether he was resurrected. One cannot assess a claim in a vacuum without considering related entailments. Secondly, I hope to address the arguments for the resurrection directly in future so keep and eye out 😁
I think your reply is easily disproved. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible teaches about certain sins (you originally raised the example of homosexuality) has zero bearing on whether Jesus rose from the dead. One is s moral judgement while the other is a historical fact claim. Avoiding confusing and conflating different types of claims is not examining those claims in a vacuum. The claim stands or falls on its own, apart from any other issues.
I don't think that's necessarily true. There are times when I claim can be assessed on its own, but when you have other related claims that bear on the original claim, you can use those as part of your assessment. This is why I made sure to explain how my first principles were interrelated. If you want to deny this, you'd be committed to saying that if Jesus had taught rape was perfectly moral, that that would have no bearing on his claim to divinity whatsoever.
Interesting point. But let’s entertain your hypothetical about Jesus claiming something was fine, that you or I might find morally offensive. How does that impact the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is it doesn’t. The reason understanding the difference between a question of fact and a moral judgement matters is because let’s say I find God killing everyone on Earth with a global flood (except 8 people) morally unacceptable or if I find His instructions to the Israelites commit genocide against the Canaanites immoral, neither of my moral judgements have any impact on the question, “Does God exist?” The question is a question of fact but you are inserting moral judgements into the question that (1) don’t belong in the question and (2) scripture declares multiple times that we lack the perspective or knowledge even to make these judgements when it comes to actions by God. Hopefully you see Jesus endorsing genocide as at least as problematic as Him endorsing rape, so all I did is shift your hypothetical to an issue that is actually in the scriptures. But the point is those moral questions have no place in questions of fact.
In a trial concerning murder the first question is whether the evidence shows that the accused has actually killed the victim (a question of fact). Then the moral question is raised concerning whether the killing was justified. Was it is self defense or defense of another? Was it intentional or accidental? The moral questions have zero impact on the question of fact.
I simply disagree. Jesus' moral commands do bear on the question of his divinity and the related question of his resurrection. If Christ does things that are in tension with the claim to his divinity, then the prior probability of his resurrection is lowered. Similarly, the other ethicsl issues you point to in the Bible lower the probability that it is divinely inspired.
God’s morality might impact your decision whether God is worthy of worship but it has no impact on the fact claim that He exists. If God were a Moral Monster as Dawkins claims that has no bearing on whether God in fact exists. The only way this even tangentially impacts the question concerning Jesus is that He didn’t claim to be just any god (i.e. Ba’al, Marduk, etc.). He claimed to be the God of the Bible in a tent of human flesh, so if His morality were significantly different from the morality of the God of the Bible it would call into question His claim of identity. But again that side question has zero impact on the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead to prove it.
First of all I want to say thank you for being so honest and open. Truly you are a humble man! Secondly, I'm no theologian, but I am a christian, and I love card houses. You said at the start of I guess the second half of the article that "Christianity is like a card house, so if one of these things fell all of the others would fall?" (or something like that sorry). What's interesting is that this isn't true for card houses. If you've ever built one worth its while you would know that the collapse of one side or one card doesn't always guarantee the collapse of the others. This is especially true if you are talking about different levels of the house i.e. you can knock down story 3 and stories 2 and 1 are still in good shape. What it seems like is happening to me, granted I'm only 20 years old so take my words with a whole cup of salt, is that you have found that story 2 or 3 of your christian card house has fallen, and so you've given up on it completely. I'm not sure what people think a relationship with God is supposed to be like, but I can share for sure that mine hasn't been easy: hardships, questions, confusion, despair. But I find that christians are not called to be the people who follow God blindly and never know his plan, but we are called to be the people who wrestle with God. This has always been his way, the Israelites literally named their country after a man whom God called "God wrestler" haha! So maybe it does feel like you can't possibly believe in christianity any more, and perhaps right now you shouldn't. But I wonder if most of the problems you have are with the Orthodox church rather than the Church. I wonder if you allowed yourself not to be not it agreement with your church or even "not in agreement with God" but still sat through that feeling... I wonder what would happen. And maybe you've already done that for a time and never want to do that again bc you're exhausted, I know I am. So I don't blame you man!
