The Word of Zorb the All-Knowing

zorbJust a few weeks ago, I ran everyone through a thought experiment involving rhinos and unicorns in order to demonstrate that religious belief has the tendency to do weird things to our reasoning capacity. The most common objection I encountered (and anticipated) was that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore is higher than human understanding. Subjecting Scripture to human reasoning wouldn’t make any sense by this view. We should simply accept the Bible on faith and not try to grapple with its claims.

This is a very misguided and potentially dangerous view for a number of reasons. I would contend in response that if the Bible were truly the infallible Word of God, then all of its falsifiable claims would hold up under scrutiny. Thus, we need not accept the Bible as infallible on faith for no reason other than God supposedly having written it, but rather because of every reason — every piece of evidence would then match with what the Bible teaches.

Could you listen to an album with a cover like this?

Could you listen to an album with a cover like this?

But allow me to defend my first thought experiment about rhinos and unicorns using yet another thought experiment about Zorb the All-Knowing. Zorb is totally not a ripoff of Ziltoid the Omniscient, a Devin Townsend album which I have always meant to listen to but never did because I couldn’t get past the cover art.

Zorb is a supreme entity who is omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent. He created the universe and everything in it. Although few people know of his teachings, he inspired me to write his teachings in his book, the Zorbonomicon. Among its various teachings are that the earth is flat, animals were all created by Zorb during the first and only time Zorb has ever sneezed, and that everything Zorb has said in his Scriptures is true.

Zorb expects you to believe all of these things. If you do not, you will be banished forever to the Forbidden Zone. Now granted, it looks like there is a lot of evidence which contradicts what Zorb says, but unfortunately, you’re just going to have to accept what Zorb says on faith. After all, Zorb’s ways are not our ways, and and Zorb’s thoughts are not our thoughts. Who are we to question him?

All of this should feel pretty familiar, and it should be fairly obvious where I’m going with this. If all this feels a bit sacrilegious, I apologize; I don’t mean to equate Zorbionism with Christianity. Rather, what some people ask us to do with Christianity is exactly like Zorbionism. Consider with me one of the comments on my aforementioned post, Rhinos, Unicorns, Evolution, Gay Marriage, and Scripture. This comment tended to be fairly representative of almost all the criticism I received:

It is based on FAITH that there is a God and that he gave us a life manual in the Bible to relate what He was able to tell Adam and Eve when they were not yet sinners and the Glory of God was able to walk and talk with them in a personal relationship. 

That is where you are getting all messed up. You are trying to make reason out of something logically on what your finite mind can come to grips with.

Based strictly on what this person calls “faith” we have no way to choose between either believing what is said in the Zorbonomicon or in the Bible. What allows us to pick one over the other is our use of reason. And to do this, we examine the claims of each and weigh them against reality. Zorb says the world is flat? Well, I’m sure that’s not true, because now we have 24/7 streaming footage of the earth as viewed from the International Space Station, and I can see that the earth is round. The Zorbonomicon is clearly not infallible.

But what about the Bible? The Exodus, for example, didn’t happen, or so the evidence strongly suggests. But, of course, one might correctly argue that the historicity of the Exodus is not the point. It’s a mythic history/origin story, so it’s not supposed to be about that, anyhow. Let’s take another example: female rape victims have to marry their rapists according to Deuteronomy. Of course, the Bible characterizes this as a “punishment” for the rapist, but of course this is ridiculous and wrong, no matter what time period.

Why do we call this wrong? Well, we check the moral claim against reality. We ask the rape victim how she feels about her rapist and whether it would be suitable to marry him, and we realize that the answer is a resounding “no.” As it turns out, making a woman’s “purity” such a highly-prized object causes you to make really terrible moral judgments.

So let’s take the most contentious claim about my prior post and consider what the Bible says about gays. Granted, it’s actually not much — most of the words we incorrectly translate as “homosexual” in the English Bible are referring to specific cultural practices. Even so, there are a few places it describes same-sex sexual behavior, such as in Romans 1. And in those cases, just as we would with any claim made by Zorb, we check the Bible’s claims against reality.

When the Bible says that “Because [these people exchanged the truth of God for a lie], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another,” we can see if that’s really the cause of why people became gay. So we ask gay people about their lives, we probe into their histories, and we do all sorts of investigation. As it turns out, lots of these gay people were very devout! They spent their whole growing up years fighting against their natural inclinations toward same-sex attraction. And, lo and behold, it never went away.

