I also believe those people have some of the strongest faith, precisely because they MUST address perceived holes they can't ignore. An unexamined faith is a house built on sand, IMHO: People profess it because they've never faced a question they could neither answer nor ignore, and often when they inevitably do they think their inability to see the answer means there isn't one, so they "lose" a religion they never really had.

How I feel about Paul depends on which statement we explore; you know my feelings on Romans, but he can be a little chauvinistic by our standards, even when admitting it's no more than his opinion. The only potential witnesses to Pauls epiphany are he and God, but I think it significant no one who did know Christ on earth ever voiced an objection to his ministry (in fact, just the opposite, and Peter, by all known accounts, accepted the rebuke. ) And of course his only claim to fame before joining his new friends was hunting them down and killing them. Let's face it, Paul wasn't progressive by our standards, but various instances of "leav[ing] out the OT" form the basis of several of his epistles, Pharisee of the Pharisees that he was. As far as epiphanies and voices from God, I still feel the proof is in the pudding.

Hence the "whether. " But IF one wants to look for explicit scriptural statements on homosexuality, those seem the best.

For the most part I think permanent committed relationships are equal to that problem. Most places where permanently committed partners are reproducing prolifically need the labor, and most places that don't aren't reproducing at that rate.

I keep returning to it because I know there are good people out there suffering terribly, but I'm not God and haven't found a definite irrefutable "answer" yet. All I can do is do my best and let God do the rest, which means praying for people and treating them with respect, and doing my best to support my friends.

There's a key nuance in there though: The guy who suffered the injury didn't HAVE to go running to the docs for the help he needed; he could've just shrugged it off and gone with it, but he felt it was wrong regardless of what his desires were, and didn't submit to them. If he'd simply dove in head first because he thought he could be happy no other way, that would be a deep psychological issue of its own, IMHO, just as it was when I thought I NEEDED a partner to be happy. That such things can be at least partly altered chemically is another reason to leave consenting adults alone; even if we had a "straight drug" making it compulsory would be as abominable as making a "gay drug" so.

Still, I can't help thinking: Were it all down to desires altered by altered chemicals in the brain, why does anyone resist rather than sating desire? THAT sounds like something out of Romans 7, and I don't think it's a coincidence. We don't control our desires, only our behavior.

Some who know better forget or ignore the Golden Rule, and yes, it's tragic.

Some who enjoy citing history know little of it, which is also regrettable, but as correctable as the other, for those willing.

You are a subset of all cases, however, and I'm increasingly of the opinion the problem IS universal; it's just that some ignore IT along with all the apparent conflicts and omissions they wish would just disappear. I remember the paradox vividly: I can't believe without proof, due to skepticism, but I can't have prove until I believe. Two things that helped me was remembering that many things various sects affirm as scripturally established core doctrines AREN'T, and that just because I can't resolve a seeming contradiction or omission now doesn't mean I never will, any more than never doing so would make it impossible.

It's important for the skeptic to remember that "maybe" is the companion of "maybe not" and that applies to particulars as well as generalities (which is why I try to keep my doctrine VERY spare. ) I reject things like "God hates x" because I believe Gods Love for all His creation is as doctrinal as His hatred for many things we do, and anyone who sees things like that should dismiss them from Christianitys tenets whether or not they accept Christianity, but unless Jesus as man, God and savior falls into that boat it's still on the table.

It sounds very similar to my own experience, if not exactly the same, but this is far from the first time that's happened in our converse; in some ways, it often IS our dialogue.

Yes, but proof and evidence aren't interchangeable. People don't just wake up one morning with complex deeply held beliefs; they read things, talk to people, observe events, have experiences that either explicitly state a belief or encourage them to hold one. Even Chicken Little had ONE piece of evidence. If I come by your house one day and say, "the Denebians are destroying the world; hop in my teacup so we can escape to Shangri La" you should probably call the men in the white coats, because there's not even POOR reason to believe any of those things are possible, let alone occurring. Everything that every sane person believes, rightly or wrongly, is based on SOMETHING. Even spiritual faith requires some evidence, hence Paul defining it as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (emphasis mine, obviously. ) Evidence often falls short of proof; that's why we have evidenciary hearings before trials, and why people can be tried AND acquitted. Ultimately, all forms of faith DO believe without proof, but NEVER without evidence.

Right.