Thank you for your kind words 😁 Firstly, I would say my card house point was more a metaphor related to the particular set of propositions I was holding. One could certainly take one out and still hold the rest, but each one of mine was built upon the previous one.
Secondly, it's true that my issue may be with a particular kind of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox), and not with Christianity in its totality. The only issue with this, is that I still believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is the closest to the vision of early Christianity, and is the most consistent version of Christianity that is still extant. If I wanted to embrace Protestantism for example to disregard some of the ethical issues and the hell issue, then I'd have to do a lot of work to figure out why Protestantism is consistent with early Christianity.
Thirdly, I did try for many years to sit with the discomfort and work through my issues. I had many conversations with friends and my spiritual Father about these problems, but alas, ultimately I couldn't do it anymore.
Excellent article. I think I'm in a similar place as you were. I still hope to find satisfying answers but this article summarizes my struggles very well.
Not going to read, but good job, don’t make it your whole identity though, just drop it and move on. There’s much to explore outside of the shallow waters.
Like it or not, Christianity has made up a fundamental part of my identity, and my relationship to it will probably always be a part of my story. Thanks though!
Pay me no mind Ben. I know everyone is different. I was raised Christian myself and wouldn't be the person I am toady without that. You are your own person with your own journey do what you need to do, by all means.
God is the one word no human can tell any other what to do with. I read you as saying "this particular social construction of God isn't working for me anymore." How it appears to me is when we start trying to agree on what God means, or ought to mean, we are vulnerable to alienating the parts of ourselves or others whose understanding or relating to God does not match the shape of our container. Of course, I want communion too in sharing God, but I've found that pointing the word God on my own terms must come first—and oh boy is there a lot of outside interference.
I hope it feels like genuine permission! I don't want to discourage you from hashing out all the Christ business and who you are in relation to all that, and to your peers, but it can be hard for me to see where YOU are in all of that. I am most interested in the particularity of what and how you see the way of things!
First I want to applaud you for struggling with your faith. It's a difficult and lifelong pursuit and I'm confident that pursuing these questions will serve you well.
Second, God will never be the conclusion of any logical argument. Philosophy can be helpful but it will only take you so far. No one has ever created a bulletproof argument for or against God.
Third, you have rejected a label -- "Christian" -- without defining it. What is your relationship to the Jesus you find in scripture? To the Jesus you hear about from the pulpit? To the Cosmic Christ? Ultimately, the question that Jesus asks Peter is the one we are all invited to answer. "Who do you say that I am?"
Thank you sir! Whilst I agree philosophy can only take us so far I think it's still the best method we have for assessing these issues.
In regards to the term Christian, I guess it basically means a follower of Christ, but I would also assume that entails some sort of formal membership in a Church, regular spiritual practice, and a set of beliefs.
My relationship to Jesus is a funny one. I think the character we meet in the Gospels is interesting and very mysterious, and certainly has some wise words. I also think the overall story of a God who became man in order to save us is a beautiful one. Unfortunately, I just no longer think it's true.
Ben, this just popped back up on my feed. I'm not sure why I didn't have anyting to say in February but I do in March. Philosophy may or may not be the best method we have but it certainly isn't the only one. Silence. Meditation. Interfaith dialog. These all have their place.
The apostles weren't formally members of a church. I think you can follow Jesus the Christ without being a member of an institutional church. I also think it's difficult if not impossible to do it alone.
Believing that God became man in order to save us may not be required to follow Jesus. There must be some reason to think he is worth following. It should probably have something to do with the reason he has the title Messiah/Christ. There is nothing in scripture that says you must believe that God is three in one. The doctrine of the Trinity wasn't declared to be orthodoxy until the mid 300s.
