God

God Moves in a Mysterious Way
by William Cowper

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never-failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs,
And works His sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.

'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Is it significant that a back-to-front dog becomes God, while a slightly more contorted cat becomes act (probably with a small 'a')?? Must have a word with Sirius (which reminds me, on behalf of all cats, why is there no cat-star?)

Please tell me why God allowed over 6000 innocent people to be murdered on September 11, 2001?

Answer?

I don’t know.

Where was God?

I don’t know.

When Leslie Weatherhead, a minister in London during the Second World War, was asked by a member in his congregation where God was when his son was killed in a bombing raid, Weatherhead replied, »I guess he was where he was when his son was killed.«

And where was that?

I don’t know.

Isn’t »I don’t know« too ambiguous? Isn’t »I don’t know« an unconvincing way to convince young people Christianity is true?

Actually, »I don’t know« confirms one critical truth about Christianity…it’s a mystery!

Jesus loves us, right?

Of course.

So if he loves us, he protects us, right?

If he loves us…he is with us.

Jesus can heal, can’t he? And perform miracles?

Of course. Just not very often.

Why?

I don’t know.

What about God’s will?

My youth director says we’re supposed to seek God’s will. There are lots of verses in the Bible that tell us to do God’s will, aren’t there? God does have a will, right?

Absolutely.

Trouble is God’s will is not like a to-do list. It’s more like an undecipherable code. The Bible definitely gives us some clues about the code of God’s will, which means we can figure out part of it; but, because it’s God, we will never crack the code.

Clues?

Yeah, like, follow me, serve me, love me, live by my commandments, point people to me.

That’s it? Just follow me, serve me, love me and trust me?

That’s about it.

What do you mean »that’s about it?«

You don’t want to know.

Yes I do.

We get a cross.

Cross????? What does that mean?

I don’t know.

But God does heal people, doesn’t he?

Certainly.

And miracles do happen, don’t they.

Right.

So we can count on God helping us, can’t we?

We can count on God being God.

Which means…??

I don’t know.

And what does that mean?

It means we can trust God if we lost someone in the WTC or if they survived.

It means we can trust God when we have cancer and when we’re healed.

We can trust God if we survive a natural disaster or if we don’t.

We can trust God when we get a glimpse of Divine will and when we don’t.

We can trust God in the answers and the questions, in the good and the bad, in the light and the dark, when we’re winning and when we’re losing.

We can trust God even when the Truth doesn’t answer all our questions or leaves us with even more questions.

And, most importantly, just beyond our »I don’t know’s,« Jesus is waiting with open arms to snuggle us in the mystery of his love.

Once or twice--well, no, not a god, actually, but a responsive spider. 1. sitting on the ground with her (then)lover, Ted, in some afternoon-filtered sunshine. Late late autumn in a part of the world where winter barely arrives --the sun is still strong on on skin and clothes are still light weight. Ted is leaving soon and they are uncertain of when they will see each other again. Ted sees a tiny spider walking on the leg of his jeans. He says to the spider, »Tie me to Belle--c'mon, I'll give you a quarter.«
Immediately, like a close up slo-motion sequence from a PBS science special: the spider launches a gossamer web thread into the air, with a kind of shower of crystal almost-sparks, the thread sails across the gap between the lovers and connects at Belle's knee. The spider walks across.

An agnostic dyslexic insomniac is someone who stays awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.

Okay, then, what are the evidences for Christianity? Some say, for instance, that Jesus never existed, that he's just a fictional character.

The most important evidence for His existence is the New Testament, a collection of twenty‑seven writings (the first four devoted entirely to telling about His life and teachings‑two of these written by eyewitnesses), all of which tell of Jesus, of His life, of His teachings, and of the movement He started, which we know today as Christianity. These documents are strong evidence for the existence of Jesus.


But the New Testament isn't the only document attesting Jesus' existence. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, not a Christian, wrote of Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews. In describing the period of Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of the area where Jesus lived, Josephus said:



Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works‑a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities, Bk. XVIII, Ch. iii)



Josephus wrote his Antiquities in the late first century, completing it in the thirteenth year of the Roman emperor Domitian (A.D. 93‑94). It is one of the primary sources of historical information about late Jewish history.