I hear what you're saying, and agree on one level, but I've never been through anything more real, and that includes someone trying to kill me. I can't convince anyone the whole thing wasn't just a hallucination, but if it was, so is everything else. I know it wasn't the so called "God Effect" because I've had that, too, and many of the hallmarks are complete opposites. Where the one invariably produces omnipotent feelings, I got overwhelming humility; where the one produces holistic feelings, the universe ceased to exist for me; where the one convinces people they ARE the universe, I was overwhelmed not just by an indescribably potent Presence, but One bathing me in waves of Love. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and apple peelers. I will say this: I RARELY hallucinate, and have OFTEN tried; I pretty much gave up hallucinogens as a bad job. Only time I recall hallucinating was as a child with a very high fever and a very brief one the first time I tripped (and even that one didn't start with me, just got passed; the *#$^ing game is NOT cool, you SOBs. )

And I think God gets His hands dirty for all who accept the salvation He offers. He suffered and died for us, after all, while we were denying Him. But He won't shove it down anyones throat, because that makes the whole thing masturbatory (oh, sure, Firefox spellcheck, you don't like "scripturally" but "masturbatory" is just fine.... )


"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. " (Ps. 51:16, 17) And that's not even touchy feely NT God; if we pay attention, 70 AD wasn't the first time Jerusalem was razed for a pious mouth and wicked hands. Or perhaps "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. " (Is. 29: 13, 14)

I didn't intend to double quote that below, but it's certainly appropriate. Reading such things, recalling what happened soon after and thinking about my country really disturbs me, btw. Anyway, the point is what's required isn't accepting what some priest or missionary tells one is right, but wanting to remedy the realization that despite ones disagreements with God HE is always right. After that it's really not between anyone but the individual and God, though input from other responsible parties is certainly permissible where desired (you just have to make sure it's not from someone talking through their hat. )

Willingness counts for a LOT. More than brains. A lot of it means accepting that IF there is a Loving God Who desires a relationship with His children, He's not going to make that entirely dependent on intermediaries: There will be instances before as well as after one accepts Him where He expresses Himself without relying on someone to write it down accurately. The real difficulty then lies in the fact that to preserve free will He has to communicate with those who don't accept in ways that allows them a choice other than "God is real and talking to me now. " But just because He's not going to come down and slap people in the face doesn't mean we're completely on our own either. I firmly believe that if one accepts both God in the abstract and that God is never wrong, while each of us sometimes is, He will enable and facilitate commitment to Him. Maybe not instantly; he's not a heavenly fry cook waiting for us to place an order, and He wants a lasting commitment to Him, not someone looking for a Get Out of Hell Free card, but ultimately I think He brings home all the willing.

I'm falling back on the second half of I Cor. 1 again, because I don't think it's coincidence God just happened to produce the promised Savior, after a delay of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of years just at the time when skepticism was born as a mental discipline. He knew the day would come when it would predominate, and Christ as well as the Church Fathers would have to reach us modern skeptics along with ancient mystics. This is our half of the human dilemma discussed here:

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. ' [note the radical difference between this verse as quoted from the Septuagint here compared to the Hebrew text quoted above; you can see why so many suspect a document with so many alterations and contradictions in different editions. ]

"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

"For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, 'He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.'" (I Cor. 1:17-30, emphases again mine. )

Incidentally, I REALLY hate when that "foolishness of God is wiser than men" line is quoted out of context, because it's obviously not saying God has foolishness, it's just a figure of speech: The least of Gods wisdom is superior to the greatest of ours.

The dilemma you face is more common than you might think; it was new then, but no longer. In that as well as other ways we are already brethren, which gives me hope we may become so in more. To the religious non-Christian the miraculous is possible and it's a question of which version is right, but the task for the skeptic is much more basic: He must believe it possible before he can accept it, and that means accepting that however much we've learned, however sharp we are, God is better; we sometimes err, but He, never. Whatever the Sub-Geniuses say, CHRISTIANITY is the only religion designed for scoffers and blasphemers, also not coincidence. Everyone else writes them off as a lost cause deserving their fate; Christ seeks them.

I'll try; I think each person unique and that consequently BOTH spiritual factions try to reach them in ways tailored to individuals, but I also think we share enough perspectives some of my approach may be relevant to you. I started with an almost stereotypically agnostic God: Few attributes, and definitely no name (probably pantheist; the ancient Druids were VERY appealing, but "probably" isn't "definitely. " ) The existence of SOME kind of God may be the only thing I've ALWAYS believed, because spontaneous generation and infinite material cycles seem so logically impossible. This I accepted as a literal axiom and never bothered trying to prove.

A few more principles were built deductively from that. Whoever God is or isn't, He's obviously creative or I wouldn't be here to contemplate Him: Even if I'm HIS hallucination I have at least the existence in His mind. Further, the sum of the parts is not greater than the whole: Any attributes He's bestowed He also possesses, and to a greater degree than His inferior creations. Whoever He is there's ultimately just one of Him, because there can by definition only be one First Cause and even very primal secondary ones have that one as their antecedent (also, Occams Razor: Positing multiple deities poses all the challenges of positing one, it just adds to and duplicates them. ) If God is creative He is also constructive; He produces things, and these things must cooperate to produce still other things. This later became a key point, because in defining evil as Gods antithesis we reduce it to no more than antithesis: As evil is the absence of Gods goodness it is the absence of all created or constructive things and lacks inherit being, can only be defined in terms of what it is NOT, God, and to reject God is to embrace that by default, since any given thing we would embrace must come from a constructive God. Good, not evil, is the independent variable with infinite forms; absolute evil is absolute non-being, and that only comes in one flavor. It goes without saying that of all things, the most critical one with which we must cooperate for constructive ends is God Himself. That presents me with a practical as well as moral imperative.

