The Discomforts of Faith
by Preston Foster
By Preston Foster, October 21, 2013
It’s not easy to be counted among the faithful.
The problem isn’t that it’s hard to be accepted by God. That’s easy (John 6:37). The problem, if you are faithful, is getting respect from those who (seem to) matter most down here on the ground.
Faith is not a norm of the professional class. If you care at all how you are perceived in the professional world—by those who are accomplished, lettered, and prestigiously affiliated—it can be very uncomfortable to be a Christian. Faith and professional credibility are at odds. Among professionals, credibility is seasoned with skepticism and baked with realism. Objective proof is valued; faith is not. Most in the professional class view faith as a poor substitute for knowledge. Faith is for the unexposed, the gullible, the primitive, and the incurious. Faith is, at best, valued only in private.
For many intellectuals (real and aspiring), engaging with the world of faith risks public insult. It invites the ridicule of those who believe that the faithful are superstitious dolts who can be cured, if at all, only by education from progressive thinkers.
Faith doesn’t pay (well). Literally. When intellectuals or professionals who are believers share their faith in the public square, their value erodes. Publicly expressed faith—particularly about things like believing the literal biblical account of the 6-day creation or in the literal resurrection of Christ—makes believers less valuable to universities, publicly traded companies, (traditional and electronic) publishers, and think tanks. Ridicule of believers is available from sources ranging from Bill Maher to Bill O’Reilly. In the professional realm, those (few) who do believe do well to keep their seemingly magical beliefs to themselves.
So, here, in this space, we find ourselves in richly frustrating conversations about faith, spiritual issues, church history and traditions, the Bible, Christ, and more. We sharpen our iron on those with whom we disagree (Proverbs 27:17). It’s great fun.
However, as one of the AT founders insistently points out, the purpose of this site is to exchange and develop ideas that build the Kingdom of God. So it seems appropriate to press this issue here. Why is it that so many who once believed now do not? Many have been candid about the abuse of indoctrination-mad teachers, administrators, church members, and others. Others trace their point of departure to the place where confidence in Ellen White and the prophetic narrative of Adventism became problematic for them. Finally, others credit their spiritual skepticism to a deeper immersion in science, logic, and objectivism (of course, these categories overlap).
This column is addressed to the members and observers of that last group.
To what extent does social acceptance adversely affect faith? Does protecting one’s public profile include the purposeful exclusion of faith from one’s portfolio? Is skepticism presented as currency for entrance into influential and prestigious social groups?
I’d love to chat about it here. However, it is more important to me (re: building the Kingdom) that we challenge ourselves with these questions.
Are you saying that most public figures are agnostic or atheistic? I am often surprised at how many do give credit to God for success, even if they are not as "religious" as the average Adventist.
Even the president mentions God. And Romney was certianly a man of faith if not the same as ours. You mention Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly in the same sentence. Bill Maher is an admitted agnostic and frequently mocks religion. Whereas O'Reilly is a man of high morals and faith and never mocks religion. And he doesn't always go along with the political right. I suspect you haven't listened to him because of a stereotype and wouldn't know that. He is also a great humanitarian gives his profits to wounded veterans.
Ella,
I am saying that even among professionals and public figures, faith in Christ, as described in the Bible, is counter to their interests.
Mitt Romney (the candidate supported by the religious right) nor President Obama (supported by the religious and non-religious left) would not give a definitive answer to questions about creation and evolution. Virtually all in the professional class are assumed (by other members of that class) to understand that evolution is more than a theory; it is the conventional wisdom — and creationism is not. If a professional has the poor judgment to publicly say otherwise, they are discounted. While public officials might give a verbal nod to God, they are careful not to specify what they believe about His power — particularly in the areas of creation and rising from the dead.
Last week, while promoting his lastest book ("Killing Jesus"), Bill O'Reilly said, based on his "research," Christ could have never uttered the words, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." O'Reilly said (in a "60 Minutes" interview) that no one in that physical condition could have uttered those words and that we are not to take the Bible literally. Here, in the conservative South (Alabama), among believers, that hubris did not play well. Maher is a well-known liberal atheist who is hostile towards faith; O'Reilly, a conservative, appears to think there is a Christ, but is skeptical about the extents of His power — and about the accuracy of His Word. The common denominator is doubt.
Preston,
You are riding your own private hobby horse with your particular definition of faith: unless a public figure states his belief in a literal creation, Resurrection and denies evolution (as you define it), he is lacking faith.
This is close to limiting all religious believers to even some Adventists. Why, oh why, are your so dismissive of anyone whose belief is not aligned with yours? It sounds like the old Quaker (?) who said that "no one any longer believes in God, but me and thee, and I'm not so sure about thee."
Bill O'Reilly is only agreeing with most scholars who cannot be absolutely certain of Jesus' words. Can you? It was all written by non-witnesses many years later, so no one can be absolutely certain in every detail.
Those who have never doubted have not yet developed faith.
Preston,
You are riding your own private hobby horse with your particular definition of faith: unless a public figure states his belief in a literal creation, Resurrection and denies evolution (as you define it), he is lacking faith.
This is close to limiting all religious believers to even some Adventists. Why, oh why, are your so dismissive of anyone whose belief is not aligned with yours? It sounds like the old Quaker (?) who said that "no one any longer believes in God, but me and thee, and I'm not so sure about thee."
Bill O'Reilly is only agreeing with most scholars who cannot be absolutely certain of Jesus' words. Can you? It was all written by non-witnesses many years later, so no one can be absolutely certain in every detail.
Those who have never doubted have not yet developed faith.
Dear Elaine,
Do you really want to ride the victim car tonight?
Again, I am happy to let people believe (or not) as they choose. I am simply curious about the conscious avoidance by literal believers to publicly express that belief because of it is socially and professionally awkward.
I am not judging Mr. O'Reilly. I'm just telling you what the guy said — on the the broad continuum of those who publicly challenge literal belief. You make my point ("Bill O'Reilly is only agreeing with most scholars who cannot be absolutely certain of Jesus' words"): the conventional wisdom discounts the literal account of the Bible. Thus the discomfort of those who buck the conventional wisdom.
"It was all written by non-witnesses many years later"
The author of the Gospel of John claimed to be an eyewitness. If the author was not in fact an eyewitness but claimed to be, what else might said author have lied about? Why would the writers of 3 of the 4 gospels claim to have observed many if not all of the events they describe? The writer of the fourth claims to have carefully reconstructed his account by interviewing eyewitnesses. Were they all lying? If so then we know nothing abut Jesus, unless you believe that Flavius Josephus was the only contemporary Jewish writer who told the absolute truth?