The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, writing around A.D. 112 about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV,44). Roman historian Seutonius wrote around A.D. 120 mentioned Jesus and His followers Life of Claudius, 25.4); and the Roman historian Pliny the Younger wrote of Jesus around A.D. 112 (Epistles X.96)



The Apostle Luke, one of the writers of the first four books of the New Testament the »Gospel of Luke,« was a careful historian (he also wrote the New Testament Book of Acts). At the beginning of his writing about the life of Jesus, Luke assured his friend that he intended to convey the most carefully‑researched historical facts:



Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1‑4)



When Luke began writing about the public works of Jesus, he put it in a historical setting:



Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.... (Luke 3:1‑2)



The other three Gospels, or stories of the life and teachings of Jesus. also contain clear historical references. They were written by people who respected historical fact. Two of these men, Matthew and John, were followers of Jesus during His ministry; one, Mark, was the close friend of another follower, Peter (who himself wrote two short letters in the New Testament), and Luke was a close companion of Peter and several others of Jesus' followers, and recorded not only the life and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, but also the lives and works of His closest followers and their first followers in the Book of Acts.



So there's very good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. In fact, we know more about the life and teachings, and even the birth and death of Jesus than about almost any other figure in the ancient world.



All right, Jesus existed. But why should I believe you when you say he's God in the flesh? I think of Him simply as a good moral teacher.



Good moral teachers don't knowingly teach falsehoods, do they? And they don't lead people to trust them to do things they can't do, do they? They also don't make grandiose claims about themselves, like claiming to be God, do they?



No, I suppose not But did Jesus make any such claims?



Yes, He did,



One of the ways Jews referred to God in Jesus' day was the »the Father,« and Jews and Christians to this day refer to Him as such. At one point in His teaching, one of his followers, Philip, asked Him to show him and others of His followers the Father. Jesus responded, »Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father Is in Me? ... Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me...« (John 14:8‑11)



At another time, Jesus was assuring His followers that the Father would take care of them; he concluded by saying, “I and the Father are one.» The response of the Jewish leaders to this made it clear they had understood Him to be claiming to be God: «The Jews took up stones again to stone Him» (stoning was a way of killing people believed to have dishonored God by blasphemy). «Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?“ The Jews answered Him, »For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.« (John 10:30‑33)



In the Old Testament, the most commonly‑used name for God is Jehovah or Jahweh. This name is a rough transliteration of YHWH, Hebrew meaning »I AM.« It is a name for God that expresses His eternal existence, or, in terms borrowed from our earlier conversation, His noncontingency. I AM" as a name for God indicates that He owes His existence to nothing else, that He is in fact the first Cause, not an effect (Exodus 3:13‑15).



The Jews of Jesus' day were thoroughly familiar with this designation for God, and so was Jesus. But Jesus applied this designation to Himself when He said, for instance, »... unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins« (John 8:24), and »When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM...« (John 8:28). Later Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, »Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.« The Jews puzzled over this and responded, »You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?« Jesus answered, »Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM« (John 8:56‑58). Notice the distinction Jesus makes between Himself and Abraham here? He claims that Abraham came into existence, but claims eternal, non‑contingent existence for Himself. What was the Jews' response? »Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him« (John 8:59). They believed He had dishonored God by calling Himself God.



Not only did Jesus claim to be God, His followers believed that claim. The Apostle John, one of His closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his Gospel; John also quoted Thomas, another of Jesus' followers, calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Peter, another of Jesus' closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his second letter (2 Peter 1: 1). The Apostle Paul called Jesus God in his letter to another Christian named Titus (Titus 2:13).


But that doesn't mean it's true. Just because someone claims to be God doesn't mean he is.


You're right. But what are the alternatives? We know Jesus claimed to be God. If He isn't God, then how else might we explain that claim?



I suppose he could have been lying, or he could have been insane.


Those are the only options if he is not God. But each option fails to stand careful questioning.



Was He a liar? Jesus always condemned lying. It seems psychologically pretty unlikely that Jesus was such a liar if He also condemned lying so thoroughly and consistently. Besides this, the idea that He purposely deceived people just doesn't fit with His whole character. Jesus loved people. He went out of His way time after time to help them. He healed them, got them out of trouble, fed them when they were hungry, urged them to love each other, and told them how. That someone like this could have been a liar of the magnitude of a man who would claim to be God when he wasn't is pretty hard to imagine.



Was He insane? Again, the idea just doesn't fit with what we know about Jesus. His teachings about human psychology, contentment, fulfillment, service to others, and the path to happiness are clear, compelling, and enormously convincing to many psychologists. Indeed, if people would live consistently in accord with His teachings in the »Sermon on the Mount« (Matthew 5‑7) their lives would be enormously more fulfilled and their mental health much greater than it is when they live contrary to those teachings.



