Haha, you would want to know! If you're that curious perhaps you should ask him. But, what I'm curious about is whether there is any resemblance between you two! I didn't even know he had a brother (he's obviously returned the favor).

Thank you for your thoughtful message. I appreciate your honesty. And, I notice how you mentioned how the teachings of Jesus, not your experience of God, was what differs from the religion you've read about through your brother's writings, and the sort you could read about in the newspaper... The difference is by no means insignificant, but the implied answer is also noted.

Thank you for the recommendations! I enjoyed being able to hear from you. Thank you for your time and effort! And, I should look forward to any posts you add to the "resurrection" category.

Best Regards,

Sean Flowers

Sean, how do you know my brother, or that I even have one? (I try to keep him secret. You know, siblings. I have truly enjoyed our conversation, and welcome you back to talk about anything, anytime. I don't want to make you think that I'm just trying to twist your arm, so I'd prefer to be respectful of you and not persist.

You asked if it's possible I can be wrong about the resurrection? Since I'm painfully aware of my own lack of omniscience, and since through life I have been wrong about many things (just ask my wife ), I am always humbly aware that I may be wrong about anything. But in that same breath I'll say this: I am as confident in the reality of the resurrection as I am about Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, the historicity of the Viet Nam War, or the atrocities of the Holocaust. I know the reality of all of those examples have been called into question by people through the years. I agree that through my brother's writings the sheer neuroses of people about their religion is clear, but I can also agree to that from reading the daily paper. Religion, I say with confidence, is a mess, a crock, and part of the problem. That's why the teachings of the Bible seem to me so much like fresh air, and Jesus himself is simply astounding—because it's so different than the others.

Can I accept that you have looked at the same evidence for the resurrection and have come to a different conclusion? Absolutely. We all do this all the time, especially during football season and the game-deciding questionable catch/fumble/out of bounds/interference. We do it in the courtroom, and in our places of business as we study statistics, trends, and corporate analyses. So, sure, you see it differently.

Standard books that are recommended in a conversation such as this are Evidence that Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. My guess is that you've already read them. I also previously recommended to you anything by Alvin Plantinga.

I will post more articles in the "Investigate" section as I am able, about Jesus and his resurrection. Thank you for such good discussion. Continue it, or start a new one, anytime.

Dear Mr. Walton,

Thank you for taking time to write me your very thoughtful message.

I should mention a concern I have... Do you think it's possible that you may be wrong about the resurrection? Straight up, I believe it's possible that I may be wrong about the resurrection! I don't know about you, but I sure as heck can remember scenarios in which I thought I was right about something, only to find that I was wrong, but otherwise would have been right had I trusted my gut-instinct on a small bit of data. But, more importantly, I can especially remember scenarios in which I thought I was right about something, only to find that I was wrong, because I simply hadn't looked at all the data (it's easy to get tunnel vision and formulate an explanation of the data observed that is completely rational and the best explanation for that data, only for it to be wrong, because some data that appeared to come out of nowhere wasn't taken into account)! So, while I don't believe Jesus resurrected from the dead, I willingly acknowledge from experience that I could be wrong, because there is infinitely MORE bits of data here that I've not looked at.

That said, intellectual honesty demands that I be honest about something else! I sure do NOT want to go through what you went through! And, to be honest, I don't like the idea of basing my life on a single event that may not have occurred. I have a lot of other good things I'd rather do with my life than to waste it on a God who may not exist! And, if He exists, who knows whether He will hold a grudge against me for turning away from Him!! ...The difficult thing about “relational knowledge” of God seems that it is entirely speculative (e.g., just think on how many times God has undiscerningly been thanked for something by Christians!). So, in being honest, even if the resurrection did happen, I really don't care to go through again what I went through. And, I don't think I care to go through what you went through. Perhaps from your brother's writings you've read of how neurotic the Ancient Near Eastern people were in relation to their gods... Perhaps, at times, you may have thought that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob experientially seemed like them (even if not theologically). I know I have! ...Do you think that that experience is desirable on the belief that God may not exist?

So, are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that you may be wrong about the resurrection? Or, are you at least willing to accept that I may not be convinced by the evidence after having looked at it ?

Finally, I would truly hate to waste your time, Mr. Walton... I really appreciate your offering to help me! And, I'm pretty good at teaching myself. Do you have material I could read by myself? If so, where may I access it? I would also enjoy reading any posts you have in the forum on resurrection (that way your time and energy isn’t spent in just one “place”).

Thank you again for your help!

