A friend of mine has been dealing with an attempt to reconnect with her faith in God lately and as I've recently renewed my faith as well I felt I'd offer some thoughts on (the Christian concept of) God and why he is worthy of our worship.
(Disclaimer: I'm Catholic so my ideas likely flow from that belief system that I hold too 100 percent but I put this blog out there in good faith that it is my belief alone, not representing the Church, even if it's beliefs are often congruent with the Church)
I'll break it down into a few sections and if you're looking for high intellectual pursuit this is not the blog entry you want. This is more just my musings that I think could be beneficial for my friend.
1. Power
Almost all things on this earth are based on power. The more powerful wolf leads the pack, the more powerful man or woman leads the nations (or these days the multi-national corporations).
Think of the most powerful man or woman that ever lived. Think Alexander the Great, Ceasar, Cleopatra etc. Combine all their power and set it next to the capability of God....it wouldn't even register.
God created existence. There was nothing, he spoke, and then there was. Think about that. You might be able to say "call home" and get your phone to obey you but God spoke existence into being.
There is nothing that is above God's power.
2. Love
In the list of powerful people I named before there weren't any who were always loved by their subjects. They had power that made it a smart call to follow them if you wanted to stay alive.
But they didn't have love for their people as God does. No ruler can meet that standard of course. God on the other hand sent his only son from paradise to earth to be beaten, abused, ridiculed and executed to pay the cost of sin.
There is no justice in that, mind you. We did nothing to deserve such love, such kindnesss. All we did (as a people) was F things up in the garden and disobey God time and time again. But God so loved us that he sent Jesus to get us square with him again.
And it's not just the cross of Jesus that shows this love but the gifts he's given us on earth. God didn't leave us out in the cold to wonder and muse on our own if anyone is up there to hear us when we pray. He gave us the Bible and the Church to pass this message on through the centuries.
3. Mercy
God could have done a lot of things with us when we fell as a species. But rather he gave us this world that and the blessing of free will. He does not appear in the sky and say here I am, worship me, because there would be no gain for us in that. Faith is a good in itself and it is something that God in his mercy allows us to find on our own.
We don't all have the same amount of time of opportunities to do so. Some of us grow up in environments conducive to faith and some of us grow up in the opposite. But God charges us to seek him and come to know him and to love him as he loves us.
Lastly, through the Bible and the Church God showed us the path to everlasting life in paradise. He knows we are sinners, he knows we have failed him before and still he gives us a shot at eternal paradise with him.
-----------
I cannot from any reasonable point of view convince a deist, agnostic or other loose theist that Christianity is correct and while I also don't espouse the theory that one should choose a religion based on what one wants rather than the truth, I must say that when I look at God as Catholics and most Christians claim him to be, I see a God worth worshiping.
I would like to encourage your friend to abandon theism and embrace the splendor and beauty of the human mind.
ReplyDeleteJohn's friend, please take a moment to consider what Christianity requires of you. It is asking you to suspend your ability to rationalize (the greatest gift we received from nature) in order to accept on blind faith the tenets that:
A) God created humanity for an ambiguous purpose.
B) God created humanity (Adam and Eve) presumably knowing they would sin. He takes offense to the "crime" he knew they would commit and subjects every human being to a form of inherited guilt - a circumstance which God, by necessity, must have designed to come about.
C) God allied himself with a group of primitive nomads. Their descendants were sanctioned by God to commit horrible travesties (which I have argued is against his ability to do. See the 10,000+ word discussion between John and I).
D) God decided to incarnate an "aspect" of himself as a human in order to go on a suicide mission. The purpose of said mission was to essentially say, "I forgive you for the sins you commit against me." These are, of course, the sins God designed to come about.
E) Though they may be lacking evidence, if you do not accept these tenets as true, you will go to Hell for all eternity.