Did these people “exchange the truth of God for a lie”? No! So why do we continue to maintain that the Bible is telling the truth about gay people in Romans 1? Are we to ignore the evidence and just pretend that these gay people committed some secret sin that they just won’t tell us? Pretend the Romans 1 passage I quoted was in the Zorbonomicon instead of the Bible: would the evidence against Zorb be sufficiently convincing for you to reject it? I would say so. Why do you give special preference to the Bible but not the Zorbonomicon? It makes no sense.

The point is that you don’t just accept the Bible on “faith.” That’s absurd. I could go on a rant about how that’s not even how the Bible uses the word “faith,” but let’s stick to the point here: all other things being equal, if you wouldn’t believe something if Zorb ostensibly said it, then you have no more reason to believe if God ostensibly said it, either. “Oh, but God is different!” you say. Fine! Show me the evidence that God is different, and I will believe you. It’s really not that hard.

The sort of “faith” used here is totally useless. If faith means to believe something despite absent or contrary evidence, then I am faithless. I don’t have the slightest need for such a thing, and you would do well to discard it, yourself. We should rid ourselves of childish thinking and become adults who temper their ideas with reasonableness and a critical mind. We do not need to be overly skeptical and distrusting, but we should ground our judgments in the application of reason to evidence, not on the arbitrary assignment of some beliefs to a category where we simply have to accept them on faith.

So for your own sake, I would ask you to run the following thought experiment: would you still hold your beliefs if they were actually the Word of Zorb the All-Knowing? This doesn’t have to be about gay marriage. This could be anything. If you couldn’t believe it if Zorb said it, then why is it okay because you think God did?

I will reiterate what I said at the beginning: if the Bible were truly the infallible Word of God, then all of its falsifiable claims would hold up under scrutiny. We don’t have to accept the Bible wholesale without scrutiny. That would be foolish. Check your beliefs against reality, and don’t pretend they’re immune because they belong in the “faith” box. Do this, and I promise you, you will grow.


About Chris Attaway

Raised in the digital wilderness of the pre-Internet 2.0 era, Chris Attaway is a true gamer and Internet citizen. After a stint studying computer science, his life got flipped turned upside down, and he ended up studying philosophy to help him sort out his life. Now the black sheep in a family of engineers, he has set out to get his footing in the world of freelance journalism. With interests ranging from gaming and technology to LGBT rights, race and politics, Chris is a diverse and skilled writer who always tries to give a fair shake to his subjects.
This entry was posted in Epistemology, Theology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to The Word of Zorb the All-Knowing

  1. Reblogged this on james clayton brown and commented:

  2. avengah says:

    Also, why not Islam? All monotheistic religions make similar claims that you must take on faith, and Islam has a hell for unbelievers too! Why is the Christian god infallible but not the Muslim god?

    • In reality, the Muslim God and the Christian God and the Jewish God are basically all the same. It is the teacher representative that makes the difference.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        So true. Many people (especially Christians in my experience) deny this, but it’s a basic FACT of the Torah. All three religions sprang from the same Abrahamic line with the same faith in the SAME God. They may now relate to and understand His nature incorrectly (and that includes Christians as well), but they all WORSHIP (give glory to) the one and only God (YWYH).

        And, yes, it’s the EARTHLY representative of those religions that differentiates them.

        Jews still believe that Abraham was their emissary between God and man, though some still hold to a Messiah still to come (denying that Jesus was that person).

        Christians believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and God’s Son in living flesh, sent to die to restore our ability to have a relationship with God.

        Muslims believe that Jesus was a great prophet, but that Muhammad was a greater prophet with a greater revelation. Muhammad often echoes the words of Jesus, and they taught many of the same things. I often wonder how “wrong” Muhammad really was before his words were taken and used out of context to control people (just as the Bible is). Maybe Muhammad thought more highly of Jesus and understood God more thoroughly then it appears.

        It is possible to be in any of these religions and be a member of the “true faith”, having a relationship with God through His Holy Spirit (though those particular terms may not be used exactly).

        It is also possible to be in any of these religions and be completely lost and have no knowledge of/relationship with the true God, being a slave to a dead religion that promises people that they can please God or “reach” God if they simply follow a set of laws, rules and guidelines.

  3. FiveCentFather says:

    I actually agree with a great deal of this post, but there are a couple points I’d like to make.

    At one point you say,
    “What allows us to pick one over the other is our use of reason.”