Keep on keepin' on.
Why would the authors of the gospels be willing to die rather than recant if they weren’t 100% sure it was true? If they hadn’t witnessed it or, in the case of Luke and Mark, had total confidence in the accounts of those who had?
Two things;
1. There is no evidence that the majority of the Apostles were martyred outside of Christian tradition. It's not that Christians are unreliable, but that there are no contemporary sources to verify the claims.
2. Even if the Apostles did die rather than recent (again, for which there is no evidence), that only proves they were either sincere in their beliefs, or that recanting would've lead to a fate worse than death.
There is no evidence from outside of Greek sources that Socrates existed and was martyred. Therefore, there is no evidence at all for the existence of Socrates. This critique takes all of history with it until the very recent past. Most history is local history.
You’re also not getting it, it’s not about beliefs. If the Apostles fabricated the claims about Jesus’s resurrection, they knew they fabricated it. There’s a huge difference between a follower accepting on faith their beliefs and being willing to die for them, that happens all the time whether the beliefs are true or not. What I’m not sure makes any sense and don’t see any evidence has ever happened is for people to be willing to die in unison for something that they knew they made up lol. Especially since they were raised in a spiritual tradition which would condemn such behavior, so they’d essentially have to be godless and faithless people to make up that Christ resurrected and was the son of God and basically consign themselves to the hatred of the “real God” they were very much raised to believe in
Also, there wasn’t considered a worse punishment in Roman law than crucifixion. It was what was given to rebel slaves and violent criminals. It’s one of the most painful ways to die and several apostles died of crucifixion
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Apart from Peter (and James of course), there is, to my knowledge, no contemporary primary sources that document the death of the Apostles, Christian or otherwise. All of the stories crop up centuries after the lives of the Apostles. The only source that mentions Peter's death is 1 Clement, and all it says is:
"Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
It's not at all clear from this under what circumstances Peter was martyred or whether he recanted his beliefs.
I must not have articulated my position clearly. By saying that "God will never be a conclusion for a logical argument," I meant an argument of pure reason ala Anselm. There are other possible sources of information about God (tradition, scripture, nature, etc.) and reason is critical to sorting them out and discerning which are reliable paths to truth. I am confident that the evidence for the existence of a Deity with many of the traits posited by the Abrahamic religious is more compelling than the evidence for Hindu monkey gods.
We can appeal to logic, reason, and normal metrics when they apply: archeological dating, text criticism, contemporaneous writings, etc. I can't tell from your tone if you would like a serious conversation or if you are taking the seagull approach: fly in, squawk, crap all over everyone, and fly away. (No judgment.). If you have a real interest, I'll be happy to lay out my case in more detail.
You’re welcome. I hope one day you will look into the academics of textual criticism. I suspect you would benefit from a better understanding of the field. May the Lord (in whom you don’t believe) bless you and keep you.
Divine hiddenness, theodicy, and eternal punishment are ones I've struggled with myself, and ultimately found comfort in what the Bible teaches more than any articulation of the tradition of man.
The Bible consistent describes God as "clothed in darkness". We also see the darkness as that which precedes the light. How can this be, if st John says "God is light" and God is before all things?
The narrative of Scriptures constantly asserts several things:
- God loves the whole world
- God actively upholds the whole world through his word and Spirit
- God wishes to save men from death
- More than simple obedience, God wishes our hearts, our wills and desires, to be oriented towards him
This naturally brings up the questions you have and many have had before you: Why doesn't God just save the whole world? Why does the world exist at all if God is already perfect? Why doesn't God reveal himself to everyone?