Of course, religion has much to offer as well: Flowery passages with undecipherable meanings; Bigotry; A prominent and collective desire to stifle the liberties and, depending on the era and area, the lives of others; The willful suspension of critical thinking; The unwillingness to examine the shortcomings of a religious creed.
Yes, I have obviously picked out some of the worst aspects of religion, and I certainly do not think all theists are horrible people. Indeed, religious organizations can sometimes provide a beacon for the greater good. Nevertheless, there is no amount of goodness performable by a theist which cannot also be achieved by a deist, agnostic, or atheist.
Let's start at the end and work backwards.
ReplyDeleteMatt acknowledges some good of Christianity and there is much. To pretend that undecipherable sayings, bigotry, opposition of liberty and dependency is relegated to theism is a joke and I suspect he knows this.
Christian missionary work and charity have saved millions of lives.
Next, he says if you are a Christian and you fail to believe his poor description of the faith, that you will go to hell. His alternative then is to be an atheist? That too is the path to hell.
Matt, like many atheists, struggles and ultimately fails to understand Christianity. He sees it as a worldly myth created (probably) of a desire to wish for more than there is by ignorant people before science and promulgated for control, political gain or a sense of comfort.
From that point of view one cannot see the glory of God.
To address his specific charges:
A) "God created humanity for an ambiguous purpose."
- I won't argue this one completely. Why are we here is the million dollar question. Christianity isn't science. We don't claim to have all the answers, we simply claim that God does, and that we should have faith in him.
B) "God created humanity (Adam and Eve) presumably knowing they would sin. He takes offense to the "crime" he knew they would commit and subjects every human being to a form of inherited guilt - a circumstance which God, by necessity, must have designed to come about."
-- Because God knows all he of course knew they would sin. Knowing that, it can be assumed that the fall of man was part of God's great design. We often like to think that God exists for us but we cannot begin to fathom how insane that idea is. He created a world that could fully manifest HIS glory. The responsibility of sin is on the sinner who chooses it, not on God. But there is no arguing that God created a world where sin would occur.
Also try this on from Romans ch9:
"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
C) "God allied himself with a group of primitive nomads. Their descendants were sanctioned by God to commit horrible travesties (which I have argued is against his ability to do. See the 10,000+ word discussion between John and I)."
Same point exists really. God chose the Israelites as his people for his reasons. And from them he gave the world its savior. Seems quite remarkable that from that little group of nomads came Christianty, a faith that dominates the globe and world history for 2,000 years.
D) "God decided to incarnate an "aspect" of himself as a human in order to go on a suicide mission. The purpose of said mission was to essentially say, "I forgive you for the sins you commit against me." These are, of course, the sins God designed to come about. "
ReplyDeleteFirst, God became man incarnate. Jesus is not an aspect of God, but is God. This is part of the mystery of the trinity. Second, at the end of a suicide mission, the one sent is dead. Christ rather rose from the dead and reigns now. God designed a world and a people capable of sin but he gave them free will. He did not design sin in the manner I believe you suggest.
Try on this.
I know that Hitler did horrible things. Does my knowing this mean that I caused them? If I had a time machine and could go back would I risk altering the world so badly by killing him? I don't think I would. So in in this hypothetical, I know Hitler was evil, I have the means to stop him and I do not. Let's even add omniscience and say I know killing Hitler could somehow alter history for the worse. Am I then responsible for his actions or is he? I admit this is an imperfect argument but I think it makes sense.
E) "Though they may be lacking evidence, if you do not accept these tenets as true, you will go to Hell for all eternity."
If one accepts the Bible, these things are not lacking for evidence. Sometimes I think atheists put that book on a pedestal even more than we do. It was written and guarded by inspiration of God yes, but otherwise it's not made of magic dust. The scriptures that predate the church tell of Christ's coming, suffering, dying and rising. The new testament recounts those stories and while secular history doesn't back up all of it Cornelius Tacitus at least tells us a man called Christ was killed under Pilate and that his followers are called Christians. I believe he lived in the first century.
