A Mind to Interpret What Is Seen

It pleases me to see that Kirk has responded to my post, and again, I am going to show that I have no life and respond the very next day. He begins by being shocked that he needed to define "salvation" for me. I was actually a little shocked from his answer, but I suppose I can understand what he is intending. He claims that it doesn't take a long look at the world to see that we need salvation, and names things such as malnutrition, disease, genocide, deaths and tsunamis to show. I want to stop right here to make a small point. These aren't spiritual items. I think that Kirk would believe salvation to be a spiritual occurrence, and that regardless of whether one is saved or not, these things that he named would still happen. I still don't understand what he is trying to say. Salvation will rescue us from these things? Furthermore, these are not things that I believe us to need salvation from. Malnutrition, as horrible as it is in some parts of the world, is the result of overpopulation. In nature, when the food supply runs out for a species, the species does not flourish as much, and then after the food source can be replenished, the population of the predator species can increase again. In nature, it is balance, but with us, it is an evil? Now I don't want to give anyone the impression that I don't care about the poor children who are starving in the world, but I do want to say that that's just the way things work. When we reproduce to the point of making our children starve, it is not "evil" or anything we need to be saved from, it is the result of poor planning and irresponsibility. If we were to ever be "saved" from this, we would be asking to be saved from the beautiful balance that God established in creation. Again, I am not saying that I think there is beauty in starving children, but I am saying that the system itself is God's beautiful creation, and it has been abused, and now people think that we need salvation from it. I think there's something wrong with that. Kirk then names disease. I believe this falls in the same line of reasoning. What is disease but the exploitation of our fragility and mortality? It is not something that we need salvation from, it is something that we have been conditioned to reject. We are obsessed with immortality and have this ridiculous notion that there is something so wrong about death. Disease kills people. In nature, again, this is part of the balance of creation. The circle of life, I suppose one could call it. But when it applies to us, we think it's evil. We have double the life expectancy right now than we did maybe a thousand years ago, and yet we think cancer is so evil. If it wasn't cancer, it would be something else. In a few hundred years, when the life expectancy is 150, we are still going to be complaining when someone dies of a disease at 120. The disease is not the problem; the perception is. Genocidal governments are something that I think Kirk hits closer to the truth on. This is a deliberate malicious act from human beings. I will not attempt to refute this. I will discuss the human issue below. I already talked about "daily deaths." Tsunamis are again, something completely natural that is a beautiful occurrence of creation, but viewed as a terrible act of nature. There is nothing evil about a tsunami, we just happen to get in the way. This is not something we need salvation from. It's just nature.

Kirk's point is that he takes these examples and says that the victims of these occurrences need a greater hope. I think he had something going here, but then went on to talk about Americans, so I shall as well. He says that we seek our own glorification above the good of others, and then names homicide, thievery, strife, loss, difficulty in work, and fear as examples. Yes, this is true, we tend to put ourselves over everyone else. However, I would again say (with later qualifications) that this is just nature. In my limited studies on nature and species, I have approached the conclusion that animals want to survive. Everything animals do, whether it is evolving through natural selection (something that humans would call evil if they knew it was happening to them no doubt because it involved dying) or mating habits or diet or anything, organisms do what they can to survive. They will kill other members of their species for food or mates. They will scavenge (steal) food from others in the night to survive. Red in tooth and claw I suppose. I would propose that humans are not except from this animality. Does that make it evil...or natural? If this is what Kirk is saying that we need salvation from (our own bestial desires), then I would say that I could agree with that. But I would say that an atheist anthropologist could come to the very same conclusion. If one studied nature and saw that we need to better control and overcome our subhuman drives of self-preservation over the well-being of others, then they are on their way to "salvation." This is something that anyone could do (without the Bible). Kirk ends this segment by saying that "There should be no way that we miss the fact that we need something/someone from outside of us to save us." I think that if this is his definition of salvation then it can actually be done within the heart of the individual, with God or without.

Kirk then states that I have the foundational proposition "that our Reason is not flawed and therefore that it will lead us to 'the Good (God)'." I want to make a qualification that I think is important. I do not believe that our Reason is flawless; I just do not share Kirks idea that it is fundamentally flawed. I believe that people can be misled by their Reason, but I do not believe that we should be discouraged from leaning on it nonetheless. Furthermore, I do not believe that Reason will lead us to God, but that it won't necessarily lead us away from God. Kirk's statement "if our reason will lead us to God, then why hasn't it yet?" is not was I was getting at. I don't believe we will ever "lead us to God" in this life. I simply believe we have to use everything we possibly can (as I believe the Jesus of the synoptics advises us to), and that includes not neglecting Reason for Tradition. I also think that Kirk's use of wars as an example of how our we are flawed is an attack on politics and nationalism as opposed to Reason.

Kirk continues to say that through the entirety of my post I chose to start from an "unproven assumption." I believe Kirk means that my statement that we all are left to our own reason and experiences to tell us who God is is the assumption. I would like to say that this is a fact. We cannot escape our reasoning. We can convince ourselves of illogical things, but because we have to convince ourselves, we are using our reason. I believe this to be a poor use of it, but it is a use nonetheless. Kirk's theology makes sense to him for the most part, and he believes it. He believes it with his reason. I think that his reason is often spent working out things incorrectly (as he probably would think of me as well), but that does not mean he isn't using it on his own. I think it is important to note that I used Kirk himself as an example as to how he uses his Reason to work things out himself. I would like to see how he would respond to my analysis of him. Finally, the fact that Kirk states that his "assumption" is no more valid than mine goes to show that it's not really a relevant topic. I never accused Kirk of stating an assumption as fact.

