I was once standing in line to get food at a truck stop. Behind me were two truck drivers and one said to the other something about the bad weather. For some reason the other felt compelled to make a comment about how church people would suffer like this and thus be considered by him to be stupid enough to believe there is a God. The other driver happened to be on the other end of the spectrum and told how many of his friends were Christians and they were happy and did not suffer from any lack he knew of. I moved on and got my food and left them to their discussion.
I have spent most of my lifetime - except that time during which I was teen age and stupid - contemplating Who God is and how I relate to Him. I don't think many people have an intelligent thought about Who God is in their lives. They are too busy to do so. All I am really sure of is that God did create all things. Otherwise I wouldn't be writing this.
Assuming there is a Creator, it stands to reason that He (She, It, They) is not governed by the rules of the universe (and whatever else) He created. Thus we are not necessarily equipped - naturally or otherwise - to be able to detect Him. We have our set of rules and our equipment and technology and are limited by them. Whatever God is we may not be aware of - thus the description of God as a Spirit can be true because we cannot see Him. Logic states that He must be at least as real as his creation is. Therefore whatever is real is his reality and ours may be somewhat less, perhaps a virtual reality to Him governed by his rules. All the scientific theory in the world is too limited to deal with this question.
So assuming there is a Creator, why do bad things happen? To me that's an easy question only because I have put so much thought into it. God created the world (the universe) and set all things in motion. There was the potential for plagues and tornadoes and murder. He left the rest of it to us. Most of the things people complain about were caused by man. How many of the natural disasters, though, might not have happened if we could control ourselves and stop fighting Him and turning our backs to Him can only be imagined. One thing leads to another and God only changes what He sees as needing repair. Cleaning up after us. He cannot be held responsible for what man has ultimately caused one way or another, although He is held guilty by many. That begins in the story of Adam and Eve where someone might complain that if there's a God, why do men have to work so hard to survive? This blames God for the actions of Adam and Eve. This is how shallow our thinking is.
The people the other driver was speaking of who were happy have discovered something the rest of us haven't. God gave us life and we should be grateful for it. It cost us absolutely nothing. The alternative is to be dead. I really don't think that it's asking too much that we be grateful to God and tell others that He gives us happiness. Going around whining about some little thing that you don't have in your life just doesn't appeal to me nor does it make any sense. Most of the people I know are unhappy because something is missing in their lives that they don't need. We have become an overwhelmingly materialistic people, crying about things that do nothing except distract us from what real, fulfilling life really is. Whining like small children for a piece of candy and throwing a tantrum if we don't get it. And is God supposed to be happy with that kind of behavior? All the while doing our best to avoid acknowledging Him or giving Him any of our time?
The human race, especially the richer countries like ours, need to back up and reassess their lives. We need to focus on the meaning of life - that life is a free gift and we are fools not to enjoy it.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Friday, November 1, 2013
The Religion Section
I have noticed over time that religious sections are being phased out. I have viewed many popular web sites and there is no religion section. This is a bias against religion. Anyone, I'm sure, knows that a huge part of the Internet is about religion. It may be good religion or it may be bad religion but a lot of people have at least a little to say about it. It is sad but the major media are truly biased bout this subject. They will include religion in the society section or lifestyle so that you have to dig for it if it's there at all. They also only include what they think is fair or important, making religions other than Christianity appear to be larger and Christianity to be smaller. We really don't need that sort of bias. What we need is openness and honesty and tolerance (the real meaning, not the one in the liberal press). We are in a time in which Christianity and Judaism are looked down upon by the so-called enlightened ones with the big mouths. And our choices are filtered by huge sites such as Google, Yahoo, and AOL. We're turning into the underground while objectionable lifestyles are being promoted in the major media every single day. The only way to turn things around is to patronize honest media and disown the major ones. It's up to you what your future will be like. Do something about it.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
God - Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral?
Someone posted a comment on Facebook that I can't ignore. The argument was that Hallowe'en celebrates and commemorates the dead. Following that was the comment that Jesus is dead and he and the Holy Spirit are spirits and commemorating them is the same thing. I'm afraid that doesn't qualify as a sensible statement. If Jesus was resurrected as the Bible says, he was resurrected in a new body. Not as a spirit.
This is the same bad kind of thinking many people do when they attempt to explain what God is. The world we live in is not reality. In whatever state or place God is is where we will find true reality. Our world was created within whatever his world is. You could say we are a virtual reality, not of God but as his creation. God is invisible simply because He has not equipped us to see Him. He is not a spirit. He is very real. We live in a universe created by Him with the tools to understand only our universe and I dare say not all of that. Seemingly every day scientists are amazed about something they find that doesn't make sense. When Abraham saw God he was equipped temporarily to be able to see Him. The same goes with people like Daniel and the Apostle John. If Jesus was resurrected he was probably of the same substance of God, whatever that is. Those who saw him were temporarily equipped. When those who are worthy are brought back to life by God they will not be spirits but will be like Him and will live in his reality. We will be equipped in that reality to see and understand all his World. Here in this world we are equipped only to see and understand what God has allowed us to. No, God is not a spirit in the sense of the word we understand. He is more real than we are.
This is the same bad kind of thinking many people do when they attempt to explain what God is. The world we live in is not reality. In whatever state or place God is is where we will find true reality. Our world was created within whatever his world is. You could say we are a virtual reality, not of God but as his creation. God is invisible simply because He has not equipped us to see Him. He is not a spirit. He is very real. We live in a universe created by Him with the tools to understand only our universe and I dare say not all of that. Seemingly every day scientists are amazed about something they find that doesn't make sense. When Abraham saw God he was equipped temporarily to be able to see Him. The same goes with people like Daniel and the Apostle John. If Jesus was resurrected he was probably of the same substance of God, whatever that is. Those who saw him were temporarily equipped. When those who are worthy are brought back to life by God they will not be spirits but will be like Him and will live in his reality. We will be equipped in that reality to see and understand all his World. Here in this world we are equipped only to see and understand what God has allowed us to. No, God is not a spirit in the sense of the word we understand. He is more real than we are.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Which Came First? Religion or Morality?
This is a topic I see frequently because religion offends radical atheists and they have to try to disprove it to make it go away. Perhaps I should also post this in my Nation of Wusses blog - nah.
The whole foundation of this complaint is really pointless. It's like the one that I like to point out about the Jesus story which goes like this: When Jesus was born of a virgin there were already similar stories. In other words, since someone thought of the idea before God caused it to happen, it's not true. And that's like saying that since some science fiction writer thought of a futuristic idea, then when that futuristic idea happened, it didn't really because somebody already thought of it.
Which did come first and does it matter? That, of course, depends on how things really happened. If the Adam and Eve story is true, religion happened first because the original couple didn't know the difference between right and wrong. If, on the other hand, Moses was some power-crazed maniac who used religion to manipulate the masses, and there was no religion before that (a wonderful concept to those radical atheists), then morality came first. Does it matter? Not a bit.