Following this line of reasoning you can discount any "historical" account of any past event. Who is to say whether those telling the story are lying? Or fantasizing? Or perhaps exaggerating just a bit too much to make a point or to make their stories more entertaining? Or more marketable? What criteria do you use to decide which "eyewitnesses" or historical compilers to believe? How do you know that even your own memory is not playing tricks on you?
It seems an impossibility that the compilers of the Bible were false prophets. i don't believe they were. i agree , Jim, with your comments. i believe the Bible is an honest account of our Lord God Jesus. The writers selected by the Holy Spirit, and His guidance to Spirit led compilers.
Luke begins his Gospel:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to complete an account of the things accomplished among us. Juas as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…. and handed them down to us, it seemed fitting to one as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you …."
Matthew makes no claim to be an eyewitness and his genealogy cannot be true if Luke's is correct; they probably are both incorrect. Both Matthew and Luke tell an entirely different birth story and Mark's Gospel begins with John and Jesus' baptism.
It is later that claims were made for the Gospels as being eyewitnesses, but of the four, only John may be the disciple, although the age is most unusual for that time.
Few historians, as these accounts are biographical history, were eyewitnesses. It is not necessary to have personally observed, unless one is "fudging" to claim the impossible. Nor does the lack of definite authors infer that the writers were dishonest.
All that is necessary to show that the Gospel writers were eye-witnesses is to provide substantiation.
Jim,
"..Following this line of reasoning you can discount any "historical" account of any past event."
I don't think so.
I would have thought there are many "historical" accounts of past events where this is not the case. In the Jesus case you are dealing with a very narrow stream of "evidence" and "supposed" witnesses, all of whom are "in house". That is, they are "believers" or "members". The area where credibility is missing in this story is the complete absence of any corroborative data from outside, contemporary, or even near contemporary sources.
There are plenty of "historical" events where this is not the case. Evidence and observations come from a wide range of sources. Such events are not so easily discounted.
You ask what criteria do you use? Well, the one that should possibly be given the least credibility are the ones that have a horse in the race! That is, the "in house", "the believers", the "members". Especially when it is unclear they were or were not eye witnesses actually writing. (almost certainly not btw)
I guess it goes without stating that these are in fact the only category available! The absolute silence from any "non biblical" source clearly mentioning The Jesus, not a jesus, is deafening.
How anyone who has grappled with the absolute silence in the wider contemporary historical data about what should have been an earth shatteringly newsworthy story can still believe there was a Jesus is beyond me.
Having studied a lot of history (as a hobby) going back into my childhood, may I remind you of the old adage that history is usually written by the victors? In this regard the Bible is not really that different than Thucidides. The losers often do not survive to write their history – the survivors are pre-occupied with the struggle to survive and do not have the luxury of writing their side of the story nor does anyone else care to preserve or publish it. The victors erect monuments to their triumphs (sometimes built by the slaves they captured) – the vanquished do not want to brag about their defeats.
Only for the past few hundred years do we have very much material from the losing side. I do have a few books about WW II written by Japanese and German authors. Their perspectives are very interesting.
Without mass media (electronic or even the printing press) news traveled very slowly. It was probably news in Jerusalem and Galilee when Jesus was crucified. I doubt that many people who lived more than 50 miles away heard about it soon afterwards, unless they or a direct acquaintance happened to be in Jerusalem for the Passover. And He was but one of three malefactors crucified that day. And there was no shortage of Jewish zealots claiming to be the Messiah and blundering into terminal encounters with the hated Romans.
It became an "earth shatteringly newsworthy story" because His few remaining followers managed to re-group and went on to change an empire. For those who were victorious when He died it was barely worth a brief mention. You will not find the Jews or the Romans bragging about the demise of one more fanatic. If Flavius Josephus had not defected to the Romans there would have been no contemporaneous history of the Jews. Most of the historical records of the early Christian centuries are at the Vatican precisely because they were the eventual winners.
Jim,
Your rationalizing the absence of evidence to focus on the "regrouping" to create an earth shattering event, after the events (all three years of them!) is fascinating to say the least. What about all the "miracles"? What about the resurrections, healings and so on? Not to mention THE resurrection? Do you really think you can dismiss this absence by the "victor" concept?
There is very good reason the populace at large, as Preston points out, view the Jesus story with scepticism. It does indeed come down to a matter of faith. One chooses to believe it, not because of the evidence, but in spite of its absence. I choose not to believe in fairies for the same reason I can no longer believe in the Jesus event. I like evidence, and I don't like playing mental and verbal gymnastics to justify things.
Preston's questions are challenging ones, and it is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string, however, I do think the "doubt" about these events has an effect on those who try to cling to faith in spite of the "conventional wisdom". From my experience/journey I would say it was the recognition of doubt in given areas, and the attempt to put them to rest, that ultimately convicted me that the doubt was the greater case.
Some of us avoid the hypocrisy that comes through holding a position against evidence by refusing to look at the evidence. Others look at the evidence, but compartmentalize their thinking and thus reduce the dissonance. Perhaps this is what the "believers" do who buck conventional wisdom.
cb25,
I think Jesus had a huge impact within Palestine and Transjordan and Southern Syria/Phoenicia during his sojourn in those regions. Otherwise he would not have been a threat to the jewish and Roman power elites of his day.
Other than people who traveled there on pilgrimages I doubt he had little impact beyond.
According to the Book of Acts the gospel was taken first to the Diaspora and then to the Gentiles. Said events occurring over the course of a generation after intense persecution forced the initial band of several thousand believers to scatter from Jerusalem and Judaea.
The few early references to Christians by pagan Roman authors deride them as a delusional cult. As Paul himself admitted, if Christ did not rise from the dead then bleivers are truly to be pitied. In his time Christians were a convenient target for derison from the unbelieving majority. So I guess some things haven't changed much in 2,000 years 8-).
You can join the crowd that calls us lunatics or deluded or whatever. You can say we are following cunningly devised fables. The fact remains that Christians changed the Roman Empire and the history of the Mediterranean world, Europe, the Americas, etc. Disclaimer – I am not saying that all the changes were for the better but indeed there has been major impact on almost every world civilization since.
This did not all happen in a day or a year or a century or even a millennium – but it did happen. In the days before mass media news and other information traveled in human hands or human minds – mostly at walking speed or perhaps sailing speed. And they didn't sail or walk non-stop. It took the Magi the better part of two years to get from Persia to Jerusalem and they had camels which were the fastest way to cover long distances on land (a horse is faster only for fairly short distances).
Many times I have flown over the Middle East between Frankfurt and Mumbai in about 9 hours (depending on winds). This is roughly the span that Christian missionaries penetrated in the first century. In India they tell me that the three major ancient sources of Western influence were, first Alexander the Great, then the Jewish bankers who set-up shop in Mumbai during the Persian Empire when Mumbai was the world center of the diamond trade and made it the banking capital of Southern Asia (it still is), then St Thomas who traveled to Mumbai to evangelize the Eastern extent of the Diaspora. I did not make this up – it is secular and Hindu Indians who told me this. They have no reason to hype Greek culture or Jewish bankers or Christianity. This is part of the history they learn in school.
