We talked about this also last week. This is the last of the old files in my cleanup project, promise.
Written on or around Monday, March 9, 2015, 4:45 PM.
This was to another fellow in a Ventrilo prayer group. I don't remember what sermon it refers to by now.
I agree with the sermon that Bible interpretation is subject to culture and other influences, and that history is one of
those influences and often a good one to look at. I also believe, though, that the only way to obtain an accurate
interpretation of the Bible is to pray for help getting one, because I have seen proof, including the above, that
translation issues do exist.
I say again to you though, I fear to respond to your inquiries for fear of further confusing rather than enlightening
you. You seek absolutes, as I once did. I would even venture to say that you would be happier if the scientific method
could successfully elucidate the mysteries of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. But faith and proof are alternate
roads, not equal ones. We are indeed given evidence, and that evidence does prove to some of us, individually. But if
God were to have chosen to make everything provable by some worldwide-accepted standard, where would we have need for
faith at all?
But because you, like many and maybe once like me, naturally feel inclined to seek absolute proof, I write the
following, admittedly long text, in case it might help you.
I cannot tell you definitively why God chose to do things this way, providing evidence but not absolute proof; though I
can offer a simple theory - simple in concept, though I must write a bit before I can explain it. First the theory, then
the explanation:
My theory: I believe God chose to give us evidence but not indisputable proof because God wants to be sought and
believed, and loved, via faith.
All that follows in this chat message is my explanation, and why I accept that theory as valid and the behavior of God
it portrays as reasonable behavior.
Faith and love have this in common: They are based on a leap from what we can see to what we believe. I cannot love you
solely based on what I see, for that will change. Neither can I know what you will be tomorrow, though I may have faith
in that you will still love me.
Is there really any one of us who can say truly that we have never wanted to challenge another's love for us? Wanted to
see proof, as it were, that the love is real? Yet how do we prove love, except by denying something? Among people, it is
unwise to do this too often, surely (there are verses about that, too; ask and I can find if you like).
So I believe God has given us many freedoms, ultimately free will; but then said in effect, "Who among my creations will
truly love Me?" I then believe God has "asked" us not by telling us to speak our answers, but by giving us the means to
demonstrate them through our responses to what we are, and are not, given.
I accept the above theory as valid because, as should be true in the scientific method, it fits the evidence I've seen:
Many have tried proving God's existence irrefutably but have not done so to the satisfaction of everyone. If we accept
God's existence as defined in the Bible, then we must accept that He could, if He chose, provide such irrefutable proof
at will.
I accept the behavior described by this theory as reasonable simply because, as God's creations, we are reasonably
subject to God's will for us. I am therefore greatful to God for choosing to be kind to me. In worldly terms, I consider
myself God's property, both by creation and then again by my own free choice to remain so after God gave me that choice.
God has, in my view, challenged me to love Him without being able to build an absolute foundation first, and I have
accepted, and found it possible, truly, to do so. It did not happen overnight for me, nor in a single pivotal moment;
but I consider my love for God real, and I hope I show it well enough for others to agree.
