There are gnostics -- people who know special things -- and agnostics -- people who don't know. There are theists -- people who believe in God -- and there are atheists -- people who believe in no God. Clearly in these things that "a" is important -- it is a negative. So if there are deists -- people who believe there is a God, but He's a "hands-off" God -- and there must be adeists -- people who don't believe in a "hands-off" God.
We Christians can be a funny lot. We can stand boldly for God -- "We're theists; we believe in God" -- and we can be practical atheists at the same time -- "Sure, I believe in God, but at this moment I'm not too concerned about what He thinks." We can be theists at one moment and deists at another. In fact, I have to say it seems like a sizable number of genuine believers are practical deists. They believe, but they approach life as if God is not directly involved.
For years I've heard Christians bemoaning the state of the church. "If things keep up," they'll say, "there may not be a church anymore." Or this Covid thing. Dire predictions from Christians about outcomes. I recently read where there are fears that the new Covid vaccine might alter your psyche. Lots of stuff like this. And in a natural world, very scary. Can you lose your salvation? Maybe. What will happen if Trump loses the election (as he appears to have already done)? Terrible things! Except ... it has to come from a deist perspective. None of these fears take into account a God who is there. All of them assume a hands-off God. Every aspect of life is affected by a God who is there and, in that, peace that surpasses understanding is available.
That's why I'm an adeist. I don't believe that God is hands-off. I don't rely on a God whose hands are tied either by His creation or Himself. I'm a theist and believe that nothing even exists without His present attention. Not an agnostic. I know it. Not an atheist. I'm sure there is a God. Not a deist. I know He's here, involved, working, guiding, protecting. But you go ahead with your fears and concerns. My mother told me not to believe it when they tell you worry doesn't help anything. Look, 99% of what you worry about doesn't happen. See? It works fine.
16 comments:
Sounds like cheap rationalization for not doing what should be done for fear one's image will be tarnished. I have no doubt God is hands on. That's got nothing to do with my obligations as a Christian who is in but not of the world. I'm not concerned with perceptions regarding what I do and why, so long as the why behind what I do is to please God. I don't even have to "worry" about whether or not, say, the wrong politician will fully succeed in implementing the entirety of his evil plans. I only know that my duty as a Christian is to thwart those plans to the extent I have any ability to do so (even that is no more than voting for the other guy, as flawed as he may be). But should my efforts not be enough to impeded the greater of two evils, the fact that he was only able to hurt us a little as opposed to a lot is not a legitimate concern when the choice is before me, because I'm not a freakin' prophet. All I know is that he is clearly bad for the nation, while the other guy has proven himself to be far better than originally feared. That's how these things work.
You're saying that being a theist is a cheap rationalization for not doing what's right?
Art,
The problem as I see it, is that you have no ability to thwart the plans of God, or of Satan. Primarily because you have virtually no idea of what those plans are and how you can thwart them.
What we can do is follow Jesus’ commands. Love God with our whole being, love others as we love ourselves, obey Jesus’ commandments. Maybe you’ve got all three of those all under control, but I feel like I’m still working on all three. Perhaps we should focus on areas where we can do something, and trust that God can handle the rest.
Marshal, you've said many times that you don't care what other people think about your words and actions, and I find that worrisome. It concerns me because even God wants you to care about it. We are told to not even have the appearance of evil. So, while you may be going to the strip club to evangelize, others only see you going to a strip club. How our actions are perceived are important because true or not, they reflect on God, and can hinder our work, even if we have the best of motivation. It can also hinder fellow believers, a la the eating of meat sacrificed to idols described by Paul. We must be cognisant of how our actions can be perceived regardless of intent of the doer.
David,
I can't be worried about how each and every individual perceives what I say or do, especially given how some will choose to suppose the worst rather than simply ask.
Craig,
Nothing you've said in your comment conflicts with anything I've said, particularly your last sentence. In "doing something", my suggestion relates to acting on as much information as can be had and trusting God from that point on.
Stan,
No. Not saying that at all. Not remotely sure I see how you could have come to that conclusion based on what I said.
So your response to not even having the appearance of evil and not being a stumbling block to less mature Christians is, "Meh, I'll do as I please."?
David,
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too is my inability to control how people view my behavior and speech despite my efforts to be clear regarding my intentions. Case in point, your constant harassment regarding what I say despite my continued efforts to assure you of those intentions. How should I regard that, since you appear to be as a nagging old woman? It cuts both ways, my friend. Deal with the point rather than how the point is expressed and how you appear to me will be improved.
Oh no, you called me a mean thing! Now I need to completely change my entire belief system. Thank you for your correction done with peace and well meaning.
Accusing me of having the appearance of evil because you don't like my word choices or some other such irrelevant and insignificant factor is itself possessed of an appearance of evil. Harsh language alone may be a stumbling block for some. But focusing on the harsh language without concern for the message evoked by the use of that harsh language is...pardon the harsh language...BS. I know this Kentucky progressive who likes to ask, "Don't you know how that sounds?" when the substance is too much to overcome. Far easier to attack the "appearance" than the reality.
It's not your belief system. It's your sanctimony. It's not a good look (appearance).
Art,
The fact is that your stance on harsh language is pretty indistinguishable from my KY. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
Craig,
I'm not talking about cussing, though I often do. What some might call "harsh" doesn't necessarily involve profanity or obscenity. Just direct and dispensing with tact and "nice". For example, when something does something stupid, calling them stupid is considered by some to be harsh, unChristian and lacking grace. I would also state that I'm not one to begin discussion with even such lightweight "harshness", preferring instead to assume the other person is truly willing to engage in good faith. It is only when that assumption was proven "stupid" that I escalate at all, still however with an explanation for why a "harsh" term is appropriate or supportable.
Thus, my stance, as it were, is not at all akin to...well...whatever it is you meant by "KY". I have my suspicion about what you mean, but...
I hate seeing my typos when it's too late to fix them.
After that it seems more likely that your stance is very close to mr KY.
FYI, KY is the abbreviation for a state.
How is harsh words speaking the Truth in love, or in all things being at peace with others? You know, the things we're commanded to do?
Craig,
I thought it was Kentucky...just checking. And no, my stance isn't at all like his.
David,
How is allowing people who are doing or about to do stupid things demonstrating love if talking nice to them hasn't done any good?
I'm not willing to risk that someone about whom I care should go astray simply because I wish to posture as holy and gracious when the cliff is right there before them one more step away. Sue me.
From Craig (accidentally deleted),
Art,
I disagree. Dan's stance about "harsh language" is that he is determines who, when and where, such harsh language is appropriate, and that he is virtually immune from criticism regarding his use of harsh language. Your standard appears to be virtually the same.
I'll point out the obvious. You chose not to answer David's questions. Or, you chose to answer with a question, then...
No, you just didn't answer them. You clearly seem to be advocating behavior that specifically contradicts commands from scripture, yet don't seem to want to explain your choice to do so.
Post a Comment