I am not trying to hide behind anything – I am calling it as I see it.
If I have mis-stated the facts please be specific regarding which facts I have mis-stated. I understand that you disagree with me but I am mostly guessing as to where specifically you diasagree with me, or whether you simply don't like my conclusions.
Jim,
The impact of Jesus in the local region is only recorded by the least reliable sources. ie "in house".
The rest of the exploits of the "Church" and spread of Christianity you describe could equally well have fitted the exploits of the growth of Islam!
Where I disagree is that all the evidence you use, in fact all that is available, is of poor to zero value quality.
Even the mention of Christians at a later date, as you note, is a negative one. Most the pictures do present them as total screw balls. Let's agree that they are biased. OK, but let's also ask the question, why there are not such "biased" reports from the actual Jesus events. Even if the locals recorded him as a screw ball, it would be evidence of existence. Sadly, the silence is the overwhelming fact.
As I've noted before, I believe the Gospel of Mark is an anti epic, based on Homer's Oddyssey. The linguistic and plot paralells are amazing.
It does not take long for such a "myth" to become reality! Look at the myths grown up around Mohammed.
Well cb25,
If Christ's detractors today have such a hard time admitting that He might have performed a miracle, why would you expect His contemproary detractors to record any miracles? Thereby they would admit that they were wrong.
I am wondering what kind of historical record could convince you? Who would you expect to write the kind of account you are looking for? If you are looking for a neutral record that will be very difficult. Jesus did not leave people neutral – either they loved Him or they hated Him. He claimed that His very presence forced people to choose (read John 3 very carefully).
I will readily admit that Islam has had a major impact on a substantial swath of the world, perhaps second only to Christianity though that could be argued. One would also have to consider the Persians, Alexander the Great, the Mongols, etc, albeit they were not as driven by religious agendas.
I have read the Quran piecemeal. The Bible I have read through many times. Call it my own personal bias but I will take the picture of Yahweh in the Bible over that of Allah in the Quran. You might recall that the Quran recognizes many of the Bible prophets including Jesus Christ. Some religious historians claim that Muhammed in his earlier days acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God, before he went to Mecca and took on the role of political leader.
I think there is ample historical evidence in both Christianity and Islam that mixing religion and politics is dangerous stuff. Understanding that the teachings of Jesus are of dubious value if you discount His claims of divinity, you might nevertheless find it interesting that He said "my kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my servants would be fighting". Those who try to build their religious kingdoms on worldy power or authority seem to always end-up fighting. Maybe Jesus did have some good insights and some good advice.
If you reject the testimony of those who knew Jesus the best, and if you cannot find anyone else whose testimony is relevant, then you cannot know anything useful about Jesus. You are entitled to make that choice.
I choose to go with the best available information granted that it is imperfect and incomplete. Certainly I have not found answers to all my questions but I have found the One who knows the answers.
Jim,
I'll leave most the points you make as is because it is no point going over and over.
However, one point you make does not represent what I said.
I don't expect the detractors to record any/the miracles. As I said, I don't care whether they recorded him as a screw ball, a hoax. a magician, a dim witt or whatever: Just some record! There is none. I find it striking that much later Christians, in smaller events, are recorded, (as screw balls) by contemporaries.
I'm not saying I expect the miracles to be recorded, but even so, it is still puzzling that at least even a "twisted" version of such events is totally absent.
That was my point on that one.
I probably should qualify a point. When I say I don't expect the miracles to be recorded. In a sense I do. Not necessarily in any way that reflects the Bible version, but the old saying. "where there is smoke there is fire" fits here.
There is no smoke!
Flavius Josephus does mention Jesus. Not surprisingly he dismisses Him as a fanatic who was executed by the Romans for sedition.
Jim,
Seriously? If Josephus really wrote that full text as stands today, it would suggest he was immensely positive toward Jesus. Josephus's family would have lived during Jesus time. Where are all the stories Josephus would have heard repeated over and again from the amazing events of Jesus life?
This text has been shown to host many interpolations. It is the only (significant(?)) passing comment from a vast array of historical data from the era, and that's the best we can get – even if it were original!?
Well then you are left with no contemporary accounts of anything of importance that happened in Palestien during the first quarter-century of the Common Era.
If you de-construct the Gospels and you de-construct Josephus and you presumably also de-construct the surviving Rabbinical writings what other sources (even potentially falwed sources) are left?
Do you know anything about Paelstine from this era, other than about the Herods (but not much because this mostly comes form Josephus) and a few snippets about Pilate from Roman records? Archaeology does not help much either.
In the historical barrens that remain after your intellectual house-cleaning where could smoke possibly arise?
cb25,
For me this debate is a very old one. During my student days my friends and I made annual Christmas pilgrimages to the Northeast to do winter climbing. Although the mountains in the Northeast are not a high as those in the Northwest where I now reside, nevertheless the weather and terrain can be very dangerous.
Trekking up and down mountains gives you lots of time to think. My best climbing buddy and I debated many philosophical topics including this one (we were good buddies and did not get angry). He took a similar stance to you relative to the Supernatural, the Historical Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible. I took a similar stance to myself 8-).
On one pigrimage he and another friend (who later married my sister) were caught in a white-out on top of Mt Marcy and could not find the trail down (I was on a different mountain that day). On the wrong side Mt Marcy plunges steeply into a deep gorge. Had they gone off that side they would not have been seen again before spring at the earliest. Eventually they both made it back to our camp late at night, but not without considerable concern to the rest of us – we were already discussing a search party for the morning.
I have heard both their stories of what happened. In relating his version my skeptic friend said that he was cursing while my future brother-in-law was praying. Given that they both escaped to climb again, he argued this as evidence that prayer (and by extension God) is irrelevant. I argued this as evidence that God is merciful.
Of course neither of us could prove our case, but it was an interesting argument nevertheless. I have another close life-long friend who engages in this very same argument with me periodically (while our wives talk about more pleasant matters). You and I can look at the same evidence. You can choose not to see God in the same places where I am pleasantly surprised to discover Him. We may not always find what we look for, but we seldom discover what we are NOT looking for 8-).
I could tell you many more such stories throughout my life but I think I have made my point.
Jim,
In my journey away from "faith" to "reality" – all natures wonder, beauty and scope of it – the last area of "belief" I had was Jesus. To me that was incontrovertible; sacred.
When I went looking to confirm my "faith"/"belief", I most definately found what I was NOT looking for! Believe me, I had grown up with all the wonderfull evidence for Jesus that any other good SDA does.