Consider the Bible's answer: We live in a world that belongs not to God, but to Satan, who is called "the ruler of this world" and "Prince of the power of the air". God, being a good God, cannot simply take by force what belongs to Satan - yet if he left Satan to his own devices, he would simply die, because God is the source of all life. And so God sends his Son and his Spirit to uphold creation and redeem it, turning the things that belong to darkness into things that belong to light. Because Satan, being everything God isn't, finds no value in the poor, in those who reject power, in those who seek after the things of God. Anyone who takes on suffering voluntarily for others is repulsive to him - therefore he gives up his inheritance for an empty field, for a bowl of soup, which will surely have an end. This is what Jesus means when he said he is "binding the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house. The work of Jesus doesn't just free us from evil,it takes what would have been evil and turns it into good.
Consider the pictures God gives us for redemption:
- Adoption into God's family - why doesn't God "just redeem everyone" so they can be a part of his family? The same reason we know its bad parenting to simply force an unruly child to look like his parents on the outside while his heart is filled with hate. It's not loving to prefer a beautiful lie over an ugly truth. God is not a tyrant.
- Child of God - why doesn't God just make it so nobody ever suffers? The same reason we know that sheltering our kids from evil is selfish cruelty posing as kindness. Not only does it not prepare them, it robs them from adventure and the meaning found in overcoming suffering. God did not with old his own Son, his own self, from this suffering and adventure of overcoming it - indeed, he even took on the wrath of God and overcame, something we cannot do. It would be unloving to simply make us ignorant obedient servants as in the garden instead of if true sons and daughters.
- Marriage to Jesus - why doesn't God just make the church redeemed, let us into heaven? The same reason a man should not marry by forcibly taking a woman and forcing her to become a perfect bride - we can all agree a perfect man would not do such a thing. No, Jesus woos, he slowly reveals himself, and he invites us to do the same. God has no desire to rape us, even "for our own good". He wants our consent to be union with him, and he wants to dance with us in participation and relationship.
The answer is that all things hold together in love. Consider what love is, and you will find God.
Interesting perspective! The only thing I take particular issue with in your presentation is the idea that this world belongs to Satan. Jesus contradicts this by saying "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matt 28:18). Indeed, part of the reason that Christ allegedly came and was resurrected was to defeat Satan. The Orthodox tradition leans heavily on the 'christus victor' model of atonement.
It's complicated - Jesus has all authority, but Satan is still the ruler of *this* world, which will pass away. Even then, Jesus uses his authority to redeem things and people into eternal life.
I don't think christus victor or penal substitution or even ransom theory are mutually exclusive - I think they are all narrative threads in Scripture about how God redeems us from sin and death that together point to an unarticulatable spirit between all of them which is the reality of salvation.
Agreed on both points!
Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell:
Ding-dong.
Hark! now I hear them,—ding-dong, bell.
May you hold your breath longer with each descent, Pearl-diver!
Any G-d worth carrying as a tune through the Night will sing harmony to honest music like this.
No shame. Just blessing and Company to you. Let me know what the sea-bed surrenders to your pry.
We're on similar journeys, which is why I've subscribed to your Substack. We even use similar titles for our Substacks, although I only started posting a month ago. From what I've read so far, we left the faith for similar reasons too. Look forward to reading more of your journey.
Fantastic writing, points excellently articulated. Your journey mirrors much of my own. Much love brother!
Thank you very much 😁
It feels like I've followed a similar path. Dropped my faith early on due to being upset by intellectual and moral inconsistencies/problems that I couldn't see resolved, was passively areligious in highschool and actively areligious in college. But I never stopped searching for truth amidst it all. After college I've hit a turning point: I had an experience in which it wasn't me finding truth, but the truth finding me - I came back to the church (for me, that means the Catholic one, as that is/was the church of my upbringing) as part of an experience of finding inner conviction in God and the spiritual. I'm finding great things in a more thorough engagement with my faith as an adult than I was capable with as a child. Unfortunately, the problems that I had with Christianity that made me turn away as a child are still there (many the same as you list above), and my copious reading and praying has not yet managed to bring me to a resolution as to whether I will accept these difficulties along with the faith or reject these difficulties along with the day. To accept them is tantamount to ignoring them, as so many of my religious educators tended to do, and I don't want to do that; else, it would seem to lump me with those who say "I don't agree with the church about X Y and Z, but I'm still a Catholic." That, to me, is to making yourself your own Pope, deciding that you know better than the Church. Unfortunately, there are many places where I am very tempted to say that the church IS actually wrong! I am a real human being and not a puppet, I have agency and I'm not dumb, I can see when something doesn't make any sense and there's just a heap of rationalizations propping it up, and I shouldn't be made to feel guilty for questioning that (I'm in particular looking at the doctrine of hell). Nor should you. I don't know what to do, but I wish you luck, and insofar as I still believe that God found me and took me by the scruff of my neck to put me back in church, I'll pray for you that you know the truth, wherever in the end it may be.