Sincerely,

Sean Flowers

Sean, I feel your pain. I really do. To be honest and fair, as I've tried to be all through the discussion, God can be ridiculously hard to find and connect with. So many times when I was so desperate, he just didn't seem to be there, or maybe even wasn't real. It made me angry, and, honestly, depressed. I would yell at him: "Why are you so BLOODY hard to find? If you want people to love you, you have to be more accessible!!! You have to show yourself, or talk, or SOMETHING!" It was absurd. So I feel your pain. I wanted God to be accessible the way I needed him to be, and when he couldn't seem to manage that, I just had a very hard time handling that.

But I didn't walk away. Despite my anger, frustration, and depression, I couldn't—in my mind—get around the resurrection. If the resurrection didn't happen, then this was all a sham anyway, and just made up crap. If the resurrection DID happen, then it was all real and I had to figure out how to deal with fact that God was not what I wanted him to be, and at times needed him to be. I dug into the resurrection stories—wildly implausible tales of the impossible: a man coming back from the dead. Talk about outrageous and nonsensical, by all reason. But I couldn't get around it. The evidence against it was worse than the evidence for it. I had to deal with that, because everything turns on it. My mind blew around a storm of thoughts, anger, research, depression, yelling, thinking, reading, praying, and more yelling. For months I raged and fought. If Jesus really came back from the dead, the implications of that are staggeringly immense, no matter whether I can connect with God or not. As a matter of fact, my connection with God, despite how desperately I wanted it in a certain way, had to take a back seat to Truth, and I had to learn about what God is like as different from what I want him to be. I don't have the liberty to make him to my liking or even to my needs. It's on that level that I started my journey back. Through time the mud of my existence started giving way to newness. I know you want that; I can hear it in your words. But your experience has been so bitter you've given up because you can't take the pain any more. In ways I don't blame you. I hated the pain. Most days during that time in my life were so dark. I'm not blowing smoke. I've been through hell, but I'm back, on the other side of the wall, so to speak, and ready to ask you again: Please don't walk away. God is real. Jesus is alive. There is a way.

Are there some Bible texts we can study together so I can show you what I mean? I have a whole section of Bible studies under "Investigate," but I'll study just with you and for you if that would help.

Also, I can start a new topic on the resurrection if you want to dive into that. It's the fulcrum of everything.

Lastly, you probably shouldn't tell me which scholars question the existence of God. This is a public forum, and their confessions may have been private communications to you not meant to be written in public places. I'm just trying to respect their positions and persons.

Dear Mr. Walton,

My concern has always been with the experience of God. Even if the Bible is historically true, having accepted that and trusted God in the past didn't work for me. God simply didn't relate to me in ways I could recognize or depend on. I always felt I was imagining Him. And, normally I was told that I simply failed to recognize Him. Well, after three years I continued to fail to recognize Him, and so I rejected Him. God simply wasn't someone I found dependable or trustworthy. I couldn't tell the difference between "Him" and an imaginary construct of Him informed by Scripture. So, that fact coupled with the possibility that God may not exist has led me to think that maybe He doesn't. And, it was this that caused me to want to experience Him with my five senses, since the other way had proved to be a dismal failure.

Also, the scholars I had mentioned DO believe in the inspiration of Scripture and thus the existence of God. But, they also believe it's possible that they may be wrong (however improbable that may be). Admittedly, I've only contacted four scholars on this issue, but I was surprised to hear that some were open to the possibility, and others were not. Do you think it would be alright to mention their names without requesting their permission (of course, I won't include confidential e-mail correspondences without their permission)?

Lastly, perhaps it would be better for me to say that knowledge can come about through reasoning and the five senses? To be honest, I don't want to rule out historical accounts, word-of-mouth, and inferential thinking. But, as you said, it comes down to faith. And, on the topic of God, I don't think a discussion will be very helpful to me... I don't think there is anything you can say to help or console me. But, I'm sure there is a lot you can say to defend God. So, I grant you that everything you believe may be true. But honestly, I can't imagine speaking about God and not simultaneously feeling incredibly empty. So, God may exist, but I've just completely lost heart and given up trying to find Him.

Regards,

Sean

Sean, in our city, the news is jumping with a story about a 23-year-old girl who was driving while intoxicated, and she hit another vehicle and killed an infant. It turns out this is her second DWI offense in just a few years. People are discussing, at the water cooler, what the judge should do to her to be fair. it would seem to me, and I'm not being facetious, that you would have to recuse yourself from the discussion because you can't possibly discuss a concept like fairness, since none of us can know anything about it, nor can we learn about it, because it can't be perceived by the 5 senses.

Suppose a friend of your told you that the Atlanta Falcons won their football game last Sunday. Would your response be, "Sorry, I can't know anything about that. I'd have to see it myself"? I'm not trying to be curt, I'm just trying to understand your concept of what is knowable.