Morality is caring about other people. If you give something that is meaningful or valuable to you, you are committing an act of morality. Where morality came from is irrelevant. What is relevant is why you are being moral. With most people, including religious ones, the reason is that they care about another person. Beyond this level of caring there is the higher level of caring for a reason. Anyone, for example, can care about his or her own children. That's mostly natural (some people don't). But there is a level beyond that which is embodied in the Golden Rule - treating others as you would wish to be treated. Even an atheist can do this and it won't even offend me. Nor will I accuse him of acting religiously.
Religion in its pure form is realizing that you are responsible to a higher Power. Knowing that a higher Power gave you life and expects you to follow his guidelines as you would follow the guidelines of your father who also expects you to be responsible. Those guidelines, according to Judaism which has studied them most, are the proper relationship to God and, as an image of that relationship, how you treat your fellow man (that means fellow human for the non-literate feminists out there).
Morality is a good thing. Any atheist or anyone else can be moral. The difference is that religions have sets of morals explaining how one should treat others just as societies have sets of morals. Not everyone agrees on the topic of drugs but a society has to make a determination on how to deal with the drugs and make that a law in order to preserve that society. In the same way, a religion has a set of laws by which all its members are uniformly expected to act in its society. There are good and bad religions. There are good and bad societies. This has no bearing on God. God is perfect while religion may not be perfect. But without religion this world would not be as pleasant as it is.
The Laws of Moses, all 613 of them, were originally the rules of a society named Israel. There were many enemies, many diseases, and so on, and the children of Israel were for all practical purposes a brand new nation coming out of Egyptian subservience. The 613 guidelines Moses gave them to live their lives by put order and discipline into their society. If they had had the attitude of many modern Americans they would never have made it to the promised land. We ourselves know that in times of war the rules have to be tightened up a good bit (except lately due to the ignorance of how such things work). Many people criticize the Bible for its eye for an eye outlook. What those people don't understand is that that concept was an improvement over other societies' laws of the time. It didn't specify how one should be punished by considering their class in society. Now everyone had a single rule that made everyone equal. That's better than we have in our 'enlightened' 21st Century America. I will inevitably discuss other so-called Barbaric laws in future articles, not now.
Another drastic difference between morality chosen by the individual and religious morality is that it is necessary for the masses to agree upon what is right and what is wrong. This is impossible when each person decides for himself. As an example - and I am not telling people whether or not they should smoke - there is a war in our country on the matter of smoking. What I will refer to as the radical smokers have the opinion that they should be able to smoke anywhere and if you don't like it, go away. What I will refer to as the radical non-smokers have the opinion that smokers should not ever smoke anywhere. So all smokers must be legislated out of existence. People have asked me what they should do if two people are together and one person believes something is okay while the other person doesn't. I simply say: Be polite. If it bothers the other person, don't do it while you are around them (this includes foul language, young people). In the case of smoking there used to be a polite phrase repeated millions and millions of times - Mind if I smoke?
There are few things people agree on if they're honest with themselves. Whether something is right or wrong is one of them. Sure, we almost totally agree on the big ones but all those little things in our lives such as how fast we should drive our cars - well, that's a different story. If each person decides what is right and wrong we will have chaos unless there is something or Someone to be responsible to. Very few people can control themselves as well as they think they can. Therefore it doesn't matter whether religion came first or morality came first. What's important is to be moral and consider the feelings of others.
The whole foundation of this complaint is really pointless. It's like the one that I like to point out about the Jesus story which goes like this: When Jesus was born of a virgin there were already similar stories. In other words, since someone thought of the idea before God caused it to happen, it's not true. And that's like saying that since some science fiction writer thought of a futuristic idea, then when that futuristic idea happened, it didn't really because somebody already thought of it.
Which did come first and does it matter? That, of course, depends on how things really happened. If the Adam and Eve story is true, religion happened first because the original couple didn't know the difference between right and wrong. If, on the other hand, Moses was some power-crazed maniac who used religion to manipulate the masses, and there was no religion before that (a wonderful concept to those radical atheists), then morality came first. Does it matter? Not a bit.
Morality is caring about other people. If you give something that is meaningful or valuable to you, you are committing an act of morality. Where morality came from is irrelevant. What is relevant is why you are being moral. With most people, including religious ones, the reason is that they care about another person. Beyond this level of caring there is the higher level of caring for a reason. Anyone, for example, can care about his or her own children. That's mostly natural (some people don't). But there is a level beyond that which is embodied in the Golden Rule - treating others as you would wish to be treated. Even an atheist can do this and it won't even offend me. Nor will I accuse him of acting religiously.
Religion in its pure form is realizing that you are responsible to a higher Power. Knowing that a higher Power gave you life and expects you to follow his guidelines as you would follow the guidelines of your father who also expects you to be responsible. Those guidelines, according to Judaism which has studied them most, are the proper relationship to God and, as an image of that relationship, how you treat your fellow man (that means fellow human for the non-literate feminists out there).
Morality is a good thing. Any atheist or anyone else can be moral. The difference is that religions have sets of morals explaining how one should treat others just as societies have sets of morals. Not everyone agrees on the topic of drugs but a society has to make a determination on how to deal with the drugs and make that a law in order to preserve that society. In the same way, a religion has a set of laws by which all its members are uniformly expected to act in its society. There are good and bad religions. There are good and bad societies. This has no bearing on God. God is perfect while religion may not be perfect. But without religion this world would not be as pleasant as it is.
The Laws of Moses, all 613 of them, were originally the rules of a society named Israel. There were many enemies, many diseases, and so on, and the children of Israel were for all practical purposes a brand new nation coming out of Egyptian subservience. The 613 guidelines Moses gave them to live their lives by put order and discipline into their society. If they had had the attitude of many modern Americans they would never have made it to the promised land. We ourselves know that in times of war the rules have to be tightened up a good bit (except lately due to the ignorance of how such things work). Many people criticize the Bible for its eye for an eye outlook. What those people don't understand is that that concept was an improvement over other societies' laws of the time. It didn't specify how one should be punished by considering their class in society. Now everyone had a single rule that made everyone equal. That's better than we have in our 'enlightened' 21st Century America. I will inevitably discuss other so-called Barbaric laws in future articles, not now.
Another drastic difference between morality chosen by the individual and religious morality is that it is necessary for the masses to agree upon what is right and what is wrong. This is impossible when each person decides for himself. As an example - and I am not telling people whether or not they should smoke - there is a war in our country on the matter of smoking. What I will refer to as the radical smokers have the opinion that they should be able to smoke anywhere and if you don't like it, go away. What I will refer to as the radical non-smokers have the opinion that smokers should not ever smoke anywhere. So all smokers must be legislated out of existence. People have asked me what they should do if two people are together and one person believes something is okay while the other person doesn't. I simply say: Be polite. If it bothers the other person, don't do it while you are around them (this includes foul language, young people). In the case of smoking there used to be a polite phrase repeated millions and millions of times - Mind if I smoke?