Thank you for your honest reflection!
Enjoy your journey and remember not to look too hard for answers. Sometimes the contemplating of a question can be more illuminating than finding the answer. So if I may offer you something to think about, let me see if I can capture this idea in words.
I tend to think of all spirituality as a single mountain. One that has as many paths to the top as there are people willing to walk them. Some paths are more laid out and well trend with signs and milestones to keep you moving in the right direction. Some paths look more like wilderness that many wouldn't call a path at all and maybe they aren't perhaps you will have to turn around or take a fall. People might question your choice especially if you leave safer maintained trails for wild and dangerous ones. Sometimes you might find yourself traveling with a group all following the same way and other times you may take a road alone trusting only your own feet to find your way. One cannot see the whole mountain from below. So we climb to get a better view to reach toward that lofty peak hidden from our sight. We look at that mysterious height, hidden just beyond our vision and place upon it meaning and climb for our own reasons.
Thanks for the article, keep on writing and I will look forward to reading. Happy hiking!
Thanks for your perspective!
You may find Nathan Jacobs YouTube channel helpful. He talks through all these issues quite elegantly from an Orthodox perspective.
I love Dr Jacobs! Although obviously I find his arguments unconvincing, he's one of the best Orthodox philosophers out there :)
I deconstructed my faith during COVID. Most painful experience ever at the time but also beautiful to finally be free of the guilt and shame that had plaged my life. Not sure if you've read about gnosticism but it has been something that has brought me some comfort. We all have a divine spark in us, we are here to learn, then go back to a wholeness. Anyway! Thanks for sharing. Great hearing others have been on this journey too and it's good to question things and believe things for yourself rather than being indoctrinated and turning your back on things that just make sense like accepting others for who they are, who they love and what they believe without condemnation as happens in the church. All the best and will be following your journey:)
Thank you very much and thanks for sharing part of your journey :) Yes I have been researching gnosticism- it's very interesting!
I am also in a espiritual struggle. I did leave Church due to homosexuality and eternal hell concept. Then I went on a long search for truth that continues today. I have found that study other religions and authors have helped me, such as Buddha, Shankara. The Vedas and Bhagavad Gita, for example. Believe me: I tried it all as I went to Umbanda, Kardec's Spiritism, Ayahuasca rituals, Viapassana meditation. A lot of people see this in a very negative way, but those experiences gave me tão things: alternative perspectives (and what I have seen is that some "rules" about sex are not just limited to christianity) and personal experiences (not just book knowledge). Today I believe that every philosofical quest is personal and if I don't see this, I will fall on cold rationalism that grasps only theories and not real life. To apply just logic is not a wise take. It's important but not absolute and could be used in a detrimental way (for me the Schellemberg argumento makes no sense and leaves out importante things). Logic alone can lead one to justify dangerous things. I would take another route and agree with Socrates: I know nothing. What I know is knowledge (maybe opinions) from books, not first hand experiences (I have never seen God; but one time in a moment of distress I heard something from a calm voice that did not came from me -- I avoid to talk about as people just think I am crazy. I have had dreams. Yes, I know nothing, but I had experiences. To recognize my limitations was very liberating and that's why I try to approach everything with care, attention and love: if I don't know nothing, what can I say? I could quote here lots of arguments and theories (Unmoved Mover is logical), but I don't need that burden anymore. I know God - an Absolute Being, more like Plotinus said - does exists. I feel it in my heart, I believe it when I see the sun, stars and Cosmos. Dogmas could be disputed, but the existence of a Fountain of Good is certain to me. It could be proved logically but it's futile. Faith is to trust in things we cannot see (for now). Who know what awaits us after death? I don't believe that life ends on death.