I honestly have to say, none of it was there. Sure, there are ways of "explaining" it this way and that, but when one is gut level honest, I don't think they wash.
I never chose not to see God. Every search I made was with either the assumption he was there or that the evidence was sound. I understand the saying about not finding what you are not looking for. In fact my kids know me well for the saying: "the hardest thing to find is what you are not looking for". Unfortunately for me…each search ended in me finding what I was neither looking for nor expecting.
I just follow the evidence…
Where did you look for Jesus? What sources could you admit might reveal Him to you? As you followed the evidence did you de-construct or even erase all of it? Did you find anything else of note from that particular place and time? If so where did you find it?
Did you find any alternative explanation for why His self-proclaimed followers changed their world?
cb25,
Islam was implemented by the sword, Christianity wasn't.
See the difference??
You may like to explain why that difference has any relevance to the question being discussed.
Also, whilst the "innitiation" of Christianity may have been "sword free", it did not stay that way…
Chris, it makes sense that Jesus'es story would be scribed by the inner circle of those influenced by His passion, His rebellion against the temple, white bones bolstered by ego, wealth and power. The impact of His messages of hope for the poor downtrodden masses. And some who swear they witnessed the crucifixion, and also beheld Him alive afterwards. Their was dynamic power as evidenced by the messengersof the Gospel which drove them through treacherous life threatening situations, and even to death and dungeons, for their faith. And of all the thousands that were considered malefactors and enemies of state were put in the dungeons, caves, crucifixions, fed to the animals in the arenas,burned at the stake, Nero's Heros. How many of those heroic victims were mentioned by reporters in the local press, or wound up in the annals for posterity?? And yet that Jesus Story mushroomed into a worldwide hope for billions. Would that not qualify as a supernatural happening?? For "what ever good thing ever came out of Nazareth"???? Jesus Christ the ALMIGHTY, thats what. The Hope of the Christian World.
Correction: NEITHER
Mitt Romney (the candidate supported by the religious right) nor President Obama (supported by the religious and non-religious left) would give a definitive answer to questions about their beliefs regarding creation and evolution.
True, Ella, it does not make them non-believers, but it does point to the discomfort (particularly from a candidate whose base includes fundamentalist believers) of publicly stating a belief in creation. It just doesn't pay.
The major point I wish to explore is to what extent this discomfort with being identified as a believer interferes with or negatively influences an individual's consideration of belief itself.
Part of every person's struggle while considering their decision during an "appeal" is what affect a decision to follow Christ will have on their personal, social, and professional lives. For professionals, I believe the social stigma associated with being viewed as a "believer" is significant.
The pressure to mirror the conventional wisdom doesn't always come from employers. It comes from peers, mentors, thought-leaders, and others.
I would not claim that Mitt Romney's support base was Christian Fundamentalists. He was a candidate they embraced lukewarmly at best. And that only after their fellow "true believers" fell on their own or each otehr's swords to clear the path for Mitt.
I don't think that makes them nonbelievers. We live in a world that is drawing farther away from literal biblical history. Some of that is good and some is not. Whether we approve or not, I believe it is possible to have a relationship with God and not take the Bible literally.
It is good that we don't take literally an everburning hell or ghosts or Lazarus talking after he died. Where to draw the line between verbal inspiration and culture is a dilemma for Adventists that they haven't been able to resolve. It takes more common sense and less tradition. It takes knowing God as love; that is why I do not believe in evolutionary creation
Of course, I don't agree with O'Reilly about what Christ said. Jesus' words were necessary to show a forgiving God. I understand the book is not about religion at all but about the secular/financial/political reasons the Jews sold out Jesus to the Romans. It does not address the author's personal faith as he has stated. Yet O'Reilly witnesses as an honest, compassionate person helping others with his own wealth. The president is also compassionate. I would call both Christian believers, as was Romney. We should not expect all Christians to believe as we do but wait for that time when the sheep and goats separate.
Granted, a lot of those who claim faith don't have it. Most want to be as far away as possble from gay-haters and other crazy ideas held by so-called fundamentalists. Creationism has fallen into the same category reinforced by evangelical atheists. As a personal belief, creation need not be part of a political campaign. The rigid Muslim faith hasn't helped religion either, although liberals are more tolerant of them than they are of Christians.
I admire Dr. Carson for his bold stand and common sense, but his (unwise) remark on homosexuality was political suicide. For his other Adventist beliefs, he would suffer as well (we didn't hear about Romney's special Mormon beliefs). I pray BC will become a voice for good.
When you look at BC from a poltical perspective it is not clear whetehr he has any common sense at all. If anyone is giving him political advice either he is not taking their advice or he is getting very bad advice.
Preston,
You are sweeping with a very broad brush. Just because there are millions of Christians–people of faith–who do not accept a literal 6-day Creation or literal Resurrection, you easily dismiss them as denying their faith. Do you not remember the football player, Tebow, who bowed in prayer so often? Of the many public figures intoning God in their public speech? Jesus had something to say about people who boasted of their faith in public.
Who has been made uncomfortable by expressing his faith? Of course, there are "entertainers" such as those you mention who make millions by making fun of many things. Anyone relying on either Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly for religious impressions is looking in the wrong places. How many faculty universities have denied hiring or tenure to teachers who were well-qualified and only revealed their faith?
Who were the aspiring intellectuals who have been ridiculed by serious commentators? Many comedians ridicule religion because they know it brings laughs and money. But, you must admit, also, that religion brings big money for many religious leaders: It's a free market for either.
Do you seriously believe there is a conspiracy or open season on people in the public who express their beliefs? Names, please.
Preston,
Some years ago, when applying for a job, I asked a Pastor whom I had worked under in another area for a reference. He was happy to help.
Unfortunately, it included words like "Christian" and "faith" if I recall.
I never used it.
Even back then I felt that such terms had negative currency.
Just weeks ago, I had a sickening reminder of the what you speak about. My wife teaches piano, and has many professional families from the area among her students. One is an eye Doctor and once a year he runs a fundraiser for an overseas sight restoration program he founded. It is hosted by Rotary, and by invitation only.
We were invited. Our table was the big end of town. As the meal began, I engaged in conversation with the man on my right. After asking me how long I hade been in the area, his next question was, "What brought you here?" For those who know my story, you will know the answer is "Ministry". I was not quick enough to come up with anything but the truth.
That was the best conversation killer ever. I literally sat there feeling like I had instantly become invisible. They sat and consumed the "free" alcohol, and talked success; and I no longer existed!
So, yes, though I no longer consider "faith" in the biblical sense of any value, for those who do, there are at least some, I suspect many, places where it has a very negative value.
