Continued from part 1 of The Neighborhood Christmas Party
I wanted to ask Jim about his church background, but before I could, Jim spoke.
"Have you read a book called A Course in Miracles?"
I had not.
Jim continued. "It was written by an atheist, I think. But this atheist saw the light."
Hmmm. This was starting to take an interesting turn. What light?
Jim went on. "You know, I have come to realize that life is not about making money, or getting the right job, or getting the right house."
I nodded in agreement. Jim was right about that.
"This book has really helped me understand the importance of being able to forgive others. People have hurt me. I have had some tough experiences in business. We need to be able to forgive grievances in life. That is what is important. I never knew that before." Jim paused.
My mind raced. Forgiveness is a key concept in life. No question about it. But something seemed strange about this book. Why had I not heard of it? Was it written by Christian mystics? Was it written by Penecostals? Was it New Age?
It was obvious that Jim wanted to 'see the light' too. He wanted a religious experience. Working through this book, apparently, was going to be his strategy to achieving that magical, mystical experience that so many seek. Many want to "experience God" in some kind of metaphysical way. Reading the Bible, praying, and living in a community of faith with other believers just does not deliver the mystical experience they want.
I remember working through Blackaby's Experiencing God course ten years ago. I wanted that direct touch from God. I wanted to "hear" his voice. I wanted God to speak to me and direct my steps. I wanted a miracle in my life. I think this is a natural thing to want. It is also something that can lead people astray.
I wanted to learn more about the book that Jim mentioned. Something about that title bothered me. A course in miracles? This sounded just a little too wierd.
"Who recommended this book to you?", I asked.
"Some friends", Jim replied.
That was not helpful.
"It sounds like this teaching is quite Biblical. The theme of forgiveness is central to the Bible", I added.
Jim nodded in agreement. "I know. The Miracles book talks about how Christ was able to forgive those who were killing him on the cross", he responded.
"Good point", I said. "And then there is the parable of the unmerciful servant that Jesus told. The one where the guy is forgiven a huge debt, but he is unable to forgive a much smaller debt that was owed to him."
Jim smiled. "Yeah, I know that one. It is in Luke, I think", he said.
I went on. "You and I both know our own hearts. We know the sinful attitudes we hold. I think about how much I have been forgiven of, through Christ. How can I not go and do likewise?"
I could tell Jim was hearing my words but I still could not tell where Jim was coming from. I wish I would have asked Jim a question at that point. A good question would have been, how can one truly find the strength to forgive others? Is this something we can do by just trying harder?
I did not think of that question at the time.
Before I could elaborate on forgivness and faith, Jim intervened with, "You know, I really like that guy from Houston."
My heart sank. Oh no. Couldn't be.
"He preaches in a stadium", Jim continued.
Oh dear. Sigh.
"You mean Joel Osteen?", I asked.
"Yeah. That is it. He really speaks to me", Jim commented.
My face probably gave it away. I cannot stomach Joel Osteen. His "preaching" sounds like a hybrid between Tony Robbins and Oprah Winfrey. Osteen's message is predominantly one of self-help.
It was now becoming clear that Jim wanted to share good news with me. His good news was a positive message of forgiveness. He was a hungry traveler on the journey of life, and he had found some bread and wanted to share it with me. But was it the bread of life, or a different kind of bread?
"I grew up in a Christian home, and my father was a minister and later a missionary", I said.
Jim nodded and his face took on a "oh, so that explains it" expression.
I continued. "I had heard the Bible my whole life, but I still had doubts to work through. I wanted to know that what I believed what was true. I was not interested in just believing something that made me feel good but was a lie."
I paused and then asked Jim, "what is truth?"
He just looked at me. He was not sure if I was just asking a rhetorical question. He realized I was not.
When I continue, how Jim responded, and what I have since learned about the book that changed Jim's life.
