prayer from the cell: be real

is god real?

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Christians are (in general) so full of trite phrases. The “Be real for God” meme has been trodden into meaninglessness, along with hundreds of others. It reminds me of people worshipping, hands raised, to that deplorable “Open the Eyes of My Heart, Lord” chorus. It makes me want to stop the service and shout “justwaitaminute! Has anyone here stopped long enough to ask themselves what exactly this MEANS? If no, then why are your hands in the air?” But I don’t, because I’m a coward.

    Thank you, by the way, for not being a coward, David. :)

  2. joe says:

    Not totally convinced being ‘real’ is that desirable.

  3. Doug Sloan says:

    There is no way to be “unreal” with God.

    God being “real” does not mean God being tangible. As we are suppose to learn from the Old Testament stories, there are never enough miracles to compel people to accept the reality of God and to live as citizens, community, family in a Kingdom of God.

  4. Steve Martin says:

    You got that right, Doug.

    They even witnessed Him healing people and raising them from the dead…and yet they did not believe.

    Usually the only ‘reality’ we are interested in is the one right in frony of our noses. We look at God the way a cow looks at a new gate.

  5. Sabio Lantz says:

    If you look at how fanatic Christians will get over seeing Jesus in a burnt piece of toast or how they will flock to a crying statue of Mary or how they will worship for centuries at a site where a child was reported healed, it is hard to believe a tribe of people easily forgot the sea separating for them and drowning their enemies.

    More reasons to believe those stories are totally contrived.

  6. Nancy T. says:

    Somehow that sounds like it should be song lyrics of some sort. :)

  7. Brigitte says:

    I’ve never heard “be real for God” before.

  8. Christine says:

    @Sabio,

    I don’t hink the point is that they forgot. There’s never a claim that the accounts of the events, supposing for the moment that they did happen, were lost.

    Instead, the point is that there were never enough. Seeing and remembering all those things are recorded as not being sufficient to sustain faith in present circumstances or to not worship other gods.

    The accusation is one of ungratefulness and fickleness, not of forgetfulness.

    @Doug,

    There seemed to be plenty enough to convince people of the *reality* of God. Just not enough to compel people to live in harmony with one another. And that is no different than today – those convinced of God’s existence don’t live in harmony with each other or the rest of the world.

  9. Sabio Lantz says:

    @ Christine,
    Nah, I mean: If a god had just decimated your enemy with plagues and separated the sea for you to walk through and then drowned an entire army who tried to do the same, do you think you’d ‘forget’ so easily and build a Golden Calf? I doubt it.
    But if it were just a made up story, then I could see this happenings.

  10. Christine says:

    @Sabio,

    Didn’t mean to imply it seemed any more credible to me… just that the accusation is not one of literal memory or histroical loss.

    The text (real account or not) is making a clear point about the author(s)’ view of human nature. Paints a pretty grimm picture, actually. One where selfishness and mometarily lusts or impulses override not only awe and gratitude but also self-preservation.

  11. Christine says:

    My point is that presenting this picture of humanity – and the corresponding picture of God – seems like the *point* of the writing, (even) more than recounting any actual events. This can be true whether or not the events actually happened.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>