    I would argue this is not entirely true. It’s not JUST reason, but reason and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. We do not exist in a spiritual vacuum. The Spirit is active and striving with man. If a man is seeking the truth, the Spirit will be leading them to it. Certainly reason IS involved, but it is NOT the defining method of belief.

    Secondly, although it’s true that we currently have no solid archeological evidence that Exodus is historical fact, we also had no evidence for King David until very recently. In the case of a story as highly detailed as the Exodus IS, I still currently choose to believe it happened pretty much as outlined in the Bible. I don’t see the HARM in believing it, while looking forward to a time when evidence MIGHT be found.

    In regards to the rape law you cite. You (and most people these days) are looking at that law backwards through thousands of years of history with decidedly Western eyes and values. But that law was made to PROTECT women in a society where a women disgraced in such a way would have had a WORSE time (death by stoning, a lifetime of begging, exile from the camp) of it had not the man been forced into CONTRACT to take care of her. Is it the BEST solution? No, But it was the best that could be done without completely reordering the value systems of the Israelite culture. They simply were not ready to accept women the way we do now. Say what you will about how “backwards” that makes God look, but, again, you weren’t THERE.

    So, we don’t follow this law now, because our culture allows us to see a better way, not because it was inherently wrong (or didn’t even really exist) at the time it was decreed. Actually, the law is a great example of God’s LOVE for women.

    I agree with everything you said about homosexuality. I think the passage in Romans was primarily talking about Greeks, who rejected the writings of the Jewish scriptures, and made up their own Gods. Homosexuality was viewed as a “punishment” for their unbelief. Again, it was a cultural thing. Jews thought themselves “above” that practice, so they looked down on the Greeks who did it. Paul was from a highly religious, Jewish background. To think he could just divorce himself completely from that cultural mindset would be absurd. Was he correct about homosexuality being a “punishment” from God? Most likely NOT. But it made sense to him at the time. He was trying to point out that rejection of God can lead to the most “vile” (in human terms) of sins, which, at that time, to a Jew, homosexuality was one of those. The CONCEPT is true (rejection of God WILL lead to sin – as a matter of nature), but likely not that specific example he used.

    Again, many problems that people have with the Bible could be resolved if we just look at the CULTURE that existed when it was written. You can’t read the Bible through strictly Western cultural eyes and have it make any logical sense. People THOUGHT differently back then. Cultural values were different. God worked within society as best as He could to work His way in the people, JUST as He does today in our (if viewed by a person of THAT time) hedonistic, depraved society. It’s all about perspective.

    • As a point of cultural note, our society is pretty tame on the sex issue. The ancient Greeks were all about orgies.

      Anyhow, examining culture doesn’t give you a free ride to infallibility. In my account of the rape law, I phrased my objection in such a way as to keep the culture in mind. Because the culture prized a woman’s virginity so highly, it had its values backward and thought it did a service to women when it forced them to marry their rapists. And just because Paul was influenced by his culture doesn’t mean that he’s not wrong. If we applied this more generally, no one would ever be wrong, as we are all always influenced by our culture and the information we have available when we make our judgments. There might be pieces of truth in our false claims, but we still call them false and don’t give ourselves a pass because of our culture.

      Suppose Paul were writing in the Zorbonomicon but you were a Christian. Listen to yourself and ask whether you would make the same sorts of excuses for Paul as a Zorbionist as you would for Paul as a Christian. Would you let Paul be “right” when he actually made some false claims influenced by his culture?

      As for the Holy Spirit, even those claims which we might think to be inspired by the Holy Spirit are open to reasoning insofar as they are testable. While I find most claims about the Holy Spirit to be dubious explanations of natural phenomena, I will leave that well enough alone.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        So, are you saying that the Levitical law or Paul’s teaching’s can’t be PARTIALLY correct? Either they are 100% correct (because we have faith in the BOOK that they are?) or due to cultural bias, they are “polluted” and we just throw them completely OUT? That’s kind of what I’m hearing.

        “Would you let Paul be “right” when he actually made some false claims influenced by his culture?”

        Yes, I would since there is OTHER scriptures that say much the same thing. Life, separated from God, leads to further sin. This is not a hard concept to find in the Bible (not sure about the Zorbnomicon). We can’t put Paul in a vacuum on this passage. The point he’s making has been made before. It’s just the example that he chose to use (really, ONE of the examples he chose), was a poor one dependent on cultural bias and tradition. I can take to heart the message of the passage without hyping up the homosexual part of it as some standard of purity that God set up. MAN is hung up on standards of purity and morality, which is HEAVILY influenced by prevailing culture. Personally, I don’t think God is so much concerned with such things (Remember, in the Garden, GOD didn’t tell them it was bad for them to be naked, THEY thought it was, so He made them comfortable around Him by giving them something to wear. But that’s another discussion.)

