Hey guys, thanks for another good episode.

I don't want to assume too much about the questioner's motives in this episode, but I got the impression that the questions were not aimed at actually learning something about Christianity, but more about challenging your faith or getting you to ask yourselves these questions. Too often, I think that atheists/agnostics (with whom I identify) have already decided what those answers already are for the Christian. I know I'm guilty of this from time to time.

I must also point out that you are guilty of the same when it comes to atheists/agnostics in this very podcast. I'm referring in particular to the comment that everyone worships something. The implied question is, "What do you worship" to which you assume you know the answer is not 'nothing'.

I'm very curious as to what you mean by 'worship'. I think if you examine the definition of that word carefully, you'll find that either not everyone worships something or that your definition is so watered down, that worshiping something is not a special action, but a normal one better described by another term. A similar analysis can be applied to the assertion that we all have faith in something or that we are all looking for a god.

Here's a deal: give me a precise definition of the word 'worship' and I'll tell you what I worship using that definition. Expect clarifying questions when you give me the definition.

Scott's answer to "How can one be assured the Bible... has survived to reach modern Christians without being deluded or modified" was to point out that the Bible does not form that basis of his faith, God does. This brings up a whole slew of other questions. Why Christianity then? How do you know God, know what It wants us to behave, know how It communicates, etc? Clearly you have some faith in the Bible since (I presume) you answer these questions with the Bible.

I'm going to reserve some of my comments for an audio version. I hope to record it tonight. That might be useful for you from a podcasting standpoint.

"Hey guys, thanks for another good episode."

Thanks!!

"I got the impression that the questions were not aimed at actually learning something about Christianity, but more about challenging your faith or getting you to ask yourselves these questions."

Mmmmmm could be. Maybe he'll let us know.

"Too often, I think that atheists/agnostics (with whom I identify) have already decided what those answers already are for the Christian. I know I'm guilty of this from time to time."

I think many of us are, I know I am. We think we know so much about our "adversaries", as I've proven by your comment. That's why I like the dialog we have.

"The implied question is, "What do you worship" to which you assume you know the answer is not 'nothing'."

Well I should say that there are probably people that worship "nothing", but I'm betting most worship something.

"Here's a deal: give me a precise definition of the word 'worship' and I'll tell you what I worship using that definition. Expect clarifying questions when you give me the definition."

Well let's start here: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion. That's what Webster says and that's about what I envision.

"Why Christianity then? How do you know God, know what It wants us to behave, know how It communicates, etc? Clearly you have some faith in the Bible since (I presume) you answer these questions with the Bible."

I have faith that what the Bible says is true, but that wasn't what it sounded like the question was asking. I've looked at other religions and how they say the world works or what humankind is like doesn't ring as true to me as Christianity does. So I have faith that there is a God and what the Bible says about God and humanity strikes me as right.

"I'm going to reserve some of my comments for an audio version. I hope to record it tonight. That might be useful for you from a podcasting standpoint."

Bwahahahaha. The bug has bitten you.

"Well let's start here: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion. That's what Webster says and that's about what I envision."

With this definition, we'd have to decide what constitutes 'extravagant'. Certainly we all respect, honor, and/or show devotion to all sorts of things, family, friends, lovers, great artwork, extraordinary achievements, gods etc. But when does such attention become extravagant?

Sticking with Webster, the definition of 'extravagant' is "exceeding the limits of reason or necessity". I think most of us have had the experience of being devoted etc. to someone despite the fact that they treated us badly (think being blinded by love). That certainly exceeds the limits of reason and necessity. Thankfully, that is usually fleeting.

So under Webster's definitions, I do not currently worship anything, since (as far as I know) all my respect, honor, and devotion is constrained by reason.

Sounds like you might worship "reason" Sid.

Sounds like you might worship "reason" Sid.