One great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, became a Christian after years as an atheist and, later, an agnostic, and was a professor of medieval literature and philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford universities in England. In his book Mere Christianity Lewis stated this dilemma forcefully,



... even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less to unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is »humble and meek« and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.



I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: »I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.« That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be alunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg‑or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronzing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, London, England: Collins Fontana Books, 1960, pp. 52‑53.)



Of course, in the long run, this must be your decision. The only good way for you to decide whether you think Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic, or really who He said He was, God in human flesh, is to get to know Him, to read thoroughly about Him in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Read those, or at least one of them, and you'll have a clear picture of Jesus' character‑then decide for yourself whether you think He was lying, insane, or God.

Perhaps Jesus never really made these claims. Maybe the writers of the New Testament just made those things up. Maybe their histories of the life and teachings of Jesus aren't really accurate.

That's a logicial possibility, of course, but the evidence is entirely against it.


First, historians and archeologists, Christians and non‑Christians alike, who specialize in studying the region and times of the New Testament are coming to realize increasingly how accurate and reliable the New Testament is as a collection of historical documents. They are finding again and again that if the New Testament says something happened, it happened.



There's another reason, too, for believing those claims weren't made up by Jesus' followers. Of the twelve foremost followers of Jesus (called »Apostles«), eleven suffered horrible, painful deaths at the hand of persecutors because they refused to renounce their faith in and preaching of Jesus, His resurrection, and His deity. The twelfth, John, died in extreme old age, exiled from his homeland by anti‑Christian authorities. He, too, refused to renounce his faith in Jesus. And before their deaths these men all repeatedly underwent terrible persecutions for their faith and never once wavered from it.



People do not die for what they know is false‑but they willingly die if need be, for what they firmly believe is true. The apostles claimed to be eye‑witnesses of the risen Jesus and to have heard His teachings with their own ears and so have come to the belief that He was God come to save them and all who believe in Him. It just doesn't make sense to think the apostles lied about Jesus.



Finally, there's one more evidence that Jesus was who He said He was. He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead, and that that miracle would be the chief sign that His claims about Himself were true. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest proof of His diety and of the truth of the whole Christian faith.

Now you're talking about a miracle as the greatest proof for Christianity. But miracles are impossible. They're contrary to the laws of nature, and the laws of nature can't be broken.

The laws of nature don't tell us what can happen; they only tell us what nature can do unassisted by anything outside itself. If there's nothing outside nature, then nothing can ever happen that nature cannot cause by itself. If there is something outside nature that can affect nature, then things can happen that nature by itself could not cause.


You and I agreed earlier that there is something outside nature‑that is intelligent and powerful‑God. We know God can affect nature, because He created it. If God could create nature, then He can also affect it in other ways.



A miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature. It is simply the effect of a cause outside nature reaching into nature and producing what nature by itself could not have produced.



The laws of nature simply tell us that effects are appropriate to their causes. Natural causes produce natural effects. Unnatural causes would, if they acted on nature, produce unnatural effects.

Wait a minute. Before we get to Jesus, I just realized a problem with the whole idea of God Himself. You tell me that God is all-powerful and I know you believe He's good. But then, what about evil? An all-powerful and all‑good God wouldn't permit evil to exist, and even if it did exist temporarily, He would destroy it. If God exists—the God you believe in-then why is there evil?
That's a good question. Actually, Jesus has a lot to do with our answer to this problem. But for the moment, let's handle it just on the logical level.

What we Christians must show is that the proposition »God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good« is logically compatible with the proposition »There is evil in the world.« One way to do this is to show that there is some third proposition that is compatible with the first and that implies the second. In other words, we can show that A is compatible with B, no matter how incompatible they at first appear, if we can show that C is compatible with A and implies B.

What I'd like to suggest as that third statement is, »It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them.«


I don't see how that ties the first two together at all.

I don't blame you. It isn't immediately apparent how this works. Let's look into this proposition, »It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them,« and see just what is implied in it.

The key question is, 'What is a morally free being?" The answer is that a morally free being is a being that is free to do either good or evil at any given time—nothing forces him to do one thing or the other. This means it is always possible for a morally free being to do evil.


So, if it is truly better for God to create a world with morally free beings, then it is better for God to create a world with the possibility of evil than a world without that possibility.


Okay, but why is it better to be morally free than not?