Funny. I just did a post yesterday about an Osteen book that my dad gave me for Christmas. How do you feel in general about the whole Christian self help movement? Well, I should probably rephrase that question because I don’t think Osteen would say that his books are self help. I think he would say that what goes in your ears comes out in our thinking and that at some point we have to start viewing ourselves as God views us.
Is it Osteen’s preaching style that rubs you the wrong way or is it his message?
Posted by: gid | December 13, 2005 at 09:28
I read the transcript of Osteen's interview with Larry King on CNN and I was amazed at how "waffly" he was on what I would consider the othodox (not the majority) Christian views. I think it is unfortunate that he inherited his father's mantle; his father seemed like a very powerful and dynamic preacher of the Gospel.
IMO he is a "tickler of ears" and tells those what they want to hear to make them feel good. I watched him on TV once, and his style is really very engaging and "smily" for lack of a better word.
Do I feel good after church? You bet. But most often it comes after spending some time pondering my sins, and reflecting upon what it cost God to redeem me. "My sin is ever before me" cries the Psalmist.
Later.
Posted by: BWB | December 13, 2005 at 14:45
I have to say, I think there's delicious irony in the fact that the guy you were wanting to convert also wanted to convert you. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | December 13, 2005 at 17:21
"I have to say, I think there's delicious irony in the fact that the guy you were wanting to convert also wanted to convert you. :)"
And you don't want to convert me to your views? ;-)
Conversion is a cultural concept, not a Biblical one. No thanks. Not interested.
What I do want to do is share good news about important things.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 13, 2005 at 18:35
"How do you feel in general about the whole Christian self help movement?"
Uneasy at best. The concept of "self help" is not a Biblical one, is it? I think God works best through us in our weakness. Our dependence is on Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, not on "self help" techniques.
I am not prepared to say everything Joel Osteen teaches is a lie. I have not read his book. I have only read two interviews transcripts involving Osteen. Both were very disturbing. I also read up some on Osteen back when the Internet Monk was posting about "outing Osteen". I watched one televised sermon. My "blink" response was that the guy was on incredibly thin theological ice. I would not be surprised in the least to read about a major scandal involving Osteen sometime in the next five years.
"Is it Osteen’s preaching style that rubs you the wrong way or is it his message?"
I am completely turned off by his preaching. His message, what I have read of it, turns me off.
The core message Christians need to hear is one of daily repentance and dependence on the grace of God. Osteen's message, from my admittedly limited exposure to it, sounds similar to an Oprah Winfrey message about thinking positive thoughts.
I will need to read your blog to see what you think of the book your dad gave you.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 13, 2005 at 18:47
And you don't want to convert me to your views?Actually, no. I think it's important to engage in dialog with people you disagree with, because if it's done honestly and openly, it causes all parties to rethink their points of view, and it helps all of them come to a better understanding of not only one another, but the world around them.
I don't view my time here as some zero-sum game in which I win if I "convert" you or lose if I don't. I view it as an exercise that makes us both better, more understanding people.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 14, 2005 at 12:17
" I view it as an exercise that makes us both better, more understanding people."
Please esplain how I have helped you be better and more understanding. If you would not mind, I would like you to give some specific examples.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 15, 2005 at 07:14
Well, for starters, you've shown me first hand that not all conservative evangelical Christians are the judgmental and often condescending Joe Carter types. :)
Seriously, though, you've gotten me to give a lot more thought to the free will problem, as well as to the nature of morality and ethics. We haven't arrived at anything approaching the same conclusions regarding these, mind you, but you've certainly highlighted these two as areas where I need to refine (and better define) my "worldview," to use your favorite term.
I hope that in some ways, I've done the same for you. I'm guessing "yes," with capital punishment and the Iraq war immediately springing to mind.
If we weren't occasionally seeing the merits in the other's arguments, this truly would be a waste of time.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 15, 2005 at 16:21
"I hope that in some ways, I've done the same for you."
I think you have helped to shatter the stereotype of what an atheist is like. :-)
My previous perception was that all atheists were like that guy that you once invited to a discussion on evolution. Foul mouthed. Rude. Obnoxious.