Hello Leigh,

I certainly respect reason and honor those who use and value it. I guess I could say that I'm devoted to it as it is the human attribute I am most fond of. But I wouldn't say that I do any of those things extravagantly. An example of a people that honor, respect, and are devoted to reason to extravagance would be the fictional race from Star Trek called Vulcans. They definitely worshiped (using Webster's definition) reason. Unlike them I recognize the limitations of reason and value other traits, such as emotion and intuition.

I'm quite interested to hear your take on what 'worship' means.

Sure - I'll give it to the Vulcans for worshiping reason. However, theirs is a case of exaggeration for effect. I'm not sure that outside of the silver screen and some "radical" or orthodox belief systems that worship is as obvious to observers.

Webster's definition is too broad and too narrow (?) to fit my definition of what worship is.

For me, worship is more than to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion. Those are all passive. Worship is definitely active. What you worship rules how you live your life, the decisions you make, the words you speak. When you worship something that thing becomes the lens through which you see the world and thus all of your actions are influenced by it. In our present world most of our idols are normal everyday things (money, respect, family, pleasure, accumulations, freedom, rights, education, etc.). In the pursuit of one of these or more (you can worship more than one idol at a time), many people have sacrificed healthy relationships, ethics, health, and money just to name a few. Most of the time these worshipers don't look, sound, or act much different from anyone else. (Probably because most everyone is worshiping the same things more or less.)

For me, God is my lens. (Although I regrettably admit that sometimes I place my idol of financial stability and sub idol of "children's behavior" on my mantel and my outlook and attitude changes dramatically.) When I say that God is my lens I specifically mean what I know of Him based on the Bible. Just for clarification - my lens is not the list of rules found in Exodus. The Ten Commandments found there, although great to adhere to, are more than just rules (but people do worship them). They reflect the character of God. It is God and his character that I worship (most of time - I am human and therefore sinful and my sinful heart seeks to follow after other gods and I have to struggle constantly to turn again to God). It is Him that I want to emulate. Obeying the "laws" that He has instituted is part of my worship, as is prayer, and attending church. Unlike the worship of other things that can lead to unhealthy behaviors, the worship of God will lead to a reflection of His character and that is beneficial for the worshiper and those around him or her.

NOTE: Terrible things have been done in the name God. Unless He ordered the death and destruction of people and things as in the Old Testament (discussion for another time), any behavior leading to the detriment (i.e.leading others away from the truth and character of God - justice, mercy, discipline, self-control, gentleness, faithfulness, see Fruits of the Spirit) of others is not Godly. God hates all sin and so should Christians but we are called to love the sinner (not condone or excuse mind you).

Anyway,I am entering tangentdom.

Hopefully I’m not so late to this thread that everyone has moved on to newer blog posts.

I was the submitter of the 5 questions for the podcast. And Sid, you are correct. I’m a post-Christianity survivor, one already well-versed in the details and “language”. My goal was to provoke discussion and debate, and yes, perhaps even to help illuminate things I’ve discovered to be fundamental flaws of this religion.

I’ve mentioned to Scott that I feel like a “reverse-evangelical”, to help show people the light: that religion is mythology, with principles to teach, not literal facts or a basis for dogma.

To be clear, Scott (and by extension Leigh) is a good friend of mine and I do not mean to be disrespectful or condescending in my discussion.

My comments/new questions on the podcast replies:

1. “Certainty” - It seems as difficult for active, believing Christians to describe this as it was for me as a doubtful churchgoer. That is comforting to know, in a sense. You both expressed that you have momentary doubts ABOUT God’s involvement, but never doubts about God’s existence. Leigh, you mentioned that facts don’t matter much. My concern is that facts very much do likely matter in every other part of your life. An example might be that much like your heavenly authority, earthly authority such as our government makes decision that you disagree with, question and investigate. Especially as elections draw near. Even if someone doesn’t agree with your political opinion, they can see your point of view and follow how you rationally form your opinions. It is only in this matter of faith that both of you are essentially saying “I just know” or “I can’t back this up with any logical facts”. My question was “how CAN one be certain”, not “how certain are you?” I know (and respect!) both of your devotion, and don’t question how deep it goes. I guess this murky difference can be summed up by asking “How does a rational person living in a physically-verifiable world begin down this path?”

