# Question for fellow Christians **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792 "2008-09-30T02:22:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/41 "2008-10-02T03:02:13Z")
> [@Caveat\_lector\_1](#): > > {Note to **Nobody** as I can’t edit my post above this one: I misread the OP as saying your are Catholic. I still recommend the Catechism though as it still does a good job of laying out many generally Christian beliefs.} I am Roman Catholic and am familiar with most of the Church’s teachings. I admit to not being a very good Catholic, as I disagree with some of the teachings, but then, that’s for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Caveat\_lector\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@Caveat\_lector\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caveat_lector_1)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/42 "2008-10-02T03:34:42Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > I am Roman Catholic and am familiar with most of the Church’s teachings. I admit to not being a very good Catholic, as I disagree with some of the teachings, but then, that’s for another thread. Ah. Well I got correct information from a misreading. Does that count as a miracle? 🙂 And I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were not familiar with the Church’s teachings when I recommended the Catechism. So I hope you don’t think that and if you did I apologize for giving that impression. It just gives a much deeper picture than most people (myself included) pick up from sermons and school. I find it to be a great eye opener myself and the more I study it the more I understand the reasons for the teachings. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/43 "2008-10-02T03:39:28Z")
> [@Caveat\_lector\_1](#): > > Ah. Well I got correct information from a misreading. Does that count as a miracle? 🙂 > > And I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were not familiar with the Church’s teachings when I recommended the Catechism. So I hope you don’t think that and if you did I apologize for giving that impression. It just gives a much deeper picture than most people (myself included) pick up from sermons and school. I find it to be a great eye opener myself and the more I study it the more I understand the reasons for the teachings. I’ve read some of it. I don’t find it scary. However, what I have read…I’m having a hard time articulating this…the language sometimes seems too…technical, not user friendly for the layman… The two parts that you quoted are pretty straight forward and easy to understand though. ---
**Author:** ![Caveat\_lector\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@Caveat\_lector\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caveat_lector_1)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/44 "2008-10-02T04:07:18Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > I’ve read some of it. I don’t find it scary. However, what I have read…I’m having a hard time articulating this…the language sometimes seems too…technical, not user friendly for the layman… > > The two parts that you quoted are pretty straight forward and easy to understand though. I know exactly what you mean. Thats what I meant by scary You said it better though. A lot of people see that and throw up their hands. There are some good companion texts for those that find the language a bit too much though so that helps. ---
**Author:** ![Myrrajh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/87869e/32.png) [@Myrrajh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrrajh)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/45 "2008-10-02T05:19:30Z")
I agree with the OP with regard to “God taught us already and knows we can do it on our own.” We had a discussion about exactly that at church a few months ago. We noted a trend for less nitpicky-exactness in some procedural (not doctrinal) things, leading some to believe that we know this stuff well enough now to be able to get it done without being told to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s. On a personal level, I have seen God at work in my life and I am certain that he still has a hand in many things. Of many spiritual things I am 100% confident of, one of them is that my prayers are heard and answered. I believe that our Heavenly Father is absolutely aware of everything happening on our planet. I also believe that he’s watching how we use our ultimate freedom to make our own choices. Because I know he hears and answers prayers in a manner best for us but not always to our liking, I believe he still has a hand in important global events. I just think there aren’t very many people around who recognize his handiwork. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/46 "2008-10-02T13:51:17Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > I’m just taking note of what was written in the Bible, taking a look at the world around us today, making an observation and seeing who agrees and who doesn’t. Right, but that necessarily implies that what you see in the world today doesn’t jive with what you’ve read in the bible. > [@](#): > > I don’t get your question. I didn’t say God himself is changing, just how he relates to us is changing. > > You can be the same, but react in different ways based on different situations. A human father is more involved with his children when they are younger because they don’t have the physical, emotional, intellectual ability to fend for themselves or make their own decisions. As they mature, and are more capable of making their own decisions then the father (usually) gives them more freedom in running their own lives, until they reach maturity and are ready to go out on their own and run their own lives completely. > > None of that means that the father has changed, it just means that circumstances have changed, and treating a 20 the same as a 15 year old, or a 5 year old won’t work. The whole premise of the statement makes some serious fundamental assumptions. 1) That God interacts (or has interacted) with humans. 2) That the nature of God’s interaction with humans is similar in fashion to the way that humans interact with each other. Why would this be the case? Why would something by definition non-human, interact in a specifically human way? Furthermore, to suggest that God’s interaction with us depends upon our behavior suggests that we have some sort of power over God. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/47 "2008-10-02T16:20:24Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > The whole premise of the statement makes some serious fundamental assumptions. 1) That God interacts (or has interacted) with humans. As a Christian, I believe this to be the case. > [@](#): > > 1. That the nature of God’s interaction with humans is similar in fashion to the way that humans interact with each other. God is called our father in the bible, I’m thinking in terms of fatherly behavior. Yes, it is possible that being our spiritual father means that terms that describe human father relationships don’t apply to him, but I believe that when it comes to generalities, they do. > [@](#): > > Why would this be the case? Why would something by definition non-human, interact in a specifically human way? If God acted totally alien and was completely incomprehensible, humanity wouldn’t be able to understand or relate at all to him, which is the opposite of what he wants. Also, as a Christian, I believe that we are supposed to try to be like Jesus, who is God in the flesh. But this is starting to get off track from the OP. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, to suggest that God’s interaction with us depends upon our behavior suggests that we have some sort of power over God. Not at all. And I’m not talking about behavior, I’m talking about our ability to take care of ourselves. I’m not a Deists who thinks that God is completely hands off, and I believe he is there for us spiritually and emotionally. I’m just questioning whether no not he’s taking an active roll in our lives. But I guess I’ll just say that we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t mind disagreement, in fact, I’m interested in hearing it, but with disagreement I also would like an explanation why. Your questions are good ones, but end the end it’s turning out: Me: Blah, blah, bah You: Why? Me: Because blah, blah, blah You: Why’s that? Me: Well you see, blah, blah, blah And so on. At any rate, if your point is that God is an it, and is totally alien in how it thinks, acts, and feels, then all I can say is, I disagree because of my Christian beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/48 "2008-10-02T17:02:31Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > As a Christian, I believe this to be the case. But you said your observations are to the contrary - namely that you haven’t seen any evidence of a participatory God. And then you attempt to rationalize your faith by adapting it to the realities that you see, instead of what has been presented to you. I tend agree with your observations. That God isn’t active in the world. I’d even go several steps further and state that it doesn’t matter if he exists or not. (I know you directed your question at Christians, but I used to be, I have a good understanding of the faith, especially in regards to Catholicism and I just enjoy these types of discussions 🙂 ) > [@](#): > > God is called our father in the bible, I’m thinking in terms of fatherly behavior. Yes, it is possible that being our spiritual father means that terms that describe human father relationships don’t apply to him, but I believe that when it comes to generalities, they do. So because they used the term that translates to ‘father’ when they wrote the bible 2000 years ago, you think that means a super-natural being would relate to us in human terms. Why would you believe this though? You said that God was more active when we didn’t understand as much. He dumbed it down for us. Wouldn’t the wording of the Bible (supposedly his word) then also be a dumbing down? The language was used in order to make it easier for a less-enlightened populace to understand. It wasn’t written - by a correlation of your own supposition - with us in mind. The focus on particular words for interpretation as opposed to the spirit of an entire passage would strike me as missing the forest for the trees. > [@](#): > > If God acted totally alien and was completely incomprehensible, humanity wouldn’t be able to understand or relate at all to him, which is the opposite of what he wants. How can you say this so definitively? How do you know that? We understand many things that don’t interact with us in a human way and that don’t posses human characteristics. And why would a supreme being care if we knew about it or not? > [@](#): > > Not at all. And I’m not talking about behavior, I’m talking about our ability to take care of ourselves. I’m not a Deists who thinks that God is completely hands off, and I believe he is there for us spiritually and emotionally. I’m just questioning whether no not he’s taking an active roll in our lives. Which is a question I would hope everyone asks themselves. However, your answer would seem to indicate that if we proceed to learn more about nature and the world around us, that God’ll become even more hands-off. What happens if we abandon science then? If we forsake knowledge, will God come back to us? The statement implicitly gives society control over the ‘actions’ of God. > [@](#): > > But I guess I’ll just say that we’ll have to agree to disagree. > I don’t mind disagreement, in fact, I’m interested in hearing it, but with disagreement I also would like an explanation why. Your questions are good ones, but end the end it’s turning out: > Me: Blah, blah, bah > You: Why? > Me: Because blah, blah, blah > You: Why’s that? > Me: Well you see, blah, blah, blah > And so on. > At any rate, if your point is that God is an it, and is totally alien in how it thinks, acts, and feels, then all I can say is, I disagree because of my Christian beliefs. I’ll admit that I came in to play devil’s advocate here. You asked what we thought of the statement and I’m attempting to disassemble the reasons you needed to come up with the rationalization in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2008, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792/49 "2008-10-03T00:45:07Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > So because they used the term that translates to ‘father’ when they wrote the bible 2000 years ago, you think that means a super-natural being would relate to us in human terms. Why would you believe this though? You said that God was more active when we didn’t understand as much. He dumbed it down for us. Wouldn’t the wording of the Bible (supposedly his word) then also be a dumbing down? The language was used in order to make it easier for a less-enlightened populace to understand. It wasn’t written - by a correlation of your own supposition - with us in mind. The focus on particular words for interpretation as opposed to the spirit of an entire passage would strike me as missing the forest for the trees. That is a possibility, yes. > [@](#): > > How can you say this so definitively? How do you know that? We understand many things that don’t interact with us in a human way and that don’t posses human characteristics. And why would a supreme being care if we knew about it or not? I take the Christian position when it comes how God relates to us, and how we relate to God. I don’t want to get into why I accept Christianity over other religions, or atheism, or agnosticism, that type of discussion is for another thread. > [@](#): > > Which is a question I would hope everyone asks themselves. However, your answer would seem to indicate that if we proceed to learn more about nature and the world around us, that God’ll become even more hands-off. What happens if we abandon science then? If we forsake knowledge, will God come back to us? The statement implicitly gives society control over the ‘actions’ of God. I don’t think that if we abandoned science that he would be more active. First of all, even though there are anti-intellectuals, those of us who love science and technology are very very unlikely to abandon it. There are also plenty of us who don’t see a conflict between science and religion. And part of growing up is suffering the consequences of your own actions. Parents who bail out children who are old enough to know better just enable them to keep acting irresponsibly. > [@](#): > > I’ll admit that I came in to play devil’s advocate here. You asked what we thought of the statement and I’m attempting to disassemble the reasons you needed to come up with the rationalization in the first place. I’m not sure why you see it as a rationalization. Well, maybe I do, but then that brings up the whole, is Christianity, or religion as a whole, real or not, which, again, is a separate thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-fellow-christians/465792.md?page=2)