The conclusion to loving our fellow humans is not giving up lines God has drawn but rather realizing that we can love others, yet not affirm all behaviors. We must love as an action, yet our realization of their humanity doesn’t negate the consistency and holy character of God.
Finally, a thoughtful view of the Bible! Seems to me Peter Enns is the ideal bridge between fundamentalism and reason. I always think he wants to say more, question more, but he’s holding back to keep his tribe engaged. Very glad to see him featured on your channel.
That was my story too! Meeting nice people with different beliefs was upsetting my all or nothing, saved or unsaved, belief system. We project a shadow on those outside of your select in-group, but those outside my in-group didn’t appear all that shadowy.
I'm fascinated by the many ways people are exploring Christian theology and life today. Some of it I find myself agreeing with. Some of it I strongly disagree with. Then there is a lot that I just don't have an answer for. It's interesting to hear you refer to yourself as a panentheist. My concept of God has changed over the years as well. I too would call myself that, at the very least, a modified theist. Good conversation!
I just found your channel and I'm looking forward to listening to more of your videos! Thank you! You and Pete mentioned a theologian I think his first name is Tom or John, but I didn't quite catch his full name. Would you mind letting me know who you were referring to?
Thanks for listening Aspen! We were speaking of Thomas Oord who wrote a book called “God Can’t”. He’s been on the show before but I’m not sure I have his videos up; the audio is up, though, on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.
I’d be curious to hear Pete’s response to the phrase making the rounds recently in Christian circles, “don’t try and conform God to culture, but culture to God”. Maybe you can ask him this if you have him on again. Another consideration is James and other authors in the NT warning us to not be conformed to or in love with ‘the world’; this being understood to be the socio-political culture of the time. It seems like a lot of the rationalization in this conversation is coming from the standpoint of trying to implement God into our current or popular understandings. Considering the first century world had a lot of the same philosophies we have in our culture today, this raises some concerns for me. Any thought?
The first century world didn't have the same philosophies we do today. For one thing, our understanding of the universe through science, in terms of its material composition, is much more advanced, than people in the first century.
For me, I’d rather have a God who can’t eliminate my suffering but sits with me in it than a God who can take away my suffering but chooses not to for whatever twisted reason he may have.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcastyes, I agree with that choice. My question still remains: so what if he sits with us? What does it imply about suffering? About God? About us?
@@sohu86xidk what you’re getting at haha why not just tell us? I think there’s a lot of mystery and complexity in the topic and I’m learning to sit with it rather than solve it. ✌🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast I'm not trying to get at anything as I'm also on the journey and haven't arrived at any meaningful conclusions. Perhaps you could share what you've gathered from your experiences of God who can't eliminate suffering (I agree) but sits with you. How does this affect your image of God?
@sohu86x the book “God Can’t” by Thomas Oord helped me a lot. I guess I’ve loosened my grip on God needing to be all powerful that’s probably the biggest thing that’s changed. If God is all powerful but let’s children be r*ped and stuff then God is a monster … and I can’t live with that. These days I see God as all loving but unable to override creation - a God who controls and dominates wouldn’t be all that loving IMO. And so I think the cross is God’s way of joining our suffering so we have a divine being to suffer with us. It’s not a perfect ideas just where I am ❤️🙏🏻
The sovereignty of God is one of the clearest teachings of the Bible, asserted plainly by Jesus himself. You can't get away from God creating, sustaining and ordering a planet in which really bad stuff happens. Even if God doesn't control everything, he still created a world where he knew in advance that really bad stuff would happen, so it doesn't help anyway. No matter how much God exhibits love, you can't get away from the fact that he has done unloving things. Even his most loving act, his self-sacrifice, involved Jesus "handed over according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God ... and killed by the hands of those outside the law". God planned the unloving to happen.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast I'm saying that like it or not, the reality is that a God capable of great good created a world that also contains considerable evil. We have no resolution to this. Attempts that weaken God's control do not solve it, so why reject what virtually all the Bible's authors say? The only option left to me is that "God knows [both] good and evil". He acts to do good, but he is perfectly capable at the outset of creating a world exhibiting suffering and injustice if it suits his purposes.
@@MusicalRaichu I don’t think it’s got anything to do with God’s purposes. I just don’t think God is all powerful or all knowing, but is present with us in our pain and always working for our good without stepping over the free will of even the smallest molecule. Stuff happens because it does, but we aren’t alone. For me, I see that as the message of the cross. Thanks for sharing ✌🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast Did God create the universe then? What's free will? If "the hairs on your head are numbered", God knows an awful lot. The message of the cross includes what you say but is much more complex: ritual sanctification, bearing our sins, redemption, example of self-sacrificial love, ...
@@MusicalRaichu I’m not sure the Bible is any more important in the convo than any other religious book. The Bible for me is a collection of texts where people are trying to figure out who God is and what it looks like to walk with God in life, as opposed to a book telling us all we need to know about God. Some is helpful, a lot isn’t. And so the convo for me is filled with lots of mystery as opposed to definitive answers. And yes, I think God can create the universe without being all-powerful. If God is all-powerful and could stop things like molestation, but doesn’t because it somehow fits God’s purposes then God is a monster. It just doesn’t work, regardless of what a Bible verse might say. And the cross means a lot, sure, but it’s had various meanings for various Christians throughout antiquity and modernity and that’s one of the things it means for me today ✌🏻.
The conclusion to loving our fellow humans is not giving up lines God has drawn but rather realizing that we can love others, yet not affirm all behaviors. We must love as an action, yet our realization of their humanity doesn’t negate the consistency and holy character of God.