Thanks for your perspective!
Welcome to Exile mate. All I can really say is that you're not alone and this isn't the end. Grace and peace. God bless and God speed.
Thank you sir!
While I enjoyed reading your article and you raise a number of issues, the decision whether or not to be a Christian is not based on any of these issues. Jesus says, But who do you say that I Am?” Jesus made claims about Himself that, if true, mean that He is God incarnate, who came to save us. If false then Christianity is a lie, we are dead in our sins, without hope and those of us who preach Christ are the biggest fools (1Cor 15:12-22). What Paul pits forth as the test of Christianity is whether Jesus died and rose again. If that happened then all men should repent and believe. The evidence for the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection are overwhelming but you seem to be focusing on issues that are not central to the claims of Christ.
Thanks for the comment! Firstly, I think all of the issues I discussed do bear on Jesus' claim to be the Son of God, and whether he was resurrected. One cannot assess a claim in a vacuum without considering related entailments. Secondly, I hope to address the arguments for the resurrection directly in future so keep and eye out 😁
I think your reply is easily disproved. Whether or not you agree with what the Bible teaches about certain sins (you originally raised the example of homosexuality) has zero bearing on whether Jesus rose from the dead. One is s moral judgement while the other is a historical fact claim. Avoiding confusing and conflating different types of claims is not examining those claims in a vacuum. The claim stands or falls on its own, apart from any other issues.
I don't think that's necessarily true. There are times when I claim can be assessed on its own, but when you have other related claims that bear on the original claim, you can use those as part of your assessment. This is why I made sure to explain how my first principles were interrelated. If you want to deny this, you'd be committed to saying that if Jesus had taught rape was perfectly moral, that that would have no bearing on his claim to divinity whatsoever.
Interesting point. But let’s entertain your hypothetical about Jesus claiming something was fine, that you or I might find morally offensive. How does that impact the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is it doesn’t. The reason understanding the difference between a question of fact and a moral judgement matters is because let’s say I find God killing everyone on Earth with a global flood (except 8 people) morally unacceptable or if I find His instructions to the Israelites commit genocide against the Canaanites immoral, neither of my moral judgements have any impact on the question, “Does God exist?” The question is a question of fact but you are inserting moral judgements into the question that (1) don’t belong in the question and (2) scripture declares multiple times that we lack the perspective or knowledge even to make these judgements when it comes to actions by God. Hopefully you see Jesus endorsing genocide as at least as problematic as Him endorsing rape, so all I did is shift your hypothetical to an issue that is actually in the scriptures. But the point is those moral questions have no place in questions of fact.
In a trial concerning murder the first question is whether the evidence shows that the accused has actually killed the victim (a question of fact). Then the moral question is raised concerning whether the killing was justified. Was it is self defense or defense of another? Was it intentional or accidental? The moral questions have zero impact on the question of fact.
I simply disagree. Jesus' moral commands do bear on the question of his divinity and the related question of his resurrection. If Christ does things that are in tension with the claim to his divinity, then the prior probability of his resurrection is lowered. Similarly, the other ethicsl issues you point to in the Bible lower the probability that it is divinely inspired.
