Questions

Elsewhere Dan was making a big deal of what he and his church do to help those in need. At the outset, let me say that this is a good thing. Then he made a comment to someone else along the lines of "Well why don't you just go ahead and fix things for them" or words to that effect. That comment brought back some things I've wondered about for a while when it comes to Dan and what he does for those in need. Now, before I go further, I need to clarify something. It sounds like Dan and his church do a lot of work with the those with mental health issues. I suspect that if this is a major part of what they do it probably colors Dan's attitudes and how he frames his involvement. My point is that much of what I might say does not apply to those in need of mental health services. I just needed to get that out up front. Back to Dan's comment. It seems as though he is suggesting that the way things are supposed to work is that it is a matter of fixing things for people. But is that really the right approach? It seems that there is a growing body of research that suggests otherwise. What I'd be interested in is exactly what Dan and his church do to help those in need. How they measure success, or failure. How many of the people they help are receiving help long term. How is the determination made to determine who needs help, and what type of help they need or get. Is there accountability. Whom makes the decisions. How often do they evaluate how things are going. What I'm trying to do is avoid the trap of allowing my preconceptions color my conclusions. I have no idea if I'll ever get a response, or if it will be detailed. I'd hope to, but who knows. But it's out here waiting.

Answers for Dan

I a long meandering and, at this point, fairly incoherent comment thread elsewhere I asked Dan some questions. Dan, shockingly, asked me some in return. At the time I was too busy to respond with anything more than "I'll answer your questions when I can.". Given the direction the thread took, I chose to answer said questions here so as to avoid causing any more confusion over there. This way, I can do what I said I'd do, as well as preempt the "You never answer my questions" whine. So here are the questions copied from the other thread. Dan; “Do you think it is provable that God exists?” Me; Yes, I believe that it is possible to prove to a reasonable person to a reasonable degree of certainty that God exists. I suspect that what I consider to be a reasonable degree of proof will not be acceptable to you, but I do believe it to be provable. Dan; “Do you think God sometimes commands (commanded) people to destroy whole nations, including children and babies?” Me; I believe that the OT records instances where God commanded people to do all sorts of things that seem, by our standards, to be strange or unreasonable. I believe (as do you) that God is God and that He can do what He chooses. Dan: “Do you think God created the world in six days, ~6,000 years ago?” Me; Let me preface this by saying that God is God and He is capable of engineering His creation any way He chooses to. With that said, after spending some time looking at this issue a while ago I came to the conclusion that I believe that it is possible that God literally created everything is six literal days, and that the text of Genesis supports this view. I also believe that it is possible that the six days were not 24 hour days, but undefined periods of time. Personally I believe the important phrase is “God created”, the rest is just details. I find it strange that Christians have no trouble affirming that god created everything from nothing, but quibble about how long it might have taken. To be blunt, I can live with either option, and don’t get too worked up about it. As to the age, I am perfectly comfortable with a God who can speak the universe into existence being able to create said universe with the appearance of age. I see no reason to believe that God’s power to create is somehow limited. Personally, it’s not a topic I get too worked up about. But thank you for presuming that you knew more about my views than I do. Dan; “Do you think originally there were only two people, a literal Adam and Eve?” Me; I see no reason to doubt the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. I also see no reason to presume that God stopped after Adam and Eve. I know it’s repetitive, but I believe the “God created” is the important part; I’ll quite comfortable to leave the details to God. Dan; “Do you admit there is no data to support any of that, and in fact, data which would contradict it?” Me; So Dan; “Do YOU think we can say, “I know as a matter of fact that God’s opinion on abortion, war and homosexuality are…”?” Me, I think that we can say that the Bible is the primary means for God to communicate what He wants to humanity. I further think that we can read what the Bible plainly says about topics such as sexuality, marriage, war, and life. From that I believe that one can reasonably conclude that God has given us some guidelines about how best to live in a way that pleases Him. I think we also see the results when people behave in ways that seem to be at odds with what pleases God. Given that it seems reasonable that one can discern God’s “opinions” on any number of topics. Of course it’s not demeaning at all to refer to God’s standards as “opinions”. Dan; “Do you think it is possible to know perfectly what God’s Ways are on some topics?” Me; I think that it is possible to know what God’s ways are on a number of topics. I think it is also possible to use the principles that inform the topics that are clearer, in order to come to reasonable conclusions on those which are less explicit. Dan; “Which topics?” Me; I’d suggest that there are a number of topics on which scripture is reasonably clear, and that there are principles that allow us to construct guidelines on others. As to a list, I see no reason to provide one, as it will just encourage you to nitpick about what is or is not on the list. OK, I did what I said, and answered your questions. I am pretty sure I can predict your response to my answers. So, while I may or may not allow you to post comments, don't expect much beyond the answers I've given. I know I probably can't prove any of this to your satisfaction, and I don't care. I also know that your recent stance that the Bible is NOT the primary source of knowledge about God will preclude any sort or rational conversation about any of this. So, if you expect anything more from me, I expect that you will make an actual argument to counter what I have said supported by the same level of proof you expect of others. If you won't, don't be surprised to see your opinions disappear.