There are few things people agree on if they're honest with themselves. Whether something is right or wrong is one of them. Sure, we almost totally agree on the big ones but all those little things in our lives such as how fast we should drive our cars - well, that's a different story. If each person decides what is right and wrong we will have chaos unless there is something or Someone to be responsible to. Very few people can control themselves as well as they think they can. Therefore it doesn't matter whether religion came first or morality came first. What's important is to be moral and consider the feelings of others.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
How Many Gods are there in the Bible?
I was reading an article written by an atheist who is not quite as honest as he sees himself. Nevertheless, the article was interesting as it is definitely looking at the subject of God from the opposite direction. I hadn't read very far when he started claiming that there are many Gods in the Bible and that God is basically jealous of them. Okay.
We meet God in Genesis in which He is spoken of as creating everything that we know. There He is first referred to as Elohim (judges), a plural noun. The catch to that is that the verb connected to the seemingly plural noun is singular. Sometimes the word elohim is used as judges and has a plural verb. Therefore He is still one. Throughout chapter one He is called Elohim.
The first reference of another name being applied to God is in 2:4 where the two names Elohim and YHVH (which most Christians pronounce as Jehovah) are used together (Lord God in the King James). YHVH is usually defined as Lord (meaning master, one who is superior to you).
Yes, it is possible that God was assigned the name YHVH from previous beliefs. However, assuming it matters, do those references predate the name YHVH? In ancient times most cultures did not know how to communicate through writing. These cultures passed their knowledge down to succeeding generations orally - storytelling. There is no way to say which beliefs came from which in ancient times. And there is no reason to say that those entities did not exist before the myths. In fact, if you'll think about it for two seconds, you should be able to understand that those mythical references could have been stories that distorted the original stories long before the written ones.
There are many references to other gods in the Bible but they are creations of men. There are lots of idols which are referred to as gods but they aren't. There are people such as Pharaoh who were seen as the embodiment of a god. But there were no other gods. There was only the belief that there were gods. The God of the Bible stands alone and He doesn't like idols and He doesn't like people worshiping what He created instead of Him. His jealousy is that we assign more importance to anything than to Him. He gave us the free gift of life, which we screwed up, and He deserves to be number one. I'm sure you would get angry, too.
We meet God in Genesis in which He is spoken of as creating everything that we know. There He is first referred to as Elohim (judges), a plural noun. The catch to that is that the verb connected to the seemingly plural noun is singular. Sometimes the word elohim is used as judges and has a plural verb. Therefore He is still one. Throughout chapter one He is called Elohim.
The first reference of another name being applied to God is in 2:4 where the two names Elohim and YHVH (which most Christians pronounce as Jehovah) are used together (Lord God in the King James). YHVH is usually defined as Lord (meaning master, one who is superior to you).
Yes, it is possible that God was assigned the name YHVH from previous beliefs. However, assuming it matters, do those references predate the name YHVH? In ancient times most cultures did not know how to communicate through writing. These cultures passed their knowledge down to succeeding generations orally - storytelling. There is no way to say which beliefs came from which in ancient times. And there is no reason to say that those entities did not exist before the myths. In fact, if you'll think about it for two seconds, you should be able to understand that those mythical references could have been stories that distorted the original stories long before the written ones.
There are many references to other gods in the Bible but they are creations of men. There are lots of idols which are referred to as gods but they aren't. There are people such as Pharaoh who were seen as the embodiment of a god. But there were no other gods. There was only the belief that there were gods. The God of the Bible stands alone and He doesn't like idols and He doesn't like people worshiping what He created instead of Him. His jealousy is that we assign more importance to anything than to Him. He gave us the free gift of life, which we screwed up, and He deserves to be number one. I'm sure you would get angry, too.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
I read a letter the other day which was self-acclaimed as enlightened, moral, and objective. That may have been the intent but there were certainly some apparent lack of control in places.
The person who wrote the letter claims to have been a Christian and went "to university" (he didn't specify which kind) where he had the means to reason everything out and come to the conclusions that there is no god, we don't need God, we don't need to be ignorant, and the Bible and all religion is a tool to control the masses and is useless.
There were a few points on which he was correct but not for the reasons he proclaimed. For example, his stance that everything that is wrong with religion and with mankind is God's fault. After all, we know He makes us do all these bad things, right?
He starts by lifting up humanity saying that we have so much potential to learn and understand the world through science and philosophy but are ignorant and are taught at a young age to be that way. He argues that we shouldn't teach them anything at all about religion until they are old enough to apply logic and reasoning to all the things we didn't teach them.
Apparently he doesn't understand how society works. Every moment of a child's life with its parents should be used to teach them how to mature properly and to grasp basic skills and basic knowledge about how to live in an acceptable manner. His argument that waiting until they mature into properly ascertaining the difference between facts and fiction does not leave any room for teaching children to have respect for their Creator and for other human beings. Public schools, if he hasn't noticed, do not teach this sort of thing. And that university he went to is not likely a stronghold on those subjects. Throughout history cultures have taught their children the difference between right and wrong and the proper way to live. So, no, not teaching your children what you believe is not rational thinking and certainly not beneficial to society.
The potential he speaks of can also be invested in the purposes of religion - having a relationship with one's Creator and having a proper relationship with one's fellow human. I have noticed sites on the Internet that whose only existence is to try to persuade people that religion is bad and their way is good. Those sites of which I am speaking use all sorts of facts, events, etc, to try to disprove religion that I use to try to understand God. It's all in the intention. All things can be used for good purposes or bad ones. The irony is that their side constantly screams for us to leave them alone while they attack us.
This man argues that man's mind can be better occupied on science and that religion is a waste of our limited brain space. I don't understand that because I like science and I believe there was a Creator. I can consider both arguments to see how they fit together while he can only provide space for one or the other. He makes the claim that there is no proof for many religious beliefs. I disagree. One thing he complains about is relying on ancient manuscripts. Guess what? the more manuscripts and the older, the more we can learn. Apparently history was not one of his favorite subjects other than to find bad things people did and blame it on God.
He says that religion relies on fear mongering for survival. Excuse me, sir, but I believe you are stereotyping. You are claiming that everyone who believes in God does so out of fear. The only fear I have comes from your side. It is true that fear mongering (which actually means to sell fear) has been, is being, and will always be used to promote certain belief systems. That is not God's fault. That is not the fault of the concept of religion. That is not my fault. People are people and some of them are evil. They will seek a means to get an advantage over society's rules by any means possible, including infiltrating and controlling religion. How far they get depends on how good of liars they are. That's not religion's fault. That's like saying that you have money in your pocket and when I attack you to take it, that it's your fault. Pointing out how many have been brainwashed and how many have been murdered, tortured, banished, or imprisoned doesn't change what I just stated one iota. The Arab world is going through the same thing Christianity went through during the Crusades. Does that make Islam and the common Muslim evil? Of course not. It's like the gun argument. Guns don't kill. People kill.