In 1 Jn. 1.1, John writes, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” If you want empiricism, here it is. John continues in v. 2-3: “The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.” The author's appeal is that following Christ means having an open mind that can be fruitfully informed by what we experience in the world. Scientists, as we know, do this through the experimental method. By examining our experiences in the world, we can discover not just material things and nature—John asserts we can discover nature as created by Jesus and sustained by the providence of God. The life of Christ gives us a way of exploring nature that involves openness to what we experience.

Dear Youdontknowwhothisis:

I want to address your question on prayer real thoroughly, so I started a new topic. I'll post there. (Though it looks like you already beat me to it. I'll post there anyway. )

Sean, thank you for such great conversation. This is really what I’m after: reasoned dialogue. OK, a few clarifications. I did write that God most often intervenes in our hearts and not in our circumstances, but I guess I wasn’t quite clear when you think I said it happens mostly because of our interaction with the Bible. I believe that God reveals himself to us primarily through the Bible, but his intervention in our hearts is through His Spirit. Reading the Bible informs our worldview and leads us to understanding many things, but it’s through the Spirit that He acts on our hearts.

As to your theological question (Do you believe that God is a transcendent, yet relational being who exists eternally and independently of the universe He created?), my answer is absolutely yes, if by transcendent you mean that God exists apart from and subject to the limitations of the material universe. I would also condition my response, though, on the truth that God does willfully subject himself to certain limitations of the material universe to reveal himself to us in time and space.

As to your scenario, I don’t agree with the setup. It’s your word “imagining” that troubles me, because one of the marks of Christianity, as opposed to, say, Hinduism, is its grounding in history. The story of the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself in human history. Most of his revelation might go unnoticed were it not for the prophets whom God has directed to point at a historical occurrence and let us know “this is where God was and what he did. I don’t see it as somebody’s imaginative creativity, but the true revealing of God in history, in lives, with a prophet to identify it for us. Again, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s what you believe as evidence (the faith factor) that determines what your understanding is. For instance, I believe almost all of the “great works of God” in the Old Testament could possibly have happened without God in the picture. The parting of Red Sea? Maybe it was a freak wind. The falling of part of the wall of Jericho? An earthquake, common in the area. Years of drought? Happened all the time. It’s not imagination; these things happened. A prophet said, “That was God.” Doubters would say, “It was the wind, dummy.” Christians will speak of timing beyond circumstantial luck, and events that are more than difficult to explain through naturalism alone. It’s not a matter of imagination, but of the interpretation of hard facts. It’s where people struggled with Jesus. The facts were indisputable. Many claimed he was a prophet. Others attributed his power to Satan. That he did it was not debatable; HOW he did it was where everyone had to discern. Even when he rose from the dead, he only appeared to certain ones at certain times, and Matthew 28.17 says that his followers were with him: some worshiped, and some doubted. Hmmm… Wasn’t Jesus right there? Powerful stuff we got going here.

As for me, I am convinced that the historicity of the accounts related to us give enough credence to the teaching that I consider it factual beyond a doubt. The texts are historical (many have been corroborated), reasonable (moral teaching and a sensible interpretation of the world and its inhabitants), and spiritually powerful (my heart has been changed and continues to be challenged and changed. I know many others who testify to the same.). That’s how I know that I’m not just imagining a God who doesn’t actually exist, but is just a figment of my culture or wishful thinking.

You want so desperately to perceive God with your senses. There are those who claim that they have, but you don’t believe them. Their stories are in the Bible. Or you think, “Well, if they could have that, I want it too.” For the people of Israel in the stories of Exodus and Numbers, seeing wasn’t believing. Nor was that the case in Jesus himself. Many saw; few believed. The senses, honestly, don’t yield a whole lot more certainty than reason. Haven’t you seen or heard something, and then doubted yourself later? Haven’t you and your buds seen something, and you all saw it differently or interpret it differently? You’ve gone out with your friends after seeing a movie together, and some of you saw different things in it. So where’s the truth? The Bible claims that the truth was written so that you might know it and believe it, that the record was faithfully and handed down to us, complete with a reliable interpretation. Do you believe that? I do, because of the evidence.

Think about all that is possible to know: philosophy, geography, astronomy, physics, chemistry, literature, languages, history, mathematics, law, theology, art, music, etc. etc. Now think about how much of all of that that you know. As for me, I can readily admit it’s miniscule, and possibly subatomic, when it’s all added up. How can one come to certainty that God doesn’t exist, when we know so little? And yet how can we know with certainty that he does, for the same reason? It’s in weighing the evidences and coming to a belief about it. Scientists disagree with each other about their disciplines. They have to choose what they believe based on the evidence.

As far as evangelical scholars who entertain the possibility that God doesn’t exist, hmmmm… “Evangelical” usually assumes belief in the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore the existence of God. Have you read the works of Alvin Plantinga and his case for the existence of God?