God’s morality might impact your decision whether God is worthy of worship but it has no impact on the fact claim that He exists. If God were a Moral Monster as Dawkins claims that has no bearing on whether God in fact exists. The only way this even tangentially impacts the question concerning Jesus is that He didn’t claim to be just any god (i.e. Ba’al, Marduk, etc.). He claimed to be the God of the Bible in a tent of human flesh, so if His morality were significantly different from the morality of the God of the Bible it would call into question His claim of identity. But again that side question has zero impact on the question of whether Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead to prove it.
First of all I want to say thank you for being so honest and open. Truly you are a humble man! Secondly, I'm no theologian, but I am a christian, and I love card houses. You said at the start of I guess the second half of the article that "Christianity is like a card house, so if one of these things fell all of the others would fall?" (or something like that sorry). What's interesting is that this isn't true for card houses. If you've ever built one worth its while you would know that the collapse of one side or one card doesn't always guarantee the collapse of the others. This is especially true if you are talking about different levels of the house i.e. you can knock down story 3 and stories 2 and 1 are still in good shape. What it seems like is happening to me, granted I'm only 20 years old so take my words with a whole cup of salt, is that you have found that story 2 or 3 of your christian card house has fallen, and so you've given up on it completely. I'm not sure what people think a relationship with God is supposed to be like, but I can share for sure that mine hasn't been easy: hardships, questions, confusion, despair. But I find that christians are not called to be the people who follow God blindly and never know his plan, but we are called to be the people who wrestle with God. This has always been his way, the Israelites literally named their country after a man whom God called "God wrestler" haha! So maybe it does feel like you can't possibly believe in christianity any more, and perhaps right now you shouldn't. But I wonder if most of the problems you have are with the Orthodox church rather than the Church. I wonder if you allowed yourself not to be not it agreement with your church or even "not in agreement with God" but still sat through that feeling... I wonder what would happen. And maybe you've already done that for a time and never want to do that again bc you're exhausted, I know I am. So I don't blame you man!
Thank you for your kind words 😁 Firstly, I would say my card house point was more a metaphor related to the particular set of propositions I was holding. One could certainly take one out and still hold the rest, but each one of mine was built upon the previous one.
Secondly, it's true that my issue may be with a particular kind of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox), and not with Christianity in its totality. The only issue with this, is that I still believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is the closest to the vision of early Christianity, and is the most consistent version of Christianity that is still extant. If I wanted to embrace Protestantism for example to disregard some of the ethical issues and the hell issue, then I'd have to do a lot of work to figure out why Protestantism is consistent with early Christianity.
Thirdly, I did try for many years to sit with the discomfort and work through my issues. I had many conversations with friends and my spiritual Father about these problems, but alas, ultimately I couldn't do it anymore.
*sorry one too many nots in the final sentences*
Excellent article. I think I'm in a similar place as you were. I still hope to find satisfying answers but this article summarizes my struggles very well.
Thank you sir! I wish you well on your journey :)
Not going to read, but good job, don’t make it your whole identity though, just drop it and move on. There’s much to explore outside of the shallow waters.
Like it or not, Christianity has made up a fundamental part of my identity, and my relationship to it will probably always be a part of my story. Thanks though!
Pay me no mind Ben. I know everyone is different. I was raised Christian myself and wouldn't be the person I am toady without that. You are your own person with your own journey do what you need to do, by all means.
Where am I?
You can point the word God more freely
Not sure exactly what you mean sorry? Thanks though :)
God is the one word no human can tell any other what to do with. I read you as saying "this particular social construction of God isn't working for me anymore." How it appears to me is when we start trying to agree on what God means, or ought to mean, we are vulnerable to alienating the parts of ourselves or others whose understanding or relating to God does not match the shape of our container. Of course, I want communion too in sharing God, but I've found that pointing the word God on my own terms must come first—and oh boy is there a lot of outside interference.
I see what you mean now! That's very profound, thank you :)
I hope it feels like genuine permission! I don't want to discourage you from hashing out all the Christ business and who you are in relation to all that, and to your peers, but it can be hard for me to see where YOU are in all of that. I am most interested in the particularity of what and how you see the way of things!