You say the religious person demands you prove there is no God. You say the onus is on them to prove there is. There's just one problem with that argument. It has boundaries outside which it doesn't apply.
Try to use that open mind you brag about having and think about this. In the Judeo-Christian tradition God created everything that exists. It doesn't say whether He created it from something or from nothing. The language seems to me to imply that He shaped everything out of something. What was that something? Before God created the universe, Mr. Deep Thinker, what was there? What is God made of? You can't rely on the universe and what we know about it. We only know what we have been provided the means of using to understand the world. What might be beyond this universe is a mystery. You are assuming everything can be answered with your chart of the periodic table. What if there are things beyond that which we cannot perceive? And if this is the case, how can a Christian prove it and how can you disprove it? I am imagining that it is very difficult for you to think about at all because it isn't in your little box of pretend omniscience. Russell's teapot is out the window on this one. And how can you say that the Creator of the universe would be subject to what He created?
In fact, the argument about the existence of a Creator will never end because there is no way to find out what's outside the box. The means of knowledge, including our senses, that we have been given is simply not enough to understand all things. The ole boys club of science gets offended if you so much as consider the possibility of a Creator. Scientists who think so are often scoffed at and blacklisted. Any mention of the possibility brings taunts and threats from the doubters. Quite frankly, it reminds me of the Catholic church and Copernicus. And, quite frankly, I think the church is more open-minded than the scientists.
I am glad that you have found happiness trusting in your own mind and isolated set of morals. (Society needs more than that; it needs for everyone to have the same set - otherwise, one man's right is another man's wrong.) I'm glad you have looked inside and are doing things that are moral. That, of course, doesn't mean it's the only way. And I'm glad you feel ethically obligated to yourself and to humanity. However, I also think you've turned your back on the most important One because you haven't studied as much as you should have to form your outspoken opinion. Unfortunately, you don't appear to me to know as much about religion as you claim you do. I have a friend that spouts out all your claims as well as you do and she doesn't know diddly about religion or the Bible.
It is my own personal philosophy that God chooses our paths. He may lead us to some places where it is difficult to understand that they are on the path to Him but it's not in our ability to understand why. I am pretty sure that that is what is happening to you. You seem to be very angry and only time and experience will resolve that as you unknowingly follow God's lead.
And, then, there are your claims of the church using condemnation, fictitious principles, stereotypes, and dogmas ... all of which I've seen in your own letter. Talk about hypocrisy. I do agree that if you suddenly discovered there is a Creator He wouldn't condemn you to Hell (if it even exists) but give you mercy. However, that mercy comes from love and He expects something in return - your love and your gratitude. It amazes me how ungrateful our society is for what it has. It's all about what we don't have. First of all, God gave you a life. Any moment of joy, any happy memory is his free gift to you. How can you not be grateful? And here in America the poor are rich. They just don't know it. And if they need things it is our job to take care of them, not to go around gloating of how we don't need God and how we have superior morals. In fact, nothing you have is really yours and what you have is owed to the next person who is needy. People need people. That's how we were designed.
Yes, Christians must serve God. They owe Him for their very lives. Yes, we need to trust Him. That takes a lot of practice. I no longer have that problem. I've experienced things your science cannot explain. Yes, we die for Him one way or another. I don't see that changing. After all, you owe God one life. And I don't think calling God the magic man in the sky is an insult that would ever come from my lips.
Atheists say funny things. One complains that God made man from dirt. The next says He wouldn't stoop so low as to care anything about us. Opposite ends of a spectrum. There is no arrogance in a sincere believer thinking God made everything for mankind. It is called humility.
The part about Jesus is something it does take faith to accept. We know he existed. We know he was a Jew by the words and actions in the text and he was probably of the Pharisaic party. We do not know much more than that. However, what would be the best way to relate to the creatures to whom you gave life other than to experience it yourself? His role was supposed to be the ultimate sacrifice. In other words, he's opening the door wider for us to come to God. He didn't make sin as you claimed but he gave us the choice to follow him or do what you're doing. He didn't arrange to have himself killed. That was also people's choice. Where is logic missing as you claimed? If the story of Jesus is true, there is no story that can top it.
Some people have experienced things which were unscientific. They feel a connection to their Creator. Your scientific explanations can't take that away from them. Why would anyone even write a letter like yours except to hurt people who don't fit into your religion of how the world should be? Where is your compassion for them? Where is your humanity? Why are you calling all religious people ignorant? Ignorant means that you don't know something. It could be that you would be ignorant of something. This is just more hypocrisy. And why are you painting all religion with a broad brush based only on arguments against Christianity?
As far as the "semi-literate desert dwellers" go, don't you think God could give wisdom to whomever He pleases? Lately we've been finding out that the ancients weren't quite as dumb as we supposed. They had technologies that enabled them to find out things many modern Americans don't even know. Yes, most Christians couldn't list the Ten Commandments but they probably know more about kindness and compassion and gratitude than you do.
No, religion was not made by man for the control of man (your words). Religion is the way to connect with the Creator. It is not some sort of magic or ritual. You just talk to Him and treat Him to the respect He deserves. Evil people are why religion is often used to control people. Do you think the leaders of the Middle East are really Muslims? Really? How about the Crusades? People are people. There are evil ones who will use any means necessary, even religion, to get what they want. They don't care about people. They don't care about God. They care about themselves. That is the doing of humanity, not God. By the way, God and religion are two different things but in your letter you sometimes can't tell them apart.
And, no, religion is not a crutch for those who seek God. Religion is a society - a gathering - in which many people can help each other seek Him as if they were a family. You haven't proved that God doesn't exist and I haven't proved He does. There is really no way we can have an intelligent discussion on the matter. We cannot see or sense God in any way other than by his choice because we simply aren't equipped. Perhaps God allowed Moses to see him, perhaps even the apostle John. Who really knows? It is my opinion that you should keep the door open to Him and the rest is up to Him. Be humble and follow the paths He leads you on and you won't have anything to worry about. I can claim that by experience.
The person who wrote the letter claims to have been a Christian and went "to university" (he didn't specify which kind) where he had the means to reason everything out and come to the conclusions that there is no god, we don't need God, we don't need to be ignorant, and the Bible and all religion is a tool to control the masses and is useless.
There were a few points on which he was correct but not for the reasons he proclaimed. For example, his stance that everything that is wrong with religion and with mankind is God's fault. After all, we know He makes us do all these bad things, right?
He starts by lifting up humanity saying that we have so much potential to learn and understand the world through science and philosophy but are ignorant and are taught at a young age to be that way. He argues that we shouldn't teach them anything at all about religion until they are old enough to apply logic and reasoning to all the things we didn't teach them.