2. “One Core Thing” - You both mentioned faith not being defined by an incident, but a gradual/constant verification process. What role do you think a person’s focus plays in that? For example, if you miss an accident because you went back home to get your cell phone, do you always believe that to be divine intervention? How much room is there for coincidence? One other tangent here. If you were raised in/only had access to Hindu or Buddhist culture, would your tendency towards finding spiritual fulfillment lead you to believe those religions are true? Here’s one I know is thrown around a lot… what about others who live a full life and never get exposed to Christianity?

3. “Bible as Basis” - Sid kind of touched on this above. But my concern is, if the Bible is not the foundation of your faith, what would your faith be without it? I know you both are saying that God/Christ provide you your ongoing belief in the unseen. But it is in the Bible alone that you are first made aware of the history of your religion, and God’s plan for your existence. I’m not sure how this book is not the absolute foundation for Christianity. Of course, it is built on in other ways I’m sure. Does this make sense?

4. “Adult Convert vs. Child” - Children are clearly more impressionable (a cynic would say gullible) and prone to accept what they are told. Adults typically have gone through at least a mild period of rebellion and self-definition. I think the faith of someone who’s always known that lifestyle without feeling the need to test it carries less credibility than an adult who has looked into Christianity and other beliefs before making a decision. I think that’s the pattern of any belief, religious, political, etc. I’m not saying that lifelong believers are not respectable. I’m saying, how real can their faith be if they don’t doubt it/seek proof at some point. How can you know Christianity is right without a comparison? Could it be an adult mentality based on a childhood fear of hell/belief in one’s innate destiny to fail? I know lifelong Christians that will deny they’ve been programmed… but look at cults that do attempt to program children. They use the exact same tools… fear, shame, seclusion. A reasonable adult facing religious myth for the first time is more often capable of seeing through the dogma… the “tooth fairy” part of it and grasping the “I need to have compassion and love my fellow man” ideals inside.

5. “Christianity Invalidates Other Religions” - There is confusion among some modern Christians who believe that the US is a Christian-based country. The same people that celebrate our freedom from an oppressive church in England have now set up an oppressive church here… oppressive in that Christianity informs their political beliefs and the things they demand in their environment, community, etc. Oppressive in that it excludes/denies the validity of other religions in their own attempts at living a clean life and having self-sacrificing morals of their own. I know people that scoff at non-Christian symbols on the back of a stranger’s car, yet proudly display their own symbols of faith from every side of their own vehicle. Buddhism, for example, as I’ve explored it, does not condemn any religion as long as it’s members are sincerely seeking the betterment of themselves and the compassion towards others. I suppose the “we’re right, you’re wrong” mentality wouldn’t be as much of an issue, if it was a private opinion. But even quiet, well-meaning Christians inadvertently declare their universal correctness as soon as they announce to the world their affiliation, be it a bumper sticker or whatever. In a sense, isn’t it denying the right of the non-Christian to follow their own belief some form of disrespect?

Hello Leigh,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are right about the Vulcans. I was simply using them to illustrate what worshiping reason would look like under the Webster definition.

You wrote that the definition is inadequate as you understand the term. In particular, you said it described passive behavior whereas to you, "Worship is definitely active." You go on to describe the effects that the object of worship has on people's lives and, in particular, the effect your worship of Bible-God has on yours. You even gave examples of things you believe people worship.

But you never actually defined the term 'worship'. What actions constitute worshiping? What separates those actions from simply taking steps to acquire that which one desires?

1. “Certainty” - “How does a rational person living in a physically-verifiable world begin down this path?” We put a lot of emphasis on things that are physically verifiable and rationality, perhaps too much, perhaps not. For me personally there are things that need to be verifiable and things that don't. I mean how would one go about verifying scientifically a being to which our physical "laws" don't necessarily apply? So I guess one goes down this path by realizing that not all answers lie down the path of so called reason.