Atheism would have one believe that this world, our lives, the masterful creation and wonder of the universe was all a result of random action. They can trace it as far back as the big bang and go no further.
Questions like how did existence come about are so far outside the realm of science it is laughable. The "worship" of science is men making a temple to themselves but the Christian knows that while science is important and it is good to learn to understand the universe, that God was behind it all.
Our lives are not meaningless, our existence is not temporary. We have immortal souls and the hope of eternal life in Christ.
I didn't want to get involved in this blog but I have to interject about this:
ReplyDelete"The new testament recounts those stories and while secular history doesn't back up all of it Cornelius Tacitus at least tells us a man called Christ was killed under Pilate and that his followers are called Christians".
Hey! I'm reading Tacitus right now! Weird. I haven't gotten to that point in the text yet, but Nero has just assumed his manly gown and that spells bad news for Brittanicus!
ha!
ReplyDeleteTo John's mystery friend,
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the commentary of John and Colonel L, please keep something in mind. That is, how you feel about faith in general is going to determine which argument you find more persuasive. If you tend to think that faith is a special ability to "see beyond" the physical world, you might be swayed by John's words. If you see faith as more of a "leap" of judgement or a lapse of judgement, you might go the other way.
John and Matt (CL) aren't so much arguing with each other (since the arguments of each side don't really make a dent on the other), they're just both vying for your attention.
Please indulge me by giving an audience for a SMALL point about faith in general: All of John's arguments in favor of Catholic faith only make sense to someone who has ALREADY accepted God, and has accepted the bible and church teachings, etc etc. So that critical leap of faith came first.
So that decision whether or not to have faith is the first and most important thing, right? What I can't understand is how some people consider the leap of faith in accepting God to be a special and super important ability, but AT THE SAME TIME the leap of faith to believe in ghosts, haunted houses and UFOs are supposedly... silly I guess would be the word. Superstitious.
Why do people think that way? Both are based on a choice to have faith, right? Why is one leap of faith considered the devout and responsible thing to do, but the other considered a foolish and superstitious weakness? Seems like a double standard to me. If there's reason to leap for God, isn't there reason to leap for Sasquatch or Nessy?
I sense a small amount of hostility in some of John's words. Must you really try so hard to discredit me? Ah, but of course, we must not forget that a young lady's immortal soul lies on the line! John must employ every trick in his book to shield this wayward damsel from the horrible influence of Satan and his dastardly minion (ME!).
ReplyDeleteHeck, your friend probably hasn't even looked at this blog. It's also unlikely that anything you or I have to say would truly have much of an impact on her decision. So should we bother going through the usual motions this time around?
I didn't leave a comment in this blog entry with the intention of debating you. I basically just wanted to encourage your friend to not abandon her critical thinking skills.
Now, don't get me wrong, I WANT to debate you. Some of the crap you had to say really made me cringe, but why even bother if neither one of our goals will be accomplished? If your friend feels like she could benefit from such a discussion/debate, then there might be purpose in continuing. Otherwise, screw it.
By the way, I am better described as a deist, not as an atheist.
Matt, certainly didn't want to sound hostile and I apologize for mischaracterizing your status as a deist.
ReplyDeleteMy friend has read this blog and may still be reading I don't know. She's in the "organized religion is inherently bad" stage right now so yeah nothing I say is likely to hit home.
Before we go any further though I would like to see something. My beliefs are clearly stated and all who know me know them. I know now you are a deist, and I know you are man who seeks truth. I do not know much else of your beliefs. I would like to see a blog detailing them so that I can better understand your points of view.
Here, here!
ReplyDeleteI went on the record about where I stand, Matt should do the same. At the very least it's an excellent excuse to put something in that empty blog of yours (other than the moldy walls and ancient furniture that currently festoon it, of course).
It has been done.
ReplyDelete