Apparently he doesn't understand how society works. Every moment of a child's life with its parents should be used to teach them how to mature properly and to grasp basic skills and basic knowledge about how to live in an acceptable manner. His argument that waiting until they mature into properly ascertaining the difference between facts and fiction does not leave any room for teaching children to have respect for their Creator and for other human beings. Public schools, if he hasn't noticed, do not teach this sort of thing. And that university he went to is not likely a stronghold on those subjects. Throughout history cultures have taught their children the difference between right and wrong and the proper way to live. So, no, not teaching your children what you believe is not rational thinking and certainly not beneficial to society.
The potential he speaks of can also be invested in the purposes of religion - having a relationship with one's Creator and having a proper relationship with one's fellow human. I have noticed sites on the Internet that whose only existence is to try to persuade people that religion is bad and their way is good. Those sites of which I am speaking use all sorts of facts, events, etc, to try to disprove religion that I use to try to understand God. It's all in the intention. All things can be used for good purposes or bad ones. The irony is that their side constantly screams for us to leave them alone while they attack us.
This man argues that man's mind can be better occupied on science and that religion is a waste of our limited brain space. I don't understand that because I like science and I believe there was a Creator. I can consider both arguments to see how they fit together while he can only provide space for one or the other. He makes the claim that there is no proof for many religious beliefs. I disagree. One thing he complains about is relying on ancient manuscripts. Guess what? the more manuscripts and the older, the more we can learn. Apparently history was not one of his favorite subjects other than to find bad things people did and blame it on God.
He says that religion relies on fear mongering for survival. Excuse me, sir, but I believe you are stereotyping. You are claiming that everyone who believes in God does so out of fear. The only fear I have comes from your side. It is true that fear mongering (which actually means to sell fear) has been, is being, and will always be used to promote certain belief systems. That is not God's fault. That is not the fault of the concept of religion. That is not my fault. People are people and some of them are evil. They will seek a means to get an advantage over society's rules by any means possible, including infiltrating and controlling religion. How far they get depends on how good of liars they are. That's not religion's fault. That's like saying that you have money in your pocket and when I attack you to take it, that it's your fault. Pointing out how many have been brainwashed and how many have been murdered, tortured, banished, or imprisoned doesn't change what I just stated one iota. The Arab world is going through the same thing Christianity went through during the Crusades. Does that make Islam and the common Muslim evil? Of course not. It's like the gun argument. Guns don't kill. People kill.
You say the religious person demands you prove there is no God. You say the onus is on them to prove there is. There's just one problem with that argument. It has boundaries outside which it doesn't apply.
Try to use that open mind you brag about having and think about this. In the Judeo-Christian tradition God created everything that exists. It doesn't say whether He created it from something or from nothing. The language seems to me to imply that He shaped everything out of something. What was that something? Before God created the universe, Mr. Deep Thinker, what was there? What is God made of? You can't rely on the universe and what we know about it. We only know what we have been provided the means of using to understand the world. What might be beyond this universe is a mystery. You are assuming everything can be answered with your chart of the periodic table. What if there are things beyond that which we cannot perceive? And if this is the case, how can a Christian prove it and how can you disprove it? I am imagining that it is very difficult for you to think about at all because it isn't in your little box of pretend omniscience. Russell's teapot is out the window on this one. And how can you say that the Creator of the universe would be subject to what He created?
In fact, the argument about the existence of a Creator will never end because there is no way to find out what's outside the box. The means of knowledge, including our senses, that we have been given is simply not enough to understand all things. The ole boys club of science gets offended if you so much as consider the possibility of a Creator. Scientists who think so are often scoffed at and blacklisted. Any mention of the possibility brings taunts and threats from the doubters. Quite frankly, it reminds me of the Catholic church and Copernicus. And, quite frankly, I think the church is more open-minded than the scientists.
I am glad that you have found happiness trusting in your own mind and isolated set of morals. (Society needs more than that; it needs for everyone to have the same set - otherwise, one man's right is another man's wrong.) I'm glad you have looked inside and are doing things that are moral. That, of course, doesn't mean it's the only way. And I'm glad you feel ethically obligated to yourself and to humanity. However, I also think you've turned your back on the most important One because you haven't studied as much as you should have to form your outspoken opinion. Unfortunately, you don't appear to me to know as much about religion as you claim you do. I have a friend that spouts out all your claims as well as you do and she doesn't know diddly about religion or the Bible.
It is my own personal philosophy that God chooses our paths. He may lead us to some places where it is difficult to understand that they are on the path to Him but it's not in our ability to understand why. I am pretty sure that that is what is happening to you. You seem to be very angry and only time and experience will resolve that as you unknowingly follow God's lead.
And, then, there are your claims of the church using condemnation, fictitious principles, stereotypes, and dogmas ... all of which I've seen in your own letter. Talk about hypocrisy. I do agree that if you suddenly discovered there is a Creator He wouldn't condemn you to Hell (if it even exists) but give you mercy. However, that mercy comes from love and He expects something in return - your love and your gratitude. It amazes me how ungrateful our society is for what it has. It's all about what we don't have. First of all, God gave you a life. Any moment of joy, any happy memory is his free gift to you. How can you not be grateful? And here in America the poor are rich. They just don't know it. And if they need things it is our job to take care of them, not to go around gloating of how we don't need God and how we have superior morals. In fact, nothing you have is really yours and what you have is owed to the next person who is needy. People need people. That's how we were designed.
Yes, Christians must serve God. They owe Him for their very lives. Yes, we need to trust Him. That takes a lot of practice. I no longer have that problem. I've experienced things your science cannot explain. Yes, we die for Him one way or another. I don't see that changing. After all, you owe God one life. And I don't think calling God the magic man in the sky is an insult that would ever come from my lips.
Atheists say funny things. One complains that God made man from dirt. The next says He wouldn't stoop so low as to care anything about us. Opposite ends of a spectrum. There is no arrogance in a sincere believer thinking God made everything for mankind. It is called humility.
The part about Jesus is something it does take faith to accept. We know he existed. We know he was a Jew by the words and actions in the text and he was probably of the Pharisaic party. We do not know much more than that. However, what would be the best way to relate to the creatures to whom you gave life other than to experience it yourself? His role was supposed to be the ultimate sacrifice. In other words, he's opening the door wider for us to come to God. He didn't make sin as you claimed but he gave us the choice to follow him or do what you're doing. He didn't arrange to have himself killed. That was also people's choice. Where is logic missing as you claimed? If the story of Jesus is true, there is no story that can top it.
Some people have experienced things which were unscientific. They feel a connection to their Creator. Your scientific explanations can't take that away from them. Why would anyone even write a letter like yours except to hurt people who don't fit into your religion of how the world should be? Where is your compassion for them? Where is your humanity? Why are you calling all religious people ignorant? Ignorant means that you don't know something. It could be that you would be ignorant of something. This is just more hypocrisy. And why are you painting all religion with a broad brush based only on arguments against Christianity?