Needless to say I'm glossing over a LOT, even at a basic level; God must have power, intelligence and consciousness to create (these are among the many attributes I contend He must possess to a greater degree since He has bestowed them to a lesser degree on us. ) The idea here is that a very few things ARE acceptable as axioms, so you start with those and build from their consequences. Everyone has axioms; what are yours? That's your starting point, and I got to Deism that way, but wisdom alone will not make a Christian.

I also had a lot of encouragement and help from special people in my life who already had faith in Christ and cared enough to both want me to share it and not try to force me, and respond with respect and tact when I brought up spirituality myself. I'm sure I gave both my parents plenty of gray hair between HS and 30. When someone DID try to kill me that was a wakeup call that I was missing something big yet, but not quite enough, though my mother calling a week earlier to warn me she'd had a dream someone killed me told me SOMETHING was going on (lest you get the wrong idea, my mother's done that, to anyone, all of once. ) There was a tipping point, or at least period, a couple years later when I had MANY of these kinds of discussions with a friend who'd recently accepted Christ and also loaned me his copy of the Divine Comedy for unrelated reasons (I'd only read the Inferno and he thought I was missing out, which I was. )

While reading Dante, even with some of the outlandish dogma presented as fact, something shifted within me. He was a master, and the equal measures of extreme beauty, complexity, scale and detail within his work still astounds me--but I was also very conscious of the fact that in his mind it was dedicated to God as the greater artist. And I could no longer really disagree; I began to realize there are infinite layers to the onion that is God, and few Sunday morning services peel back many (when they aren't just peeling tomatoes and calling them an onion. )

That's where it got VERY hard, because I was still very much a rational skeptic, and I realized something horrible: I accepted on an intellectual level, but because I could never eliminate unreasonable doubt I didn't really BELIEVE. Wanted to, desperately, but there was still that part of me saying, "Yeah, OK, you're sure now; five years ago you were sure all the Christians were on crack, so since when are you never wrong...?" I wanted God to come down and tell me I'd found the hidden message on The Wall or something. Not much of a faith if He does that though, is it, and the hellish part was I knew that but that just made me even more baffled how I'd get there.

So it was fake it till you make it for a while, but now that I was actually willing, now that I was speaking to Him again, wanted to, He helped constantly without ever tipping His hand, through the people and things in my life, and progress was made because I was finally able to tell my doubts "be patient, you don't know it all, and you're learning more. " Basically it was a case of saying, "I don't know" on a grand scale, with a lot of "please, God, tell me!" into the bargain. He'd never REALLY stopped helping after all, but it got a lot more effective when I stopped kicking against the pricks, a lot less painful when I stopped defiantly throwing myself into meatgrinders. I can't pinpoint a day or moment when acceptance became belief either, but it happened.

There was a lot of prayer, a lot of tears and begging, and a lot of prostration. It is extremely hard to say, "not my will but Thine" as an absolute; it's human nature to always maintain a tiny but important reserve. Maybe that's why I'm so comfortable with commitment; I've already made the most difficult commitment I think there is. Yet faith is accomplished through an ongoing cooperative effort, or not at all. Finally one night I was broken and contrite enough not yesbut, and that's when I got bitchslapped by the Holy Spirit.

*shrug* I don't if that clarifies much of anything; it's not a question of sagacity anyway, but I do believe everyones relationship with God is as unique as they are, so the best I can do is describe my own journey and hope people recognize something that resonates. You and I aren't clones, but we share enough traits I'm optimistic something in there at least vaguely familiar.

Yet free will is itself a divine gift, so when we choose well whence does the ultimate credit really derive? Choices aren't made in a vacuum; if someone puts a sundae in front of you it's up to you whether you eat it, but you shouldn't pat yourself on the back if you do so and enjoy it: You didn't make the thing.

It's like that with everything; even if we say the credit for choosing well is ours alone, the means to make our choice reality are all other parts of Gods creation. The pyramids are stunning achievements, made by men God created, using skill and intellect God created, with limestone God created, floated down a river God created, to a valley God created, to honor a king God created, celebrated yet by people God created, on a planet God created. Who really deserves the credit there? Now, if someone chooses to reject all those divine creations, yeah, then it's all them, and He'll leave them to it if they insist, but they won't have a whole lot. How much can you possess without the Creator? In the final analysis, there IS no "wisdom of man. " There's the wisdom of God He shared as a gift, and rejections of it masquerading as wisdom due to insufficient data.