2. “One Core Thing” - For me there's plenty of room for coincidence. All that means, to me, is something happening where we can't determine causality. So if I miss the accident you can call it coincidence and I can call it God's providence and we can both be right. I have no idea what I'd be like were I raised in another culture. As far as those who "live a full life" whatever that means and aren't exposed to Christianity if you're asking me if there's room for them in the Christian heaven, I'll say I don't know. My thought would be that God has a plan for those people and that's good enough for me.

3. “Bible as Basis” - Well it's certainly the foundation for Christianity in the sense that it lays the groundwork for what it means to be a Christian if that's what you meant. So I suppose without the Bible we wouldn't be Christians, we'd be something else. Point is though that we do have the Bible.

4. “Adult Convert vs. Child” - Maybe a child is more impressionable and maybe they aren't. As a father of three I have faced stronger will that I've seen in many adults I know. I do see what you're saying though and I suppose we'd need to defines our terms a bit more. If one became a believer at 15 (still a child) where does that fall. Also, I've been personally deistic most of my life in that I've always believed in a god of some sort. I even went to church as a child. I didn't practice Christianity until I was an adult. I went through a period of time where I examined other religions and I've gone through a number of periods where I have questioned Gods' existence. Does that make my faith more "real"? No. Something can be real without being tested. No one has ever used fear, shame, or seclusion on me. I'm not a Christian because I'm afraid of Hell or of God. As far as seeing through the dogma goes, I see through religiosity pretty well.

5. “Christianity Invalidates Other Religions” - I'm not sure what your points about the history of our country as to do with this point considering Christianity has been around for almost 2000 years. Is there an oppressive church culture? Sure. Is all of Christianity oppressive? No. No one is denying anyone the ability to follow there own deal. We're just telling them the consequences of that path. I can't make you change your mind about how wrong you think the church is all I can do is tell you the truth as it is and let you make up your own mind.

"We put a lot of emphasis on things that are physically verifiable and rationality, perhaps too much, perhaps not. For me personally there are things that need to be verifiable and things that don't."

--Placing full trust in things that are verifiable would pretty much invalidate relgious belief. Is there room ro degrees? Outisde of religious belief, Christians expect everything else to be verifiable like the rest of us. Removed from the Christian persepctive for a moment, can you see how odd this one exception stands out?

Holding the sun and stars accountable for the happeninings in one's life sure seems silly, huh!

"My thought would be that God has a plan for those people and that's good enough for me."

--But Christians are called to evangelize, to take water to the desert... what if a man is "lost" due to a Christian failing to follow his duty?

"...it lays the groundwork for what it means to be a Christian if that's what you meant. So I suppose without the Bible we wouldn't be Christians"

--Exactly. The Bible is the basis. The foundation of the building, but not necessarily the walls and windows. If it is anything less than infallible, however, that indicates something isn't being transmitted properly. Could a key instruction to beleivers be lost because of human error passing it down?

"Maybe a child is more impressionable and maybe they aren't."

--No, there's no room for debate here. Even strong-willed children are easily molded when compared to their adult self.

"[Regarding your adult conversion vs lifelong programming] Does that make my faith more "real"?"

--No. More relatable, understandable and respectable? I think so. What film/book storylines are most moving? A story of an always-pious monk, or a man who is redeemed after betraying the good guys all along?

"We're just telling them the consequences of that path."

--It's more of a well-documented, communal opinion, isn't it? "Our book says your lifestyle or behavior is at its core, a blight to God"? Imagine being pulled aside by someone who, with genuine concern, warns you not to take another bite of your steak (or to wear a certain color, or for your wife to wear makeup and not a veil), because it's an affront to god. It is offputting or laughable to you, isn't it? Because you know their god doesn't exist, and Christian God doesn't care if you do it, right? You don't take them seriously, even if you allow them their beliefs and their own opinion. Why point out consequences to a non-believer? It's like threatening a human with kyrptonite. Or is that the approach to evangelizing them? Wouldn't that opener scare them away?