As far as the "semi-literate desert dwellers" go, don't you think God could give wisdom to whomever He pleases? Lately we've been finding out that the ancients weren't quite as dumb as we supposed. They had technologies that enabled them to find out things many modern Americans don't even know. Yes, most Christians couldn't list the Ten Commandments but they probably know more about kindness and compassion and gratitude than you do.
No, religion was not made by man for the control of man (your words). Religion is the way to connect with the Creator. It is not some sort of magic or ritual. You just talk to Him and treat Him to the respect He deserves. Evil people are why religion is often used to control people. Do you think the leaders of the Middle East are really Muslims? Really? How about the Crusades? People are people. There are evil ones who will use any means necessary, even religion, to get what they want. They don't care about people. They don't care about God. They care about themselves. That is the doing of humanity, not God. By the way, God and religion are two different things but in your letter you sometimes can't tell them apart.
And, no, religion is not a crutch for those who seek God. Religion is a society - a gathering - in which many people can help each other seek Him as if they were a family. You haven't proved that God doesn't exist and I haven't proved He does. There is really no way we can have an intelligent discussion on the matter. We cannot see or sense God in any way other than by his choice because we simply aren't equipped. Perhaps God allowed Moses to see him, perhaps even the apostle John. Who really knows? It is my opinion that you should keep the door open to Him and the rest is up to Him. Be humble and follow the paths He leads you on and you won't have anything to worry about. I can claim that by experience.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
New Discussion Group
Defenders of Religion is where you will now find my posts and those of others who join.
Enlighenment vs God
Americans are turning away from religion in droves. Is it because we are an enlightened society? Not at all. We are a dumber society. We are a brainwashed society. But not enlightened. The truth is that there is just no room for God. We are fishing, skiing, playing video games, chatting, watching sports, watching TV, watching movies, entertaining (not teaching) our kids, and on and on and on. We can't go to church or synagogue because football or some other sport is on. We can't read our Bible because it's low on the priority list. We don't teach our kids about God because we're too busy trying to be their friend and they haven't requested any information about the true reason we exist. We are not grateful for our lives. We do not thank God for giving us life free of charge. We spend our lives pretending He isn't important or doesn't exist. The media help us to be ignorant of God because He gets in the way of their plans. All we see in the news are bad things that happen in religious areas - priests molesting kids, those Kansas morons protesting funerals, and anything else they can find to make religion look like a bad influence, while belittling those who do believe. Yes, when you tell your viewpoint and ignore the other side's views or try to make them the bad guy, you are brainwashing. You are a liar. You are ruining people's lives and murdering others. You are the number one enemy of society, media. Of course, there are good media but the mainstream sees them as the enemy, too. Fox, for example, has been pounded for years by the mainstream and sadly has given in to a great extent. CNN used to tell the truth. Strange, though, that Fox is number one, isn't it? Do you suppose people are tired of being lied to? Who will replace Fox when they have become mainstream? I don't know but I do know that they too will be pounded by the mainstream. Perhaps they will be a little more determined than Fox was and not abandon those of us who believe in them and in God. And perhaps we need to take a look at our priorities.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
I am not opposed as some are to the thirteen-billion-year-old universe. I am also not opposed to the young universe theory. But I am opposed to people attempting to use the Bible to attempt to prove or disprove either. The Bible was not written as a scientific document but begins with two very ancient stories explaining how a God created the universe and set it in motion.
We cannot prove or disprove God with these two stories that don't even totally agree. We can't prove who carried down the most correct story of the beginning because most cultures didn't have writing. Stories like these were passed down orally. You know the details were embellished over the millennia.
Scientists have always thought they were on the verge of discovering the key to the universe. They just never quite do. The seven days in the Genesis accounts also have no basis that has been proved beyond all question. Were they days or periods of time? Who knows? The problem with everyone's theory of the beginning is that we have limitations. We do not have the original, unadulterated Genesis story any more than we have the original, untarnished Bible.
The New Testament has actually been altered through the ages. We have many times found older pieces of text that are slightly different than what we are accustomed to. However, we can take that new information and place it into our existing knowledge and become more enlightened as to the overall meaning of the Bible.
I suppose the time the Bible, mostly the New Testament, must have been tampered with the most was when Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome. I read a letter in which new copies were sent to him as he requested. Who knows what changes were made? Being the Emperor I'm sure he saw a few that needed to be. It is a miracle that the Old Testament even exists.
Both scientists and creationists have one bad flaw. They think they know what happened and they think they can prove it. But when scientists and theologians find new evidence that puts their theory into question they should realize that their theories aren't quite as stable as they wish. Think about how the number of theories of how things got the way they are have blossomed during the past few decades. If science is so advanced and stabilized, why isn't there only one theory? Meanwhile theologians and scientists find each others' possibilities repulsive. The science community has become almost exclusive to those who reject any specific deity although a general "god" idea is okay as long as it is just a belief and not considered as a potential reason for our existence.
The reality of it all in my long thought out opinion is that God is beyond our understanding. We have been given life and a place to live it (for which we should be ecstatic and overwhelmingly grateful) and limited means of understanding it. Whatever God is is beyond our comprehension. How He chooses to allow us to understand Him and our beginning is up to Him. He gave us the five senses and anything we know beyond that is up to Him. Sure, we have instruments that use other means but we still have to interpret them with those same five senses. Scientists will have to realize that they can only understand the universe as much as He allows them to. God's reality is limitless in my view and man's reality is gradually revealed as He sees fit.
We, as humans, must learn to accept new truths. Both Christianity and science are very reluctant to accept anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived formula of the universe. Martin Luther and Einstein were both rejected at first because their views did not fit into what was widely accepted. My views will not be widely accepted, either, of course.
God reveals things to us gradually and it takes a long time for us to understand them because of our comfort in our beliefs. If they aren't already in our Bible, they're wrong. If we can't detect them with our five senses, they're wrong. That's how we judge reality. Think about it, if God had started the universe at a certain point and told it to go from there, how could we know it or how could we reject it? If you're scoffing now, you're making my point.
We cannot prove or disprove God with these two stories that don't even totally agree. We can't prove who carried down the most correct story of the beginning because most cultures didn't have writing. Stories like these were passed down orally. You know the details were embellished over the millennia.
Scientists have always thought they were on the verge of discovering the key to the universe. They just never quite do. The seven days in the Genesis accounts also have no basis that has been proved beyond all question. Were they days or periods of time? Who knows? The problem with everyone's theory of the beginning is that we have limitations. We do not have the original, unadulterated Genesis story any more than we have the original, untarnished Bible.
The New Testament has actually been altered through the ages. We have many times found older pieces of text that are slightly different than what we are accustomed to. However, we can take that new information and place it into our existing knowledge and become more enlightened as to the overall meaning of the Bible.
