Why Do You Prefer to Be Ignorant of God?

It is highly convenient to our lusts to say that we don’t know or aren’t sure about the truth of God.  For if we can say that we don’t know or aren’t sure about Him, then the secret places of our hearts remain our private property – as least so we think.

The world today – just like the world in every generation – ignores God.  It professes ignorance of God even while professing great knowledge and wisdom about creation itself.  Those whose hands are on the power levers of government, business, and every other realm of human activity are, generally speaking, those who believe that faith is not something to be spoken of in polite society.  This is all the more true if the faith is in Jesus.

These people live in a world of darkness, willfully ignorant of the God who is all around them and inside them.  And why do they do this?  It’s those lusts.  Acknowledge God and you, by that fact, give up the right to think just anything you want whenever you want.  People think this is freedom, but it is actually bondage – bondage to sin, which is the ripening of lust.

Give up your lusts.  Give up the darkness of ignorance which provides their hospitable environment.  Instead, live in the light of Jesus Christ, King of heaven and earth.  Live under His authority for He is the one who created you.  The intense light of His eyes disinfects every environment in which  that light is welcomed.  Prefer the knowledge of God to the ignorance of God.  And prefer His commandments to your lusts.

Bible notes on this post.

The purpose of this blog is to praise Jesus Christ for those who want to hear about Him without having to join something.

This entry was posted in Jesus Christ and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why Do You Prefer to Be Ignorant of God?

  1. Hey Mike,
    I thought I’d stop by and spend some time checking out your posts. This one caught my attention because I recognize the sentiment. I used to agree that those who denied the existence of God or rejected the gospel did so because they preferred to remain in their sin. To acknowledge God would require them to give up their sin and so they remained willfully blind. I’m not sure I believe that anymore. And largely because of my own experience. I have my days where I doubt the resurrection, the incarnation, the miracles, even the existence of God. And it’s not because I want to pursue my lusts. It’s just that rigorous study of the Bible has revealed for me a lot of shaky ground. I think some people, maybe a lot, doubt Christianity simply because of epistemological problems. And the standard Christian apologetic response is less than satisfying. Just my two cents.

    • Mike Gantt says:

      Chris, thanks for your thoughts.

      Doubt is indeed the undesirable no-man’s land between faith on the one hand and unbelief on the other. However, I would distinguish between a person who rejects God willfully and one who has faith but lapses into doubt at times.

      Faith, of course, comes and is strengthened by the word of God (Rom 10:17) so I am puzzled as to why you feel rigorous study of the Bible has unsettled you. Rigorous study of the Bible had precisely the opposite effect on me.

      What do you deem to be the “epistemological problems” that inhibit a person from trusting Jesus Christ?

      • I used to think the Bible was one monolithic work that spoke with one voice on all matters. Now I realize that it’s reflective of different perspectives from different times, which don’t always agree with each other. It doesn’t always line up well with archaeology or science. The OT often bears the marks of other ancient near eastern cultural assumptions and religious traditions. The gospel writers don’t agree on a lot of things and they wrote some 30-60 years after Christ’s death. I can completely understand why an agnostic or atheist might say that this evidence isn’t sufficient to persuade him of so incredible a claim as the resurrection.

        • Mike Gantt says:

          Chris, thanks for your reply.

          I used to think the Bible was one monolithic work that spoke with one voice on all matters. Now I realize that it’s reflective of different perspectives from different times, which don’t always agree with each other.

          That the Bible consists of scores of documents written by dozens of different people in a wide variety of genres over a 1,500-year span of time, and yet speaks with an amazingly consistent voice on its themes has been of ever-increasing encouragement to my faith. Contrast this with single books written by a single author at one time (like the Quran or the Book of Mormon). The Bible is like a file folder of independently-taken depositions and thus is far more persuasive than the single account witnesses. Where the books of the Bible appear to disgree I have found that those apparent difficulties are usually superficial, immaterial, or, given sufficient in-depth research, actually non-existent. Before I began reading the Bible for myself I was concerned about its contradictions; after reading extensively I became impressed with its consistencies.

          It doesn’t always line up well with archaeology or science.

          I find that there is much in the Bible that is supported by archaeology and science. When they don’t seem to line up, I recall that archaeology and science adjust their findings over time as new findings and new theories come to light. Therefore, I live with the tension confident that it’s something that will come and go as mankind haltingly learns more and more. Besides, the Bible’s documents were not written for the purpose of teaching archaeology or science so we should not be surprised that it does not hew to those disciplines. Instead, the Bible teaches about human behavior, and reading the Bible makes clear that this is something that stays the same no matter what level of academic knowledge humanity attains.

          The OT often bears the marks of other ancient near eastern cultural assumptions and religious traditions.

          I don’t understand why this is a problem for you. Such would seem to confirm the Bible’s characterization of life in those times.

          The gospel writers don’t agree on a lot of things…

          Do you find any of the disharmonies material to the essential facts? Frankly, I would be suspicious of four depositions that were identical in all details.

          …and they wrote some 30-60 years after Christ’s death.

          Again, I don’t understand why you find this a concern. Jesus did not commission His apostles’ to a literary mission. It was an oral culture and theirs was largely an oral mission. The commitment to writing, if indeed the gospels were written that late, would come in the face of impending death of the apostles who’d no longer be around to say out loud what they saw and heard.

          I can completely understand why an agnostic or atheist might say that this evidence isn’t sufficient to persuade him of so incredible a claim as the resurrection.

          The resurrection of Jesus Christ is indeed an amazing event, but I have children and grandchildren and those are pretty amazing events, too. If God can create a human being, what’s so strange about His recreating one? What I will readily concede is that children being born is a lot more commonplace that someone being raised from the dead. But does something have to be commonplace for me to believe it? Hardly. For if it’s commonplace, I can see it myself. The question for me regarding the resurrection of Jesus is this: Is the eyewitness testimony about it trustworthy? When I read the 27 New Testament documents – and, equally important, the Old Testament documents which predicted it – I am persuaded by the testimony (especially as it is summarized in 1 Cor 15), and by the lengths to which the witnesses went to make their testimony known. If those guys were willing to die to tell this story, I at least owe it to them to read their story. I read it and found it logical, plausible, and compelling. This first occurred when, as an agnostic in my late 20’s, I began reading it with a skeptical eye. In other words, I began reading it with the expectation that my agnostic prejudices against it would be confirmed. The texts turned the tables on me.

          You see, there are some basic facts about life that Jesus Christ addresses. First, that the biggest problem humanity has – or ever has had – is death. That is THE problem. We could solve every other problem in life, but if we can’t solve that one it won’t matter. Therefore, I’m interested in claims that deal with life at that fundamental a level. Jesus Christ has an answer for that problem, including an explanation of it. That explanation – sin – makes sense to me because I have seen it and hated it in my own life. And Jesus gives me a way to overcome it.

          I urge you to re-think some of your current conclusions about the Bible and about Jesus Christ. There is more there than meets the eye.

Comments are closed.