Jimwalton, I have been to both types of churches that you talked about. I have been to the don't even smile type and then the dance around, talk in spirits types. Both appealed to different parts of me. Part of me thought that the flailing around, "emotional frenzy" that you talked about was fake, but then there were some instances that I could not deny seemed absolutely real. Then on the other side of the spectrum, I felt that the stoic churches where you couldn't ever have anything emotional or feeling related in church, I felt that it was too "ritualistic." They followed the schedule and prayed here and sang here and listened here. I could tell you to the minute what time we would be dismissed. I found the emotional church very enthralling, not going to lie. It drew me in, made me want to be a part of it all. I just observed and listened. I never danced around or spoke in tongues, but throughout the week after, I found myself praying alot more because God seemed closer. I would worship in the car, worship with friends in between weeks and really started to feel like I was going to be moved by God. At the same time, I was going to the church that was very by the book. I learned much more there but also felt that I was an observer. I tried to connect with God at both places and after awhile, I just gave up. A friend (that was versed in the scriptures and devout) from the by the book church told me that the people at the emotional church were just actors and that they would lead me astray. I wasn't getting what I needed at either so I just slowly stopped going.

You say God hardly ever answers your prayers... Then whats the point in praying. I could if I wanted, think about a Bible study I was doing without ever "bowing my head" and praying.I could think about him alot. If prayers go unanswered, isn't it all just a waste of time?? Near the end of my hope, I started praying to "make deals" with God. Something like "show me that ...... and then I will...." After all of those didn't work, I reversed it... "If I do.... then will you do ...." Still nothing. I completely gave up on praying.

Sean, you said.... "How do I know that when I read the Bible I'm not just imagining a God who doesn't actually exist, and perceiving His intervention where it is not?" my response... I 10000000000% believe God exists. I know he knows everything past, present, and future. What I don't understand is why he has let me down so much, just completely failed me. Honestly, your questions are a little too philosophical or theological that where I am at but I do think I get the gist of what you are saying. I do agree that I don't know what is God's doing and what is just circumstance. How can we tell the difference?

Dear Mr. Walton and youdontknowwhothisis,

Firstly, I want to say it's great to hear from you both! It takes a lot of courage to make oneself vulnerable and share their experience of God. I didn't realize that the struggles I had were as common as they are. So, thank you both for being open!

Secondly, Mr. Walton, you write that God most often intervenes in our hearts and not in our circumstances, and that this happens mostly because of our interaction with the Bible. Certainly our circumstances can change and yet leave us unmoved. But, if we're moved, then those circumstances can take on new meaning even if they remain unchanged. You're saying that consistent exposure to the Bible can change our worldview if we let it (i.e., it will "move" us), and that this change will open up the possibility of relating to God. Mr. Walton, I have a theological question: Do you believe that God is a transcendent, yet relational being who exists eternally and independently of the universe He created? (This is fundamental, I know, but for that reason it is essential for me to ask).

I'm going to lay down a scenario that I'd like to receive your input on. I believe that coming to recognize God through the written Word, and imagining Him through that Word, are indistinguishable. That is, since we cannot know that God exists through the direct observation of our senses, the recognition that He exists, and the imagination that He exists, cannot be distinguished. To put this in common language, a scholar might tell me "God exists, but you just don't recognize Him" in response to my saying that "I don't see any indication that God exists." And, then I might respond by saying, "how do I know that when I read the Bible I'm not just imagining a God who doesn't actually exist, and perceiving His intervention where it is not?" How can I tell the difference between that, and simply failing to recognize Him? My tentative conclusion is that one cannot.

This scenario means a lot to me, and I can imagine it means a lot to others as well. Now, it may be the case that God exists. To me, this is certainly a possibility. In fact, the dilemma I face originally came about when I allowed for the possibility that God may not exist and that all Christians are deceived into thinking He exists. Unfortunately, that same openness is not shared even by some of the foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars (you might even know one or two of them, Mr. Walton). That is, when they were asked if they believe it's possible that God may not exist, they answered that they don't think there is even the slightest chance that He does not exist. So, to them, my dilemma is meaningless. ...Fortunately, not all of the foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars are like that. Some, in fact, believe that it is possible that God may not exist, although it is highly improbable that that is the case. This is, perhaps, a better position to take given the nature of the subject under question. (If you'd like me to include the names of these "foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars" to whom I posed my question and got different answers, I'll happily e-mail them and see if I can get their permission).

Youdontknowwhothisis - Can you relate to my dilemma? Do you have any thoughts or comments?

Mr. Walton - Can you relate to my dilemma? How would you deal with this genuinely troubling concern?

Regards

Sean