Kirk proceeds to talk about how the Spirit "opens our souls to God's Word." I cannot really refute this logically. What I can say is that I don't necessarily believe it. What does it take for the Spirit to do this? I can honestly say that even when I believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, that I never felt anything really spiritual when I read it. I figured I was just doing something wrong. I read the Bible more like a rulebook or a history book. It says something about God, therefore it must be so. Once I actually started to learn about the reasons for the Bible to be written, I realized it wasn't inerrant, I came to the conclusions that it was often biased, often unfactual, and I believe I came to a much more mature understanding of what the text really was. What I didn't do is feel some type of mystical/spiritual effect from learning or reading the Bible. This is where I want to really clarify something. I do not claim to know how God works for everybody. I place such a strong emphasis on experience and I don't want to discount Kirk's (or anyone else's) experience. So if Kirk really feels some type of spiritual closeness to God or some type of divine calling, then there is nothing I can really say to put that down. What I can do is say that whatever it is that he's feeling, I do not, and cannot, unless I tried with everything I have in me to brainwash myself out of thinking the way I do now. I deny the need for this. I deny that God would require me to do that to myself. I believe that even if I tried to do that, it would be insincere, and I don't think God would appreciate that. I am what I am, and as long as I am seeking God, regardless of what I believe about the Bible, I think God will be OK with that. I just think that if the Bible was what Kirk thought it was, then it would have a better success rate (especially for people like me who try). One last thing: I do not believe John 1.1 was referring to anything biblical. The ancient Jewish notion of the logos was not the written word, but more like the agent of creation and wisdom.

Kirk addresses my statement that neither Jesus nor his disciples had the New Testament. He says that's not really true, because they just wrote down what was revealed to them from the Spirit. What counts as the end of revelation then? Why did the Spirit stop inspiring people to write? We only needed this much to combat heresies, pretty much. What about the letters of Timothy? Do those count? What if we found another letter of Paul to the Corinthians? Would that count? Do we have the only inspired books that were ever written? Kirk knows where I'm going with this. What if I wrote something inspired by God? What if Kirk did? How are we to know what counts as inspired? This is just as troublesome to me as the idea that they're inspired in the first place. What makes Kirk think that the Bible is the only thing that was inspired? My answer would be he was raised to think so. I can't do it. It would be great to believe that it is what he thinks it is, but I just can't believe it because I see little good reason to.

If it is not evident, I (unlike Kirk) have no problem with wearing out my readers. Kirk mentions what I noted that Jesus could not relate to our finiteness (if you have the same opinion as Kirk does). He asks why I worry about things, and says that Jesus told us not to. I don't see how this really addresses my question though. If Jesus is omniscient, then him telling other people not to worry about things isn't speaking from experience. It may be speaking from wisdom, but not experience. I hardly see Jesus needed to "tap into" any type of omniscience. I don't tap into any of my knowledge, I just have it. I couldn't be otherwise. I know some things, and I forget others. If I knew everything, it wouldn't be like I had a storage case of knowledge somewhere that I had to take the lid off and get what I need to know. It would just be there. I don't see that Kirk has answered my problem with the idea that an infinite being can relate to a finite one. Jesus was tempted to worry, but didn't? Just because I shouldn't be worrying doesn't mean Jesus is off the hook for not being able to relate. If he was also perfect then he wasn't even tempted to feel guilt. I'm not just trying to be difficult here. I just can't believe that he would be able to relate to a finite being like me if he was not.

Kirk accuses me of seeing what I want to see (just as I accused him). I cannot tell him he is wrong. I can dispute his statement that I "take out" parts of the Bible that don't fit my experience, but he raises a good point. However, as this could be true for anybody (seeing what they want to see), I would rather see what makes sense to me. Kirk admits that he accepts things that he is incapable of explaining and that go against his nature. He states examples like dying to himself, loving his enemies, praying for those who persecute him, and believing in the resurrection. He states that he would not want to make himself see these things, but that he accepts them "based upon God's promise of life through them." I would disagree with some of this. I believe that Jesus was teaching the Kingdom of God, and in that Kingdom, people are dead to themselves, but alive to God. They love everyone, especially those that hate them and persecute them. This is utopia. I said above that an anthropologist could see the problems in the world and reach conclusions, but this is apart from the Bible or "salvation." I think that these conclusions can be reached apart from the Bible (and have been). The resurrection bit is different. That really isn't something that anyone would believe apart from believing that the Bible has some type of authority over the matter. I am not ready to refute this.

I must add here that I am not as atheist/anti-Christian as I sound. I still consider myself a Christian, I just stand at another end of the spectrum from Kirk. I am not ready to commit to the idea that the Resurrection didn't happen (and I know I'm leaving myself open to the argument of inconsistency, but hopefully I'll cover myself before this post is done). I honestly don't know how a small movement of farmers and fishermen could have become what it did if something magnificent never actually happened. I suppose it's more important that people believe something happened than it is that it actually happened, but something sparked something. Whatever happened after the death of Jesus, it was miraculous. I do not mean miraculous in that it defied the laws of nature, but I mean miraculous in that it was revolutionary and unexpected. That's as far as I'm willing to go at the moment.

As this relates to Kirk believing things contrary to what he would want to believe, I want to question that. I think Kirk sees his life as being much more fulfilled because he believes what he does. I'm not saying he's a fair-weather believer or anything, but I think that he is happier as he is now, and that his life is better because of it. It is therefore not really contrary to his nature to believe these things. I, however, am more satisfied in my beliefs, and I could not believe otherwise (at this point in my life). So we are doing the same thing I guess. I just want to defend the idea that just because he's satisfied with his way of looking at things doesn't mean it's "Truth" or anything. I don't claim to know that I'm right, I just claim that I make a lot more sense to myself and I could be no other. I am what I am (maybe God can relate after all).