Elaine,
"Just because there are millions of Christians–people of faith–who do not accept a literal 6-day Creation or literal Resurrection, you easily dismiss them as denying their faith."
I am not talking about the faith of the people (who don't believe in the literal 6-day creation or the literal resurrection). I am talking about the social and professional price paid by those who profess literal belief.
Do you doubt that this dynamic exists?
Do you doubt that a creationist biologist would have greater difficulty getting tenure at a leading private or state university than one who adopts evolution theory? Do you doubt that an agnostic ancient historian has a lower credibility hurdle to jump than a Bible-believing one?
This is not about victimazation. It is about discomfort. Although, in the end, the believer and the skeptic may arrive at the same place, most would admit that, for the sake of comfort and ease of all, a pragmatist would advise the believer to mute their unprovable beliefs until they pass "Go."
My question is, how much does the social discomfort associated with primitive faith (in Christ) influence those in the professional class? How much of an obstacle is it to their consideration of the possibility of a biblically defined supernatural Christ?
Don't know if you have ever taught at university level, but I seriously doubt that you understand the integrity of teachers. They are totally unethical if they attempt to influence students to their personal beliefs. That WOULD qualify for possible dismissal. There are many teachers who can teach history and biology, etc., in a professional manner and NEVER should personal religious or other such beliefs be introduced into the classroom.
I have a very good friend, close to a blood relative who teaches in a Muslim school and has no problem in the academic subjects. She respects their religious beliefs and it is never a subject for discussion in the classroom. You seem not to understand professional responsibilities. A medical worker, for instance, treats all patients equally, regardless. My daughter, a nurse practitioner, worked many years in the county jail and every patient, regardless of how terrible his crime, was treated exactly the same as if he were the president. This is the duty of professionals: teachers, medical workers, attorneys, etc.
I'm not sure where you taught or received your degrees, but you seem to have rather strange ideas about academia that is rather odd, to say the least.
Elaine,
My academic and professional bonafides are listed in my bio. I have seen enough of the academic, corporate, and political worlds to have an informed opinion — which is what I have offered here.
You continue to miss the point. The point is not that religious people cannot work effectively and objectively in any given profession. They can and do. The point I am pressing is that believers who publicly express their beliefs are outside of the mores of professional life, where belief in ideas like biblical creation and literal resurrection raise eyebrows and discomfort. Still, my focus is not on the employer, but on the believer (or one who is contemplating belief). To what extent do the expectations and norms of the professional class influence their decision to believe — or not? Peer pressure may be amorphous, but, really, does anyone doubt its power? It doesn't stop in after our teenage years — it increases.
Preston,
I see what you are trying to say, and I think you are right in many cases. The fact is if someone has a different belief system than their colleagues, they are better not to talk of it in spite of our church's direction to "witness" on the job. Evangelical Christians have had a difficult time doing so; and we frequently here of it. It is a reason that many Adventists seek employment in the church where it is more comfortable. I have not had many good experiences talking religion (even though it was my big interest) to unbelievers and avoid the subject unless someone else brings it up. We are more likely to meet argument than interest.
I am very sure you would not get a science teaching job in a secular university as a creationist.
By the way, Elaine, medical workers do not always treat patients alike. I would say that is naivete. Peer pressure and subjectivity is not limited to religion.
All of your statements are general and without evidence that you are willing to supply. It's like saying:
"All the people in the public eye refuse to be specific about their beliefs; ergo, they have none or are hypocritical.
Whether one has a faith and belief system that is very personal to him, the idea that he must answer very specific questions and details is no business of anyone. If it is insufficient for him to say his faith sustains him and is personal, why the need to answer about a literal creation? How would either a negative or positive answer affect voters or his associates? Why not ask him when he stopped beating his wife?
Preston,
Well I guess I must have been fortunate to choose Engineering as a profession. In my career I have had a few associates who resented my Christian faith, and in one or two cases openly ridiculed me. But almost all of them have treated my beliefs or "scruples" (diet, Sabbath, etc) with dignity and respect. I have worked with a few who were themselves Christians of every stripe from Roman Catholic to Jehovah's Witnesses, to Latter-Day Saints, to Evangelicals, and even two ex-SDAs. I have also worked with many Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and even one Baha'i. Not to mention a whole lot of Atheists and Agnostics.
In Engineering you are judged by the results you accomplish – does it work the way it is supposed to? Everything else is secondary. Being a cultural and religious melting pot, my chosen profession has made for many interesting conversations and friendships with a huge variety of people from all over the world.
Yes, Jim, in some (many) professions output is vital: engineering, sports, surgery, are prime examples. But even in those professions, there comes a time when subjectivity becomes dominant (usually when one is converting to "management," particularly when entering the executive rank). In order to "fit in" one has to mirror the dominant culture. It is entirely possible to do so without sacrificing your beliefs. My question has to do with the internal processes of the believer. How does consciousness of the expectations of the professional culture affect one's consideration of primitive faith (i.e., in creation, immaculate conception, and resurrection)?
Many believe that Tim Tebow (the ertswhile quarterback of the Denver Broncos and, later, the Jets) forfeited significant endorsement money because of his very public faith. Does that not (likely) influence how the other upcoming athletes consider the effects of embracing their faith?
Preston,
See my comments below re being a Christian in higher-level management. Twice in my career there was one person between me and the CEO of a multi-billion $ corporation. I have not personally occupied an office on Executive Row (except in my own business) but I have spent quality time in said offices and their adjoining conference rooms. A few Christians do make it all the way to the "top". One or two levels below the "top" you might be surprised how many Christians are actually in play, certainly a minority, but definitely present.
May I point-out to you that in the Bible Joseph (the first Jewish central banker) and Daniel were not #1, but they reported to #1. The principle of servant-leadership is actually helpful on Executive Row when everyone else is jostling to be #1. You need a big ego to occupy an office on Executive Row but to get along there you need to learn how to keep your ego under control. Joseph learned that lesson as a slave, Moses as a fugitive, Daniel as a POW.
Tebow probably forfeited a lot more endorsement money because he does not have the right throwing mechanics to be an NFL quarterback. Too erratic.
Many Christians have made it big in the world of enertainment (sports, music, etc). In fiercely competitive endeavors output tends to trump the other considerations. Flaunting your personal lifestyle (bling-bling, tattoos, prayers on the field, etc) tends to detract from any performance. You may attract or deter some endorsement deals but there will be plenty of others waiting.
Tiger Woods made an enormous amount on endorsements with his "clean guy" image. He would make more if he can recover his stroke even with his tarnished image. So would Tebow if he can learn to pass more consistently.
Jim,
You represent a profession. And with that comes certain responsibilities to conduct work in a professional manner. Personal situations: home, church, faith, etc., should never interfere with nor influence ones abilities or capabilities. Only if one is applying for a church position may it be allowed to ask about one's personal beliefs. But it should definitely be "off bounds" for all other vocations. In fact, it gets close to being illegal.