Instead, you have impressed me time and again by showing class. What really impressed me was the way you engaged that apologetics class at FCS. You showed a lot of class and character in doing that. They want you to come to Roanoke in person, this time. ;-)
As far as your arguments, the questions that have given me the most to think about are:
- what is judicial activism?
- does the mystery of God equate to having an incoherent worldview?
- are we perceived as a nation that is 80% Christian?
- is knowing the future the same thing as determining the future?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 18, 2005 at 16:23
My previous perception was that all atheists were like that guy that you once invited to a discussion on evolution. Foul mouthed. Rude. Obnoxious.Actually, I'm generally not rude, but I can be very foul-mouthed and obnoxious. I just try to control myself here. ;)They want you to come to Roanoke in person, this time.I thought they were seniors! Shouldn't they have graduated by now?
In any case, I'm going to try to do it. The problem, as always, is distance and time. I'd have to either fly in or take at least two days off of work to do it. Maybe you could take up an air fare collection. :)
In any case, I'm glad I've given you pause on some of those issues. Although I think you should modify that last question to "are omniscience and free will compatible?" My basic argument is that they are not.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 20, 2005 at 01:38
"I just try to control myself here."
For that, I thank you. :-)
"I thought they were seniors! Shouldn't they have graduated by now?"
They were and they did (graduate). The "they" I am talking about were juniors last year, but Aaron has told them about you. Aaron asked me to contact you about coming. We could always do a repeat of last year, but in person could prove to be interesting. Are you as strong of a debater in person?
"Maybe you could take up an air fare collection."
I can ask Aaron about FCS contributing toward your travel expenses. Your lodging would be free. ;-)
"Although I think you should modify that last question to "are omniscience and free will compatible?" My basic argument is that they are not."
Fair enough. I am internalizing your argument. The part that I am thinking about, is does mere knowledge of the future remove choices. I am stuck on the notion that all of time is a line ... and is therefore fixed (in one regard) and yet dynamic (in another regard).
In fairness, I need to give Paul some credit for taking up this discussion with me as well. You and I covered it first, but Paul passionately took up your cause later. ;-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 20, 2005 at 09:13
I can ask Aaron about FCS contributing toward your travel expenses. Your lodging would be free. ;-)Actually, given that I work for a hotel company, lodging likely wouldn't be a problem anyway. :)The part that I am thinking about, is does mere knowledge of the future remove choices.I'd still argue that this is the wrong way to look at the question. The better question is, is absolute knowledge of the future even logically possible without the future being absolutely fixed? The corollary, then, is whether free will is possible (or, at least meaningfully so) in a universe with an absolutely fixed future. You really seem to like syllogisms, so let's repeat it this way:
P1. Absolute foreknowledge (i.e., omniscience) is impossible without predestination.
P2. Free will is impossible with predestination.
C. Free will and omniscience are incompatible. (I prefer "mutually exclusive")
Me, I'm not a fan of syllogisms, as they're generally too simplistic for complicated issues such as this. But it's good for illustrative purposes, anyway, even if it won't withstand greater scrutiny.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 20, 2005 at 15:08
Fair enough. P1 is true. My issue is with P2. My whole argument, as you know, is the meaning of the term free. Given the way you define free, your syllogism holds. Your definition, however, is too narrow.
Shall we restart the debate? *ducks*
Posted by: Jeff | December 21, 2005 at 18:41
Well, the question is whether you merely feel like you have a choice or if you actually do have a choice. In order for you to truly have a choice, there must be two or more possible options. With predestination, there is only one possible option. Ergo, free will is not possible with predestination.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 22, 2005 at 17:59
"In order for you to truly have a choice, there must be two or more possible options."
I understand your point completely. I just disagree with it. :-)
The freedom that truly matters is whether you control the choice ... if someone else made it for you, then your freedom is forfeited. If you choose, you are free.