I suppose the time the Bible, mostly the New Testament, must have been tampered with the most was when Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome. I read a letter in which new copies were sent to him as he requested. Who knows what changes were made? Being the Emperor I'm sure he saw a few that needed to be. It is a miracle that the Old Testament even exists.
Both scientists and creationists have one bad flaw. They think they know what happened and they think they can prove it. But when scientists and theologians find new evidence that puts their theory into question they should realize that their theories aren't quite as stable as they wish. Think about how the number of theories of how things got the way they are have blossomed during the past few decades. If science is so advanced and stabilized, why isn't there only one theory? Meanwhile theologians and scientists find each others' possibilities repulsive. The science community has become almost exclusive to those who reject any specific deity although a general "god" idea is okay as long as it is just a belief and not considered as a potential reason for our existence.
The reality of it all in my long thought out opinion is that God is beyond our understanding. We have been given life and a place to live it (for which we should be ecstatic and overwhelmingly grateful) and limited means of understanding it. Whatever God is is beyond our comprehension. How He chooses to allow us to understand Him and our beginning is up to Him. He gave us the five senses and anything we know beyond that is up to Him. Sure, we have instruments that use other means but we still have to interpret them with those same five senses. Scientists will have to realize that they can only understand the universe as much as He allows them to. God's reality is limitless in my view and man's reality is gradually revealed as He sees fit.
We, as humans, must learn to accept new truths. Both Christianity and science are very reluctant to accept anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived formula of the universe. Martin Luther and Einstein were both rejected at first because their views did not fit into what was widely accepted. My views will not be widely accepted, either, of course.
God reveals things to us gradually and it takes a long time for us to understand them because of our comfort in our beliefs. If they aren't already in our Bible, they're wrong. If we can't detect them with our five senses, they're wrong. That's how we judge reality. Think about it, if God had started the universe at a certain point and told it to go from there, how could we know it or how could we reject it? If you're scoffing now, you're making my point.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
They Don't Want to Go Backwards
Biblical Heritage Center Blogs: Nuns push back against Vatican
But it's like this: Just as you can change your job if you don't like it, there are other Christian denominations to switch to.
The Real Truth about the Middle East
Expose: Kosher Consumers Supporting Israel Boycotters - Op-Eds - Israel National News
Israel is the only Middle East nation that wants peace.
Friday, May 25, 2012
The Next Life
The Bible is very fuzzy on the subject of an afterlife. I have looked for the afterlife in the Old Testament and there doesn't seem to be a belief in one until we hear Daniel say: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. An earlier possible reference to an afterlife is in Isaiah: Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits.
Most of the information about a potential afterlife is found in the Apocrypha and New Testament. There are various accounts of whatever it is and do not seem to me to be factual but in the form of parables which were used to teach ideas. If you understand how they were used, they cannot contradict each other in any factual way.
The concept of an afterlife was developed from the time of Daniel and had blossomed by the time of Jesus. Does that mean it isn't true? It seems to me that when God hears his people yearn for something, He listens. That doesn't necessarily mean that He will do it but it doesn't mean He doesn't care, either. As I pointed out in some recent writing I did somewhere, if God answered every prayer, the world would be in chaos.
I believe in an afterlife. What will happen there I can't say. My hope is to meet my Creator. I want to tell Him how wonderful many things have been in my life and to thank Him for giving me the joys that were not owed to me. To me it seems that all He wants is to be acknowledged and thanked and the rest will come naturally.
I know many people who don't even set aside a moment for God. Many think humanity has moved past the need for a Creator. Others are just so busy with their technologically-infected lives that they can't spare a moment for such a trivial thing as life. If they can't spare a moment for the One who provided such a wonderful world, what are his feelings toward them?
We really don't understand the afterlife other than to know it apparently was meant to be the future for Adam and Eve who chose to eat the fruit of the wrong tree. The tree of immortality and the joy of the Garden were passed by in favor of trying to be godlike. We are not godlike. We are humans and we often make bad decisions.
Here is my personal view of the afterlife. Someday I will die. I will be dead. Many will be dead. When the correct time comes, God will begin calling the names of those He determined to be suitable to be in his Presence. There will be many names He will not call. Those will have lost all memory, all joy, all consciousness forever. Those whose names He calls will arise from death and be in his indescribable Presence. I don't pretend to be able to imagine anything beyond that. There are other things I think would be suitable to do with the worst of the people who lived, but I am not God and you should be glad of that.
Most of the information about a potential afterlife is found in the Apocrypha and New Testament. There are various accounts of whatever it is and do not seem to me to be factual but in the form of parables which were used to teach ideas. If you understand how they were used, they cannot contradict each other in any factual way.
The concept of an afterlife was developed from the time of Daniel and had blossomed by the time of Jesus. Does that mean it isn't true? It seems to me that when God hears his people yearn for something, He listens. That doesn't necessarily mean that He will do it but it doesn't mean He doesn't care, either. As I pointed out in some recent writing I did somewhere, if God answered every prayer, the world would be in chaos.
I believe in an afterlife. What will happen there I can't say. My hope is to meet my Creator. I want to tell Him how wonderful many things have been in my life and to thank Him for giving me the joys that were not owed to me. To me it seems that all He wants is to be acknowledged and thanked and the rest will come naturally.
I know many people who don't even set aside a moment for God. Many think humanity has moved past the need for a Creator. Others are just so busy with their technologically-infected lives that they can't spare a moment for such a trivial thing as life. If they can't spare a moment for the One who provided such a wonderful world, what are his feelings toward them?
We really don't understand the afterlife other than to know it apparently was meant to be the future for Adam and Eve who chose to eat the fruit of the wrong tree. The tree of immortality and the joy of the Garden were passed by in favor of trying to be godlike. We are not godlike. We are humans and we often make bad decisions.
Here is my personal view of the afterlife. Someday I will die. I will be dead. Many will be dead. When the correct time comes, God will begin calling the names of those He determined to be suitable to be in his Presence. There will be many names He will not call. Those will have lost all memory, all joy, all consciousness forever. Those whose names He calls will arise from death and be in his indescribable Presence. I don't pretend to be able to imagine anything beyond that. There are other things I think would be suitable to do with the worst of the people who lived, but I am not God and you should be glad of that.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Is Organized Religion Evil?