Personal beliefs are not criteria for hiring and evaluation, etc.
Personal situations and practices DO affect job performance. As a manager I always tried to understand as much as possible about the people around me (above, below, beside). Their beliefs and interests, their family situations, their health and that of their children, etc. I have been in some of their homes and some of them have been in mine.
I have been fired twice and reassigned once for not working Friday evenings.
When you travel extensively you end-up living closely with those who are traveling with you. It does not take long to learn a lot about them. My choices in food and entertainment become pretty obvious to anyone who travels with me. You don't have to sit in a bar very long sipping bad fruit juice or "virgin" drinks before people start asking why you don't "drink". Being entertained at a top sushi restaurant by Japanese clients is very awkward when you have to keep asking what is in everything that comes to the table. Ditto for the time my wife and I were taken to a "real" Dim Sung by a Chinese client and his wife. Talk about Peter's sheet – we nearly starved. Try following typical SDA dietary principles in Eastern Europe. Explain your worship choices to Hindu or Muslim cab drivers who are searching for that obscure SDA church they have never heard of. Why do I worship on Saturday if I am not a Jew? Do I believe in the Pope? Or Christmas? Explain to your team in India or Malaysia that on Friday your meetings will end at 5 pm promptly when you are well-known for working late into the evening any other weekday. Or respectfully declining to go sight-seeing with your project manager in South Africa because you are spending time with new friends you met that morning at church.
Twice I discovered the person I had hired was an ex-SDA. Both time I was "outed" the first time we traveled together. One of these I later had to terminate (awkward). It can be challenging to realize that you may well be the only Christian (or the last SDA) the people around you will ever know well.
On the other hand two of the best bosses I ever had were Christians (I didn't know nor did they when they hired me). I wish I could say all Christians worked well together but that is not always so. I have encountered at least one Christian who lost his job because he had a difficult time dealing with the people around him – not always easy in any case.
Preston,
The foundational issues here are relevance and power.
Does faith make a person relevant to the world around them? You are quite correct in your observation about faith making a person less popular, less acceptable in the professional world. But I would qualify that statement to say the common forms of faith we see practiced today make a person less popular or acceptable. Is it faith itself making them that way, or the ways they practice their faith? I say it is the latter because of the number of people I've seen who seemed determined to do whatever they could to make others see their display of faith and by their actions made faith in God about as attractive as leprosy. In contrast, I know a number of highly successful individuals who are respected by their professional colleagues and who have a deep faith in God. They have learned to make their faith effective instead of offensive. They are perceptive of the pains in others and apply faith bandages to heal those injuries. They minister God's love in positive, life-changing ways.
Divine empowerment is the most convincing difference of all. People take notice when God's power is seen doing things through people that are not possible for humans to do by themselves. People are attracted to power and when they see that power is beneficial to them, they align themselves with it. They swear allegiance to it. Perhaps the most obvious demonstration of this is politics. It explains why people support particular candidates and why they endorse the policies of those leaders after they take office. God's power is vastly greater than any human power. God has promised to empower those who love Him and minister to others in the ways He has directed. Imagine what would happen if His followers started cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out demons as He told us to do.
No, doing that won't erase professional prejudice. We aren't called to cure such prejudice. We are called to overcome it with God's amazing, love-packed power that is so great it exposes the true nature of prejudice and draws people both out of it and away from it.
Noel,
Well-stated.
William,
This, for me, is the benediction of the matter.
Inspired.
Thanks. God bless.
William,
You ask: "Is it faith itself making them that way, or the ways they practice their faith? I say it is the latter because of the number of people I've seen who seemed determined to do whatever they could to make others see their display of faith and by their actions made faith in God about as attractive as leprosy." bold added.
Then you say: "Divine empowerment is the most convincing difference of all. People take notice when God's power is seen doing things through people that are not possible for humans to do by themselves." bold added.
Are not the people you condemned in your opening statement doing exactly what you praised in your closing paragraph?!
The people you praise in your opening paragraph for having "… learned to make their faith effective instead of offensive. " are the ones who have observed the negative currency of publicly expressed faith and changed their mode of operating. Nobody need know or care what motivates them to "give the cup of cold water", but care has currency. Faith is actually a worthless factor in many cases. It's the caring for others that affects for the better those around us. There are those who know not faith who care. Jesus called them sheep!
Preston, if that's the benediction, did you ever seriously want your questions discussed?
cb25,
Please allow me to clarify.
There are those in whom the "old man of sin" has not died and remains in control. They embrace a concept of how they should behave because that is what someone teaches them. Because they are neither guided or empowered by the Holy Spirit they do things that are at variance with the loving character of Jesus. Some become utterly neutral while, at the other extreme we find those who adopt behaviors that attempt to display how much they want others to believe they have been changed by God. They parade it wherever they can because they imagine others will be attracted by it. Neither is effective for God. The problem with the latter group is how often they are offensive. This brings disrepute on the character of God and heaps scorn on others who practice spiritual principles. Those were who I had in mind when describing the first group.
You wrote: Nobody need know or care what motivates them to "give the cup of cold water", but care has currency. Faith is actually a worthless factor in many cases. It's the caring for others that affects for the better those around us.
The person receiving the "cup of cold water" intuitively senses the motivation of the giver and knows there is something different in the person who is motivated by God's love. It is sensed in their smile, the kindness of their words, the gentleness of their touch, the meeting of their eyes with a caring gaze. It is seen in the scale of what is done to improve their life. Consider the paralytic Jesus healed by the pool at Bethesda. Jesus didn't give the man a new cane, He restored the man's mobility and vitality.
The difference is sensed in the inquiry about other needs a person has not spoken, yet the Holy Spirit has put the question in the mind of the believer. (I have had this happen many times.) In that moment the recipient knows they have encountered a power they have not touched before. Their curiosity is arounsed. They watch to see what else you do. They begin asking questions about the source of your motivation. This is when you see the ultimate miracle where God grows belief in their heart and they become a believer who, in-turn, become conduits through which the love of God flows to others.
cb25,
Please don't let my enthusiasm for William's input deter further discussion. For me, the end MAY be clear, but it is the journey that instructs. I love what's going on here!
It seems that some are mistaking "faith" for substituting their particular, perhaps peculiar practices for "faith."
Faith is not found in riuals, practices, or observance to certain restrictions that may be usual in one's particular religious denomination. Faith is more correctly identified as hope based on one's acceptance of certain statements of doctrines or their interpretation of sacred scriptures. Some folks are quite proud of their strict attention to the details of their religion, and Christ also had something to say about this.