(Sorry, I've been a bit rushed in this reply, time is short this afternoon.)

Thanks Sid.

I debate frequently with Scott but rarely with strangers. Mostly, because I can be a bit argumentative, haughty, and rude (Aspects of myself which I really dislike). So I apologize in advance for times when I cross the line.

This is the definition that most fits what I believe about worship. Today's idol worshipers probably don't really view their idols as gods - but I think when you get down to it, if someone is not worshiping God as defined below, then they are really worshiping themselves as their own god setting up their own rules about what is worthy of reverence or respect or pursuit.

Definition: Worship is the humble response of regenerate men to the self-disclosure of the Most High God. It is based upon the work of God. It is achieved through the activity of God. It is directed to God. It is expressed by the lips in praise and by the life in service. (See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=438)

Hello Leigh,

There's nothing wrong with being argumentative if you ask me. And you haven't come across as haughty or rude so it's all good. The warning and pre-apology is appreciated though. I have my own flaws as well (a tendency to over explain and to unintentionally condescend), so I apologize in advance as well, in case those habits surface.

The definition you give precludes any object of worship other than God. It has the phrase "[Worship] is directed to God" right in the definition. Thus if one doesn't worship God, one doesn't worship at all. This is in direct conflict to your statement, "if someone is not worshiping God as defined below, then they are really worshiping themselves." Under that definition, it is impossible to worship any thing else including one's self.

I tried to visit the link for some more information, but it appears that the website is having issues. I'll try to remember to revisit it to see if they've fixed it.

Try this http://www.bible.org

Thanks Sid!

I was talking with Scott about the whole spiritual aspect of worship that seems to preclude "secular worship". I have certain assumptions that guide my thinking. 1)God created people in His image (no - we don't look like God. He is spirit - but we have a spiritual component) 2)God made us to worship Him (due to Adam's fall and the introduction of sin we now still seek to worship - we just worship ourselves. We worship ourselves by fulfilling the desires of our sinful nature (i.e whatever makes us "happy" and brings us satisfaction - money, food, sex, sports, entertainment, pride in education, family, religiosity, and on and on.) Sometimes to fulfill our need to worship we raise these things to the status of idols when we put an unhealthy focus on them and "regard them with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion" or use them as the lens by which we view all else, make every decision based on that thing.

I'm sure this still doesn't really answer your question. I can't separate the spiritual and the secular because when it comes to people and the way we "work" I can't take our spiritual side out of it.

Hello Leigh,

While it doesn't answer my question it does clarify your thinking for me. From assumption two, I can definitely see how you come to the conclusion that everyone worships something even without a precise definition of 'worship'. But the assumptions make things even more complicated. This will likely take us beyond the original scope of the discussion, but I'm game if you are. :)

"1)God created people in His image (no - we don't look like God. He is spirit - but we have a spiritual component)"

Again, there is a definition problem with this assumption. I have never heard a meaningful definition for the word 'spiritual' that makes no reference to nature. Can you provide a definition for the word that doesn't depend on nature for it's meaning?

"2)God made us to worship Him (due to Adam's fall and the introduction of sin we now still seek to worship - we just worship ourselves."

This is actually a couple of assumptions. The first is the assumed reason for God creating us. The second is the assumption that The Fall myth is true. I can accept The Fall metaphorically: no human is fully capable of resisting temptation. If we define self-worship as pride, I can even accept that we all self-worship regularly. But I just don't get the first part of the assumption. Why would a perfect God desire worship. Heck, why would God desire anything. The only time one can desire anything is when one is lacking. By definition, God lacks nothing.

Furthermore, supposing a perfect God did inexplicably want worshipers, why would it create imperfect ones? It would be like a master carpenter making a great chair to sit on but purposely making one leg loose so that it will break (almost immediately if we parallel The Fall myth). What's the point? We know God didn't accidentally make us defective, It being perfect and all. It doesn't make sense.

I'd love to hear your and Scott's thoughts on this.