Not per se. God is a wonderful being. To believe in God is a wonderful thing. To wonder about God is wonderful. The organized church is not so wonderful a lot of times. That doesn't mean it needs to be done away with. Any organization starts going downhill the moment it is created. It is up to the people of that organization to build it up more than it is torn down. Two major organizations that come to my mind are NOW and the NAACP. Both of these organizations had aspirations and lofty goals and were also wonderful when they began. Unfortunately, organizations have to have the means to function and attaining their needs sometimes causes the organizations to lose their sense of direction. NOW has certainly lost theirs. Churches also do this. My belief is that churches should be local just as government should. If they need help they can call neighboring churches. But don't join up with 5,000 churches and have a head office. That's the beginning of the end. Certain people love power and will do a lot of acting and lying to get it. From a distance they may seem to be doing well but things are prone to happen behind the backs of the people. How about those Crusades? How about the radical Muslim leaders? The American government, as well, was set up to honor local governance. The federal government wasn't supposed to do much - protect us from foreign countries and settle disputes between states and commonwealths and ... oh, that's about it - but look at the American government now. It's absolutely nothing like it began. This is not progress. It is loss of liberty. The American government should go back to its roots and let the states and counties and cities decide their matters. In the same manner, the little country church outside of town shouldn't be regulated and taxed by the home office. This takes a lot out of the entity of a neighborhood, friendly, free church where people are supposed to come together for one purpose - to be thankful to God, not to see what they can get. Nothing is wrong with a little bit of organization. It should be limited, though. The rest is about trust and relationship.
What is Prayer?
Believe it or not, this is a mysterious subject. It seems that it would be simple but if you ask someone to do it they might appear dazed and confused. Praying is one thing but understanding what it is is another. I have had conversations with pagans and their type on the Internet and they usually try to convince me that prayer and magic are the same thing. Not at all. In magic one tries to control his environment. Prayer is not magic in any way. It is asking God to help you. You ask God. He answers. The end. So you might be wondering why it doesn't seem that God answers prayers the way I just explained. It's because of the answer. Some people say that God always answers prayers but the answer is sometimes no. That's close to what I think but I have a much better answer. First of all, I must point out that I seldom pray for myself. I pray for others. I think that's what God wants. I don't think He likes ego trips where you "claim" something and it's yours. He wants us to pray for each other. Where two or three are gathered, there will He be in the midst of them. As for the answer to the prayer, I don't think it's ever No. There are many paths we can take at any given moment. When I pray for myself or for anyone else, I expect God to choose the best path. It isn't apparent to us that God has actually done anything but we have been influenced to make a more fitting choice. I don't think we should ever demand anything from God or ask Him to prove Himself. Then there are the other answers. People doubt that He can heal sickness. That's strange to me since He created us in the first place. It seems to me that He can do anything He wants in the universe He created. He speaks the word and it happens. Just like that. But mostly I think He just helps us by choosing our paths. And if He wants to heal someone He just does it.
Jesus' Bible
Most Americans have no idea what the Bible says, much less about whether or not they believe it. It stands to reason to thinking people that one would actually have to read it to disagree. Sadly, most people just don't have time to think about it in our age of distraction. I have actually talked to people who thought Jesus carried an English New Testament around with him. I just don't have the words to express my thoughts on that one.
Really, read this.
Really, read this.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Big Bang Theory: The Show
Alright, I admit it, I'm a Big Bang Theory show fanatic. Sheldon kills me because he is so analytical and takes everything so seriously. He has difficulty recognizing sarcasm, for example. One of the things he mentions is the theory of alternate universes which I think is silly and just another avenue for scientists to run down attempting to evade the confrontation of the question of a Creator.
Sheldon alludes to what he might be like in an alternate universe (in none of them is he dancing) but that raises the question: In what other universe could he even exist? Do you have any idea how incredible the odds are against it? Supposedly in alternate universes things happen differently and people make alternate decisions. That a certain person could exist in two different universes at all would have to be termed a miracle.
I see no reason to believe there is life on other planets much less in alternate universes. I believe our universe was the work of what we would call a super-intelligent Being who had a plan. To believe in life on other planets or alternate universes would require believing that they were caused by an accident. Of course, I can't speak for God and it could be that He just felt like creating other life than on earth.
That's why I don't have a fixed theology. Over the years I have found that some of my theology didn't stand up to scrutiny simply because men made it up over the millennia. Sometimes it was necessary in their circumstances and sometimes it was just to retain control over the masses. It's like Congress who pass laws that should be temporary instead of permanent. (I think every law we have should be reviewed by Congress and HR periodically to determine whether or not to keep it or trash it. This does not include the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Just think of how many new bills they wouldn't have time to pass.)
In my studies I go by the theory of a friend: My Belief System will be large enough to include all of the facts; I will be open enough to allow it to be tested; and I will be flexible enough to change it when I become aware of errors or new facts (http://www.biblicalheritage.org). I have carried more than one belief about any particular subject around in my head for years waiting for the evidence that would make one or the other opinion conclusive. I would not be a good 21st century American exclusive science club member because the alternative to supernatural creation is not conclusive yet and I doubt it ever will be. The scientific age of the universe is credible to me though I cannot discount the possibility that the Designer could have started it at a certain point. Who could ever determine that? Evolution is a possibility, though I cannot bring myself to believe that the animals changed themselves. However, if the Creator manipulated the changes, it's easy to accept if I find out.
Scientists have reached a stumbling block on their road of blind faith. There are many theories about many things and, as scientific as they are, somehow they just can't totally agree. If the absolute evidence is laid before them, how can they deny it? My answer is that it isn't all there.
Sheldon alludes to what he might be like in an alternate universe (in none of them is he dancing) but that raises the question: In what other universe could he even exist? Do you have any idea how incredible the odds are against it? Supposedly in alternate universes things happen differently and people make alternate decisions. That a certain person could exist in two different universes at all would have to be termed a miracle.
I see no reason to believe there is life on other planets much less in alternate universes. I believe our universe was the work of what we would call a super-intelligent Being who had a plan. To believe in life on other planets or alternate universes would require believing that they were caused by an accident. Of course, I can't speak for God and it could be that He just felt like creating other life than on earth.
That's why I don't have a fixed theology. Over the years I have found that some of my theology didn't stand up to scrutiny simply because men made it up over the millennia. Sometimes it was necessary in their circumstances and sometimes it was just to retain control over the masses. It's like Congress who pass laws that should be temporary instead of permanent. (I think every law we have should be reviewed by Congress and HR periodically to determine whether or not to keep it or trash it. This does not include the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Just think of how many new bills they wouldn't have time to pass.)
In my studies I go by the theory of a friend: My Belief System will be large enough to include all of the facts; I will be open enough to allow it to be tested; and I will be flexible enough to change it when I become aware of errors or new facts (http://www.biblicalheritage.org). I have carried more than one belief about any particular subject around in my head for years waiting for the evidence that would make one or the other opinion conclusive. I would not be a good 21st century American exclusive science club member because the alternative to supernatural creation is not conclusive yet and I doubt it ever will be. The scientific age of the universe is credible to me though I cannot discount the possibility that the Designer could have started it at a certain point. Who could ever determine that? Evolution is a possibility, though I cannot bring myself to believe that the animals changed themselves. However, if the Creator manipulated the changes, it's easy to accept if I find out.
Scientists have reached a stumbling block on their road of blind faith. There are many theories about many things and, as scientific as they are, somehow they just can't totally agree. If the absolute evidence is laid before them, how can they deny it? My answer is that it isn't all there.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)