        And be careful to not dismiss the Holy Spirit. Without Him, no amount of “reason” will lead us to the truth. If you take the Spirit out of the equation, then you truly are just worshiping a religion of your own making, spawned by your own intellect. True faith comes from believing in and being influenced by something OUTSIDE of ourselves and our physical, human existence. You can’t “reason” yourself into God’s favor. “WIthout FAITH it is impossible to please God.” So, when it comes down to brass tacks, reason be damned every time. We “are saved by grace through FAITH… and that not of ourselves.”

    • avengah says:

      A Christian feels the Holy Spirit the same way members of other faiths feel their religion is true. There are Muslims and Hindus just as devout and certain they have the truth. Just remember the mind can play tricks on people and the most devout can still become atheists eventually once they realise this.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        I don’t believe you are correct, my friend. The Spirit is one of the very things that differentiates the Christian faith from all other religions. To not allow yourself to be influenced by the voice of the Divine Spirit who whispers “Believe”, and solely depend on your own intellect is a mistake of eternal proportions. Do not hinder the voice or work of the Spirit. Without Him, we would, ALL of us, be lost.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        I was prompted while driving to pick up my kid’s from school to change something in my previous post. It suddenly became clear that using the word “Christianity” did not convey my point properly (and also sounded REALLY elitist.) I apologize for that.

        So (since I can’t edit posts), please change this sentence:
        “The Spirit is one of the very things that differentiates the Christian faith from all other religions.”

        To read:
        “The Spirit is one of the very thing that differentiates a true faith and relationship with the living God versus simple religion.”

        Thank you, and I apologize if I offended anyone. I’m well aware that the label “Christian” doesn’t give anybody a lock on the truth, and people who identify with other religious groups are certainly capable of having a relationship with God through the Spirit (even if they don’t use those particular terms). Man uses labels. God looks on the heart.

  4. We are all a part of “GOD.” Whether we are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Pagan, or any other of the countless belief systems. The “Holy Spirit” is just a name given to our spiritual selves by Christians. God, or more correctly, our spiritual being, exists and tells us to believe, but it is telling us to believe in ourselves and our inner truth, not in some mythical character.

    • FiveCentFather says:

      The Holy Spirit and God MUST be separate from ourselves and His influence accepted to experience a true faith and relationship with God. Otherwise, you are simply believing in yourself, and how would that make a difference to God, show dependence on Him or give Him any glory?

      I can just see it now on Judgement Day:

      “God, I want to go to your heaven because I believed in the Divine within myself.”

      “Yourself?” “If all you need is yourself, then of what use am I to you?” “You don’t need me. Depart and make your own heaven, self-sufficient one.”

      • Well, you and I just have very different beliefs. For instance, I don’t believe in heaven and he’ll as actual places. I don’t believe that there will be a “judgement day.” I don’t believe that there is a “god” that is separate from myself. So, in essence, we have very little common ground on which to base a meaningful discussion.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        Yes. I would agree. I wish you truth on your spiritual journey.

  5. I think I could have written more-or-less exactly the same thing, though less eloquently. Admittedly, the only thing that mystifies me is that we find ourselves at different conclusions (provisionally, as I assume that neither of us presumes to have the final and definitive answer) when we appear to agree so closely. Again, your objection is incisive and directly to the point. “Because X says so,” is always an unconvincing argument.

  6. I like your points here. As a Christian, I don’t want to believe anything that’s not true and Christians who seem afraid of science and new discoveries always mystify me, since it’s like they are afraid that what they believe will be proven false. If it’s false, then I don’t want to believe it. However, I do think God is true.
    I agree that we must use our reason to test the things we can, but unfortunately, in the realm of spiritual things, there is only so far our reason will take us and there has to be some element of faith. I think Christians should be on the forefront of science, though, reaching out to discover more and more about God’s great universe.

  7. gglenister says:

    Enjoyed your article, friend! On the subject of Exodus – I have this article bookmarked because I found it so interesting, and I thought you might enjoy it as well:

    • Thanks! Interesting hypothesis there. I’d want to see it hold up to critical review, though. If I recall history correctly, Akenhaten’s city was destroyed by the priests after his death, which would place all the evidence for the Exodus squarely out of each, at least insofar as their presence in Egypt.