My focus is on freedom of the will. Your focus is on freedom to change the future from what it will be.
Different freedoms, different issues.
I agree with position P1 ... the future is in fact, unalterable. It has to be. So is the past. All of time is and has always been unalterable. It is one line that stretches from a single starting point in our past to a single stopping point in our future. There is quite a bit of debate as to what lies "beyond" the end of time -- in my opinion, time for all of us will become multidimensional rather than linear.
I am not, nor will I ever be, omniscient. The specifics of my future remains hidden to me. Does not bother me in the least that God knows it and I don't. Worrying about it wouldn't change it anyway.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 23, 2005 at 17:19
My focus is on freedom of the will. Your focus is on freedom to change the future from what it will be.I argue that this is a distinction without a difference. What good is a freedom that cannot be acted upon? In order for me to actually be able to act in a free manner, there must be two or more options possible to me. If there aren't, then I'm not truly free, even if I may feel like I am.
Freedom as you describe it would not be recognized by most as being "freedom" at all. If time is linear and unalterable, then we are all merely autonoma, playing out our predetermined roles. If I have no ability to alter anything, no matter how minor, then I don't have any meaningful freedom.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 27, 2005 at 15:58
"If I have no ability to alter anything, no matter how minor, then I don't have any meaningful freedom."
If you had omniscience, then I would agree with you. You would know what your choice would be ... and therefore, there would be no point in making a choice. However, your clear lack of omniscience removes this concern completely.
Your knowledge is limited to the past ... and reality (for now) exists wherein you are making choices all the time ... in fact, you have *no* choice but to choose :-) And no one but you is making that choice. Therefore, the choice is meaningful. It is only meaningful because God guards us against knowing our own futures. That is why I think time travel (forward) is impossible for humans (not to mention the scientific absurdities).
God protects our freedom because everything rides on it. If he didn't then we would in fact be robots. If we were robots, we could not choose to trust, love and follow him. Even worse ... consider the life of Christ if there were no freedom. If Jesus did not choose the way of the cross, would I have any assurance of salvation? I don't see how.
Jesus in his earthly ministry clearly did not have omniscience ... thank God he did not.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 28, 2005 at 10:03
Jeff:If you had omniscience, then I would agree with you. You would know what your choice would be ... and therefore, there would be no point in making a choice. However, your clear lack of omniscience removes this concern completely.This seems like an odd argument. Because I don't know what my choice will be (or that, in fact, I don't really have a choice at all), this equates to free will? Unless I greatly misunderstand you, I take that to mean that the illusion of free will is no different than actual free will -- odd, coming from someone who thinks objective truth exists and is important.Jesus in his earthly ministry clearly did not have omniscience ... thank God he did not.Bwuh? Now I think you're stepping onto theological thin ice as well as just the garden-variety logical thin ice. Scripture plainly tells us that Jesus foresaw his own execution, Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial, etc. If free will is defined by lack of knowledge of the future, as you seem to say above, then Jesus clearly didn't have it.
Posted by: tgirsch | December 28, 2005 at 15:07
"This seems like an odd argument. Because I don't know what my choice will be (or that, in fact, I don't really have a choice at all), this equates to free will?"
Perhaps you are right. Freedom would still exist even if I knew every detail of the future ... as long the decisions were mine and not God's. Good catch.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 28, 2005 at 15:17
The key thing in the freedom of will debate is whether a person is choosing X and being forced to accept Y.
The focus is not on the nature of the choice. The focus is on who chose it.
A child chooses to play in the front yard instead of playing in the street.
Her parent stands near by to make sure that the child does not wander into the street.
Is the child's free will of where to play forfeited?
You say yes. I say no.
The child got want she wanted ... which was to play in the front yard.
If the child wanted to play in the street, and was stopped by mommy, then the child's free will is violated.
The future is like mommy. Mommy will make sure it happens just the way we choose it to be and no other way :-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | December 30, 2005 at 07:49