To confuse faith with such details of refusing certain foods, watching the clock on two days a week so that the exact minutes of one's observance of a day gives the impression that these particular practices are the all-important marks of one's religious belief.
That is giving most shallow representations of one's religion and while others may respect the careful delineation of minor details, it is far from the picture presented in the NT. Christ said it was what comes from one's mouth, not what goes in, that is the most important. He was also accused of improper observance of Sabbath.
If this is what Adventism has meant to some, and what people are seeing in Adventism demonstrated by Adventists, why shouldn't those same people see that such a religion is obsessed with the minors and when and where were the majors ever revealed?
Well Elaine, I can see what you thought of some of my experiences, but I think you ignored some of the others I described.
You obviously do not approve of the practical boundaries that I chose to draw around my religious beliefs and that is your prerogative. But on the other hand if one does not draw boundaries in practice then what difference does your belief make in your life? I might explain why I chose to draw the boundaries as I did but that probably does not matter to you.
I am wondering what boundaries you might have drawn were you in my circumstances? Should I have eaten or drunk whatever was set before me with no questions asked? Should I have worked night and day on weekends as I did during the week? Should I not have taken some respite from my labors by seeking-out my fellow-believers? Had I not wound-down a meeting at 5, would it have continued until 6 with a stream of people waitng to deal with me afterwards?
I have found that most people will respect you if they understand that you have consistent boundaries, as long as you are committed to the success of the common endeavor and especially if you show genuine care and concern for those around you. More than once, managers and colleagues who were initally dismayed when I left on Friday afternoon were pleasantly surprised and even amazed when I showed-up Saturday evening with my mind refreshed and was able to quickly and effectively solve vexing problems. One manager was annoyed when this happened and insisted on re-assigning me. About a year later he left for another job after not getting a promotion he thought he deserved. The rumor in the office (which I heard later) was that he missed his promotion because he didn't know how to manage me, and the people above him regarded me as one of their most valuable employees.
My own experience testifies to me (and in some cases to those around me) that God knew what was best for us when He told us to rest from our normal endeavors for a full night and a day each week, not to consume alcohol and to consume water in preference to coffee (if you believe EGW), not to eat un-healtful foods, avoid animal fat, spend quality time in prayer when faced with seemingly insurmountable problems, etc. Your experience may well be different but I can and will speak for mine.
On the other hand I like to think I would not kneel and pray in the end zone, nor would I spike the ball or dunk it over the goal post or leap into the stands. I prefer to think that the best witness would be to calmly hand or toss the ball to the nearest ref. Compare Barry Sanders and Tim Tebow.
Jim,
When I want to know what I'm thinking next, I think I'll ask you first. 🙂
Sanders vs. Tebow.
Great stuff!
Jim,
I have been in many social occasions where liquor flowed, dancing, meat (I'm a vegetarian) etc. Many years ago I lost my job as the only breadwinner (husband was in med. school) and was out of work for a month. Each person must follow his own conscience, but I made no comment about the food or drink and only because of Friday sundown coming early did I refuse to work. That was in San Bernardino, but interestingly, had I been employed by the Loma Linda Hospital, there would have been no problem as work must go on 24/7–another SDA idiosyncracy–certain jobs are "kosher" on Sabbath hours. It seems that the officials can decide "approved" Sabbath work, but individuals may not.
If someone asks why I'm not drinking, I simply say "I don't like it," which is very true–can't stand alcohol in any form. A simple explanation has never been interrogated further, and I've never had a problem at all because I never mention "religious beliefs" as they are MY personal beliefs and bringing in religion gives a very restrictive idea about religion which does nothing to make it more than more like Orthodox Judaism.
You ask what you should have done? If you are unsure, which I doubt, why ask someone if uncertain?
I generally offer the health answers first. But when someone asks whether my dietary choices are based on religion I say yes – and then proceed to explain that healthy living is one of the teachings of my faith. The Sabbath i keep because i believe it is what God has asked me to do – I offer no further explanation because at the next level it gets rather complicated.
Regarding alcohol, if I do not think the person will be offended I tell them that one ounce of alcohol destroys approximately the same number of neurons that a healthy adult loses in one day anyway. In my profession I need as many neurons as possible. I figure that each ounce of alcohol is taking away one useful day from the effective working life of my brain.
FYI – I am not a strict vegetarian, especially when traveling. Sometimes the meat on the menu is the better (or only) choice. But I do try to respect the Levitical code.
I remember eating at a restaurant in Switzerland with my clients. One of them remarked that he was thinking about ordering a certain gourmet delicacy that might not be available much longer because of the (then current) scare over mad cow disese. To which I replied, so you want to order this now because it might be your last chance to get infected? Which brought a hearty laugh from everyone at the table.
Elaine,
Though you are a critic of the church, you often express insights from which we would benefit if we paid heed. You are on-point about those whose faith is shallow. It is they who so often adopt practices that make a mockery of the faith God wants us to have and who bring disrepute on believers.
William and Elaine,
I am very reluctant to criticize someone else's faith given the number of times I fail to do the right things.
I am weak and foolish and headstrong – so I have to allow for those same possibilities in those around me.
I am not criticizing anyone's faith but the confusion between faith and scruples. They are not the same and shouldn't be confused.
For Christians, their faith should be Christ's saving grace, not in certain practices or rituals, no matter how benficial they may be, it is not religious faith to believe in vegetarianism as that demeans Christ and appears to be a small god who is overly concerned with picayune things. My God is much larger than that. Shouldn't yours be?
Jim,
You were right to setting boundaries. Regardless of religion, we need to have healthy habits. It is not so unusual to be vegetarian now or not drink. Even actress, J-Lo, doesn't drink along with some other well-known celebrities. It is easier for me to say I am vegetarian than do a food analysis. Many years ago it wasn't that acceptable to be a vegie.
A recent experience with Sabbath: A Christian writing group I am part of planned a workshop over a week-end, and I declined to go, giving my reason. When my writing evaluations came back, all of them were good except the one by the well-known Christian writer leading out. Through his evaluation he repeated over and over it was because I was not there, and he couldn't talk to me. I will be working with this man in the future, and I am a bit hesitant in knowing how to respond to him.
Ella,
Pray! Try to show the person who resents your absence that you value them and their input. Ask him if would be willing to talk to you now. Perhaps he will come to understand that you meant him and the other presenters no disrespect, only that your loyalty to God takes precedence.
Or perhaps not – Remember that I have been fired twice for not working on Friday evenings. For some this choice is madness but for me it is a part of who I am. Jesus said that man's life (and I think He would include women) does not consist of the abundance of his possessions. He promised us Peace, not Possessions.