      • gglenister says:

        Sure – I just think it’s interesting to approach stories like these with the possibility that there might have been a historical event that this was about, but which was embellished and told through mythology. That’s not always the case, either – I think sometimes a story in the Bible (like Noah) is pure fable, meant to teach a lesson more than to be history.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        I think this theory fits the biblical record pretty well. I don’t agree with some of the ideas about Moses and the tabernacle, but the dates make some sense. As a commenter on the page pointed out, they weren’t slaves to Egypt for 400 years. They were merely “under” Egyptian control (which started when Abraham entered Egypt and made a “deal” with the Pharaoh). They may have only been actual slaves for a few years after “Joseph’s Pharaoh” (Akenhaten? Or was JOSEPH Akenhaten?) died and the old religion came back to Egypt. When Moses arrived and the plagues started (which I believe were all the result of a wonderfully timed ‘natural’ disaster), I wonder if the Egyptian priests told their people it was because they had forsaken their old gods rather than any punishment by the Hebrew God. Makes sense. Is it possible that “Moses’ Pharaoh” has no tomb because God buried him in the sea with his army? Maybe Tutankhamen was his son (2nd born?) or brother whom they rushed to the throne despite his young age. Lots of fun speculating to be had, for sure.

      • I think the big mistake of this article though is that it is one of many “could have been” scenarios and does not have any supporting evidence.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        True, Chris, but I don’t NEED the evidence to believe the heart of the story of God rescuing His people from bondage – which is really a foreshadowing of Christ.

        It’s just fun to talk about. And,remember we may not HAVE all the evidence that could be out there. Or maybe God would rather have us just believe it, than have a vault of evidence at our fingertips. Hmmmm….. 🙂

      • I choose to remain agnostic about things for which there is no evidence. Hypotheses like this are only good insofar as they are testable, but if there is no evidence, I relegate it to the things which are unknowable.

      • FiveCentFather says:

        Unknowable? True. But, technically speaking, everything having to do with God is ;unKNOWable;. It is all, bottom line, faith. But things like this are sure fun to talk about.

      • Well there is a lot about God I admit I simply don’t know. What I end up saying is that whatever we know of God, we mostly know only through analogy. God’s actual nature, including the Trinity, is totally unknowable.

  8. scribitall says:

    A few thoughts for Chris and anyone who wishes to save his/her head…
    I have read a few of this blog’s contents and comments that followed, especially, this post. Some have tried to bare a safe ground, but attempting to convince anyone, Chris in particular, to embrace a common ground would be a missed shot. There’s no common ground. You either fall in or fall out.
    Let’s start here. Everyone has a mind and a will; you can use them for the belief system that suits you. Before us all are placed life and death. Yet there’s a voice that counsels, “Choose life.” It’s a counsel. I have not seen anywhere or read any book that suggests that God tries to prove His existence. If you were breathing, you wouldn’t need artificial oxygen. Your independence of it already shows you’re alive.
    Likewise, if God created everything that exists, including men, He doesn’t need a label “CREATED BY GOD” on them. Rather, He has put a voice inside every creation and they all show His handiwork. It’s us, humans, who have logical mind and decisive will, that quell that voice with our rebellious questioning, criticisms, and antagonistic quest for self-expression—the result of which is the state the world is in right now.
    No atheist will be confident or truthful to you about how their journey started. Let me show you the first steps to becoming an atheist. Start with a wish to liberate yourself from a confining voice, which you may otherwise call ‘regulated conscience’; generate questions, which are beyond your mind; find fault with every institution and belief system; create a premise of resolve and begin to research into history and archaeological facts; believe the ones that have traces and discard the ones without discoverable trace (or at best, with biased facts); and then, place them against the postulations of the Bible (the Book from which many other religions sprouted their belief systems). When you get here, you will find inconsistencies in the Bible as well as energy in your logical faculty to disdain it alongside everything that reflects the immutability of God. Henceforth, your words and views will have something in common with those of the likes of Chris Attaway.
    I understand Chris to an extent. My deviation sometime back made me walk on the edge of what he’s about at present. But I can tell you, it’s nothing more than an exercise of mind that wells up your depravity and sweeps your feet off reality. When you delve into realms of spirits higher than you, your mind simply becomes their gateway, because it’s not cultivated by truth. Back then, I saw things too great for harmful to my mind. I felt like nobody knew anything. I wanted to explode. My quest and curiosity to see what’s beyond the light yanked me away, but my sincerity and desire to know the truth made God’s mercy available to me.
    Forgive me for not directly addressing the points made by Chris. Scripture warns against giving room for irreverent babble that leads to more ungodliness. Chris wrote about Zorbonomicon, fallibility of the Bible, subjectivity of faith, etc. and tried to justify gay by twisting Romans 1.
    Listen. Referring to Zorb as God is not my problem right now. Every culture recognises that there’s a Being called God (or god) and their adherents symbolise Him/It with an object. They believe that that object may serve as a portal of connecting to Him/It. But Christian faith is different and does not permit that practise. Believers have access to God by FAITH, which is not an abstract idea, but a spiritual mind. When you don’t have this mind, you can never understand the Bible. It’s a book of mysteries. That is why it states that its message is hidden from those who are lost, whose eyes the god of this world has blinded lest they should see the light that will save them.
    Prophecies encoded therein have followed one another in fulfilment. Mind you, the Bible was not written by just one man; meaning, there was no autonomous understanding or interpretation. It’s even stated that many of the patriarchs whose prophecies were recorded in the Bible did not understand what they said, because those ‘sayings’ were to be understood in the dispensation appointed for their fulfilment. They simply spoke “as they were moved by God”. Men who had opportunity to write parchments which eventually were put together as the Bible lived generations apart. They never met nor had the opportunity to read the accounts of patriarchs before them.
    Let’s take a close example of the 4 Synoptic Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These men, apart from Luke, wrote their accounts at different times when severe persecution drove them continents apart. How were they able to give uncontroversial accounts? Mind you, they did that when they were close to leaving this earth and felt the accounts should be given before their departure. You may not believe in the Holy Spirit, but He empowered them to do that accurately.
    Are you looking for a sign? You’ll never get it. Jesus told the Jews who requested the same that nothing would be given them except the sign of Jonah. Don’t you know the story? He symbolised it with His death and resurrection. When He rose from death, He didn’t need to show Himself to all of them so they could believe he was real all this while. He did that to only those who had believed when nothing looked like it.
    Ask any pure Jewish breed if he believed in Moses’ existence. If he believed in Abraham’s, he undeniably believed in Moses’. But ask him if his fore-fathers had the record of where Moses was buried. You believe in archaeology to dig up the existence of men who were at home with the supernatural? I’m sorry for your logic.
    I’m not bent on convincing you with these few words. But use your reason here: if there were no reality about a thing, why would there be contentions about its existence. It simply means there’s something we’re not ready to concede to. If you read that Romans 1 from verse 20, you would find: [For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.] What did you see there? There’s enough evidence, which science is grudgingly following, that what is seen has its prototype in what’s unseen.
    Perhaps you might be shocked to hear that God confuses people. He does that when their hearts become haughty and lifted against Him. That’s what you’d see in that Romans you quoted. He gave some over to reprobate mind, vain imaginations, uncleanness, vile affections, etc. according to the degree of their rebellion.
    If you didn’t believe the confusion at Babel, are you aware of the age-long prophecy against Israel that they would “indeed hear but never understand, and indeed see but never perceive”? Back then, they were expecting the Saviour, but when He eventually came, they neither recognised nor received Him—because there was a word against. Consequently, when the Saviour came, He spoke to them in parables they didn’t understand. And as a result, those who fell into that category missed out. It’s fatal to wrestle with the truth. You make God unable to save you. Although He’s accommodating, there’s something He shuns from afar. It’s unbelief. When you’re engulfed by it, you live below grace range.

    • Don’t really care.

    • avengah says:

      Utter sanctimonious drivel. Preach to someone who cares. Also, any evidence for your wild, ridiculous claims? And try looking up Bible Prophecies Debunked on YouTube.

    • FiveCentFather says:

      While I agree with some of the principles you lay out here, I think your method of delivery is confusing and unloving.

      It’s OK to question our beliefs. The patriarchs did it ALL the time, and they were called great men of faith. Chris may have some “liberal” ideas, but nothing in what he says makes me doubt for a second that I’ll see him in heaven one day, as I believe his faith lies solely in the work of Christ. I think God’s grace is a bit bigger than you’re giving Him credit for.

  9. shon says:

    Hope it is not too late to comment here. How is believing in Jesus different from the other examples you mentioned? I guess more importantly why do you believe in Jesus?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s