Finally, a thoughtful view of the Bible! Seems to me Peter Enns is the ideal bridge between fundamentalism and reason. I always think he wants to say more, question more, but he’s holding back to keep his tribe engaged. Very glad to see him featured on your channel.
Thanks Jack 🙏🏻
That was my story too! Meeting nice people with different beliefs was upsetting my all or nothing, saved or unsaved, belief system. We project a shadow on those outside of your select in-group, but those outside my in-group didn’t appear all that shadowy.
So true thanks for sharing! 🙏🏻
I'm fascinated by the many ways people are exploring Christian theology and life today. Some of it I find myself agreeing with. Some of it I strongly disagree with.
Then there is a lot that I just don't have an answer for.
It's interesting to hear you refer to yourself as a panentheist. My concept of God has changed over the years as well.
I too would call myself that, at the very least, a modified theist.
Good conversation!
What of our inner conversations, whether conscious or subconscious (dreams, profanities etc); can we meet God there- are we conversing with him?
I certainly think so!
I just found your channel and I'm looking forward to listening to more of your videos! Thank you! You and Pete mentioned a theologian I think his first name is Tom or John, but I didn't quite catch his full name. Would you mind letting me know who you were referring to?
Thanks for listening Aspen! We were speaking of Thomas Oord who wrote a book called “God Can’t”. He’s been on the show before but I’m not sure I have his videos up; the audio is up, though, on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast Awesome! Thank you so much. I'm enjoying your channel and look forward to checking out the Podcasts.
I’d be curious to hear Pete’s response to the phrase making the rounds recently in Christian circles, “don’t try and conform God to culture, but culture to God”. Maybe you can ask him this if you have him on again. Another consideration is James and other authors in the NT warning us to not be conformed to or in love with ‘the world’; this being understood to be the socio-political culture of the time. It seems like a lot of the rationalization in this conversation is coming from the standpoint of trying to implement God into our current or popular understandings. Considering the first century world had a lot of the same philosophies we have in our culture today, this raises some concerns for me. Any thought?
The first century world didn't have the same philosophies we do today. For one thing, our understanding of the universe through science, in terms of its material composition, is much more advanced, than people in the first century.
Here's a question: what good is it if God participates in our suffering? So what?
For me, I’d rather have a God who can’t eliminate my suffering but sits with me in it than a God who can take away my suffering but chooses not to for whatever twisted reason he may have.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcastyes, I agree with that choice. My question still remains: so what if he sits with us? What does it imply about suffering? About God? About us?
@@sohu86xidk what you’re getting at haha why not just tell us? I think there’s a lot of mystery and complexity in the topic and I’m learning to sit with it rather than solve it. ✌🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast I'm not trying to get at anything as I'm also on the journey and haven't arrived at any meaningful conclusions. Perhaps you could share what you've gathered from your experiences of God who can't eliminate suffering (I agree) but sits with you. How does this affect your image of God?
@sohu86x the book “God Can’t” by Thomas Oord helped me a lot. I guess I’ve loosened my grip on God needing to be all powerful that’s probably the biggest thing that’s changed. If God is all powerful but let’s children be r*ped and stuff then God is a monster … and I can’t live with that. These days I see God as all loving but unable to override creation - a God who controls and dominates wouldn’t be all that loving IMO. And so I think the cross is God’s way of joining our suffering so we have a divine being to suffer with us. It’s not a perfect ideas just where I am ❤️🙏🏻
The sovereignty of God is one of the clearest teachings of the Bible, asserted plainly by Jesus himself. You can't get away from God creating, sustaining and ordering a planet in which really bad stuff happens. Even if God doesn't control everything, he still created a world where he knew in advance that really bad stuff would happen, so it doesn't help anyway.
No matter how much God exhibits love, you can't get away from the fact that he has done unloving things. Even his most loving act, his self-sacrifice, involved Jesus "handed over according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God ... and killed by the hands of those outside the law". God planned the unloving to happen.
That doesn’t sound like a God I want to follow … regardless of what the Bible says or doesn’t say about it.
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast I'm saying that like it or not, the reality is that a God capable of great good created a world that also contains considerable evil. We have no resolution to this. Attempts that weaken God's control do not solve it, so why reject what virtually all the Bible's authors say?
The only option left to me is that "God knows [both] good and evil". He acts to do good, but he is perfectly capable at the outset of creating a world exhibiting suffering and injustice if it suits his purposes.
@@MusicalRaichu I don’t think it’s got anything to do with God’s purposes. I just don’t think God is all powerful or all knowing, but is present with us in our pain and always working for our good without stepping over the free will of even the smallest molecule. Stuff happens because it does, but we aren’t alone. For me, I see that as the message of the cross. Thanks for sharing ✌🏻
@@WhatIfProjectPodcast Did God create the universe then? What's free will? If "the hairs on your head are numbered", God knows an awful lot. The message of the cross includes what you say but is much more complex: ritual sanctification, bearing our sins, redemption, example of self-sacrificial love, ...
@@MusicalRaichu I’m not sure the Bible is any more important in the convo than any other religious book. The Bible for me is a collection of texts where people are trying to figure out who God is and what it looks like to walk with God in life, as opposed to a book telling us all we need to know about God. Some is helpful, a lot isn’t. And so the convo for me is filled with lots of mystery as opposed to definitive answers.
And yes, I think God can create the universe without being all-powerful. If God is all-powerful and could stop things like molestation, but doesn’t because it somehow fits God’s purposes then God is a monster. It just doesn’t work, regardless of what a Bible verse might say.
And the cross means a lot, sure, but it’s had various meanings for various Christians throughout antiquity and modernity and that’s one of the things it means for me today ✌🏻.