Preston, having my 35 year career with one company granted me freedom from many of the problems encountered by those of multiple employers. i started at the lowest position, and retired as a company vp & gm. They aided me when recalled to mil.service/Korea. They aided me in educational pursuits. When i became SDA, i was in charge of my own program. The culture of this co. was revealed to me by the CEO at my hiring, the "golden rule" would be the guiding principle for all employees. So i was privileged to strike gold at the first. Over the years it was necessary for me to hire & release employees. In the interviewing process you learn a lot about people. Especially how many were unprepared for the interview.How many applied without the advertized qualifications. How many knew nothing at all about my company. How many had as many as 3-4 employers in the past 2 years. How many were cocky, brassy, know it all type personalities. Needless to say the interviews with all of the above lasted no more than 5 minutes. The head hunters sending applicants, even being coached, still sent these types hoping one would be chosen. i recall one applicant 37 yrs old with two PHD's, onein Philosophy, one in Anthropology, with 3 jobs the previous two years, and unemployed the previous three months, applying for a job selling mechanical equipment. It was so obvious to me that most people make their own problemsbecause they don't give study to a job opening by investigating it, by learning all you can about it, its products or services, and essential to discover its culture, to deternmine if its a good fit for them, to determine if they want the interview.
Secondly, never give others answers to personal questions you don't wish to answer. Smile and say "why do you drink" or "carouse" etal. If the person is an idiot, say "bug off", or find another table. Let no one harrass you. You can do it with tact, and intelligence. As they say, "give the dog a good name" per: Dale Carnegie.
Stephen,
I heard a good example of your premise about problems in one's profession if they don't agree with stated assumptions. I am currently visiting in Loma Linda and went to a religion and science class. They were studying a book entitled something like Darwins Doubts by Stephen Meyer.
The teacher, a Dr. Giem, presented a paper on molecular genetics research. Written by a credible scientist with no agenda,it was peer reviewed and accepted by Smithsonian magazine. But the writer made the mistake of adding a sentence that alluded to outside help. They read it as ID.
The magazine was deluged by angry atheists and evolutionists. The writer was fired and attacked by his science colleagues. They spread rumors about him even saying that he held no degrees when he had two of them in the field.
One can only assume that such vitriol must mean they do not want to believe in a God, and certainly not be questioned about the possibility. How it can be science when scholars are not allowed to consider all altelrnatives, I don't know.
CORRECTION:
Preston: The above was meant for you.
RE: Ella M – "The writer was fired and attacked by his science colleagues. They spread rumors about him even saying that he held no degrees when he had two of them in the field."
——
All creation scientists face the same harsh ad hominem from the evolution believing scientists. They did the same to Dr Robert Gentry who wanted to pursue a doctorate on the age of the earth but was refused this choice at a secular university. His remarkable scientific studies and findings regarding polonium halos point to a much younger earth than evolutionists would have us believe. His work was published in a number of peer reviewed science journals and papers. His work was mostly met with personal attacks from evolutionists and everything else said to discredit him except anything that was reasonably substantial that would (or could) challenge his findings. His findings still stand without anyone being able to falsify or prove him wrong. This is shocking and an embarrassment to scientists who cling to the crutches of evolution as they should at least come clean and see his findings for what they are: highly credible. It seems that fundamentalist evolution faith has opted for deception to guide them ever since Darwin's Great Disappointment (the gross lack of any real transitional fossils to prove any real evolution ever really took place). They have a faith that has no scientific basis. A disappointment indeed.
At least the Christian faith has a Saviour who not only created everything but also gave everything to redeem mankind (and creation as a whole) from the curse of sin when he shed his precious blood on the Cross of Calvary. There's on old hymn that says, 'my faith looks up to thee, O Lamb of Calvary, Saviour Divine' which to me is a tangible faith not because I can reach out and touch him but more especially because he touches me. A changed life and a changed heart – Now that's real: By faith of course!
Oh…22,
That's the loudest dog whistle I've seen on AT for a while!!
I cannot discuss the Po halos here, as you well know. I actually have the basis for a blog on them half written, but have yet to complete it.
I actually have an outstanding invitation to a guy who drops in here every so often to write up on them and we can engage in lengthy discussion.
In the meantime. Let me spell out to you once again. Polonium halos have been absolutely refuted by anyone willing to look at the evidence. The only people for whom the issue is not settled are those with an axe the size of Texas to grind.
Note. My refusal to enter into further discussion here is not taking the high ground, not avoiding an issue, not because I could not spell out precise data, but because it is the wrong place. I am speaking this because you made bold statements that do not macth the facts.
People like Gentry have no right to expect positions such as you describe. I am happy to call myself a fringe dweller of Adventism, but would I go ask for my pastoral job back? No. I don't "do" Adventism the way such a job would require. Why should a scientist expect a job if he does not "do" science as the definition of science identifies it to be?
The only relevance to your comment re the blog topic is that it does go straight to the heart of issues of integrity and ethics issues in the workplace.
25,
This line has had its days: "anyone willing to look at the evidence." There is no evidence sir – only an alternative faith worldview in which the story always starts out as "millions of years ago." There are no transitional fossils. The main reason why educated people are more prone to fall for the evolution tale is because the higher their secular education level, the higher the indoctrination. It takes a lot of 'blind' faith to subscribe to such a belief. The Bible is still far more reliable to me than – (as Ellen White would call them) 'infidel' scientists.
22oct1844,
Your comment seems to conflate the concepts of evidence and proof which is a very common error. Please do not equate absence of proof with absence of evidence. There is experimental and/or anecdotal evidence for a lot of things that either cannot be proven or have not been proven.
Proof? I didn't even mention the word. You did. The fact remains that there are no transitional fossils – period! Evidence, proof – whatever!
S-dA's – as a Church, are an 'ekklesia' or gathering of believers – a calling out of believers if you please. In this context we can hardly be called a cult or sect as we have a clear biblical basis for our faith (at least in terms of the vast majority who accept our fundamental beliefs) and the most credible church with doctrines on par with what the Bible teaches. No other church comes close in this regard especially concerning the doctrine of Salvation and Righteousness by Faith, the state of the dead, the Sabbath, the Sanctuary and the Second Coming among the others. A remnant of the Apostolic Church indeed. Ellen White's role in this remnant church is quite significant as it is a result of the biblical fulfilment of prophecy. Here is the crux of the matter. Those who buy into the worldviews and assumptions of a particular field of study, especially those courses steeped in the evolution faith, together with the social and political correctness of the day will firstly reject Ellen White and then without fail display unbelief in the Bible. Worse still is when unbelievers will rework the scriptures to fit their unbelief. They then fall back on the line that 'only highly educated people have the aptitude to discern things' even metaphysical or spritual matters concerning faith. The secular mind will always have conflict with the Christian Faith. Compromise only causes faith to diminish even further until unbelief sets in.