You tell me. You're morally free. That means people can praise you for doing good and blame you for doing evil. A hammer isn't morally free. If someone uses it to do something evil, no one condemns the hammer; if someone uses it to do something good, no one praises the hammer, either. Now, which would you prefer: to be yourself, capable of right and wrong and so susceptible to praise or blame, or to be the hammer, capable of neither right nor wrong, and so susceptible to neither praise nor blame?


Okay, I’d rather be myself than a hammer. I’ll grant it's better to be morally free than not.

Good. Now, if God is morally good, and if it is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them, then if God creates anything He should create a world with morally free beings. But such a world is a world in which evil is possible. That means that our first proposition (Gods exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good) is compatible with a third (It is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them) which entails at least the possibility of our second proposition (There is evil in the world). This means God's existence and the reality of evil are not logically contradictory to each other. They are compatible.

But why doesn't God destroy all evil and prevent its returning?

He could, of course, but in so doing He would be destroying morally free creatures. And God could have created a world in which evil was impossible; but then He would have to have created a world without morally free creatures. The only alternative to a morally good world that contains evil is not a morally good world that contains no evil but a morally neutral world that contains neither good nor evil. Such a world, of course, wouldn't contain us. So which do you prefer: a world that contains you, or a world that doesn't?

A world that contains me. I see your point. I guess God and evil are compatible. But just why would God have permitted evil? What purpose is there in it?

First of course it was the only way to create a morally good world. But what was His purpose for evil? Christians believe evil serves a number of purposes, all consistent with God's plan for the world and, especially, for individual people.

One purpose is to occasion certain moral goods that could never come about without evil. One can never forgive someone without someone's doing something evil, right? Forgiveness is one of the highest moral goods, but it is a moral good that could never come about without evil. One could not have mercy without someone's doing something evil that deserved punishment. One cannot have compassion for those who suffer without someone's suffering, and compassion is also a very high virtue. These and other goods all depend for their existence and expression on the existence of evil. So God permits evil in part so that greater goods can occur than could ever occur without it.


Christianity says there is one even higher good that could never have occurred without evil: God's voluntary sacrifice of Himself to bear punishment for us. Think what kind of act gets the highest praise among men. Isn't it when someone voluntarily sacrifices his life in order to save the lives of others? Such self‑sacrifice is a tremendous good. The greatest such sacrifice was when God sacrificed His life in the Person of Jesus Christ to save the lives of all who believe in Jesus.


This doesn't make sense to me. Why was such a sacrifice necessary? What do you mean by God's having saved the lives of those who believe in Jesus? What did they need to be saved from?

They needed to be saved from two kinds of evil: sin and suffering. Christianity says all men are sinners-we all do evil. The possibility of our doing evil is entailed in our being morally free. The reality of it we see in our own lives and in the lives of others.

Justice requires that evil be punished. Punishment involves suffering. But suffering is a kind of evil—an evil of one kind brought on by another. So the problem for God was how to satisfy the demands of His justice and, at the same time, to deliver people from suffering His punishment upon evil. This He did by becoming man in Jesus and then suffering for our sins in our place.

Ummm...no. I used to thinnk he did when I was a little girl because everyone always said he did. But then I grew up and started thinking for myself and learning things people tend to just not tell you. Like the fact that there have been dozens more religions before Christianity or Catholisism and whatnot. I believe there is a supr3eme entity out there but for the most part »God« is just someone maade up by government for control. Not that people don't need God, even if he is fake, though. If people all knew that there was no God then complete chaos would probably take control. People would panic. But if there was a God I would want to sent a big »Fuck You« out there for creating a planet and then just giving up on it or never even caring. For all I know we could just be some science experiment went bad. God must be sadistic if he is really true. To create such a place of pain, agony, torture, misery, sadness, a place with so many wars and starving children. God isn't there, if he is he sure as hell isn't going to help anyone. When little kids are raped and murdered, that's when you know there is no God out there to help you.

You're talking about creation, but didn't evolution disprove that?
Let's leave evolution for later, if you don't mind. We're not talking about how all things got to their present form; we're only talking about how the material universe came into existence in the first place. In that sense, yes, we're talking about creation.

This isn't contrary to the idea of evolution, and it isn't contrary to science. One of the leading astronomers of our age, for instance, Robert Jastrow, says that scientific research about the universe has led to one extremely important conclusion: "... I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy‑partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues.


"The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time ... for the astronomical evidence proves that the Universe was created ... in a fiery explosion...


»Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly, a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. « (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: Warner Books, 1984, pp. 11-16.)