I don’t know if I can convince anyone else that God exists but I think I can prove that atheism isn’t a tenable position. People may be atheistic in terms to the traditional Christian concept of God but it’s impossible to be truly atheistic. Here’s why.
First of all you’d have to know God doesn’t exist.
By definition an atheist has to know beyond a doubt that God does not exist. Aside from the point that you can’t prove an negative, to be an atheist you’d have to know everything. In other words you’d have to be able to search every corner of the universe and know (and be able to counter-prove) every possible argument in the support of the existence of God. That’s not an intellectually honest position to have. The possibility that God (or proof thereof) could be hidden in some remote corner of the galaxy is (as far fetched as it sounds) still a possibility.
Let’s say you did know everything.
Given that you have all knowledge and did know that there was not God in any place and there was no argument that could prove he existed, that would mean you were all-knowing. What is it that we call an all-knowing being again…? Oh that’s right…God. God, by definition, can’t be an atheist.
So the most intellectually honest position for a person that isn’t convinced of God but doesn’t know everything is agnosticism.
Filed under: religion | Tags: Christian Mysticism, discerning the will of God, Will of God
We left off messing around with the concept of marriage. Why stop now…?
Let’s Say There is One Perfect Person Out There.
For the sake of argument, in God’s Master Plan, he’s got the “One” picked out for you. No other person will fit so perfectly, no other person will fulfill or satisfy. If you marry the wrong person it will be like eating diet foods for the rest of you’re life – You’ll be miserable, unsatisfied and die of aspartame induced cancer when you’re 43. (I think I officially took that simile too far.)
With me so far? Well neither am I.
Let’s examine more closely the concept of – If there is “The One”, what if you (or they) make a mistake and marry the wrong person? This is a fun question because answering it blows Point “A” from the previous post out of the water. I take great pleasure in doing so.
Imagine with me a scenario. In our little play five men and five women exist on the face of the earth. They all live in Tahiti but that’s beside the point. According to point “A”, God has one perfect and specific person in mind for each of these ten people. Our ten lucky contestants can determine who their future love should be by flipping a coin, casting lots or fleece-casting. It doesn’t matter as long as it can be supernaturally inspired.
Now let’s take one of our ten, let’s name him Ron. Let’s say Ron is a bit of a idiot and he makes a mistake. Instead of following God’s magically inspired signs he chooses on the basis of who looked best in a Tahitian bikini. (I know we’d never be a shallow as it is to let beauty be the sole deciding factor in a decision of this magnitude but bear with me.) So Ron sweet talks Pretty Young Bikini and they run off to the other side of the island and get married. Now we have a problem. Because of Ron and Pretty Young Bikini’s mistake they’ve married the wrong people. So they’ve not only messed up God’s perfect (and specific) plan for their lives, they’ve managed to mess up the lives of the other two God originally planned on hooking up with Ron and Pretty Young Bikini. Four marriages destroyed by two mistakes.
Now pack up that concept in a carry-on bag and transport it to a global scale. If one person marries the wrong “one” then the whole system is messed up. You and I have no chance and finding God’s perfect (and specific) person meant just for us. One mistake throws the whole system into chaos! Whoops.
Now apply our example of marriage to life in general. If there is one perfect (and specific) plan for our lives designed by God then one mistake (by ourselves or others) can throw that entire plan off kilter!
I Can Hear the Objections From Here.
But…but…but…God is smart enough to account for the mistakes and poor decision of Ron, Pretty Young Bikini and everyone else in the world!
True. But now you’re getting back into an arena that removes free will from the human hand. If my mistakes can’t throw of God’s plan and thus mess up my life – then why avoid making them?
The bottom line is this – either we need wisdom. Wisdom we apply to all our lives decisions, including marriage, in order to make better decisions. Or we need better mystical insight with which to determine the mystical signs laid out like bread crumbs from a mystical God. You can’t really have it both ways.
Let’s say that God wants us not to look for more signs but to be better people. To actually exercise the golden rule (even in our marriages!) Maybe God’s perfect (and specific) will for us is that we actually obey the huge “sign” that he wrapped up in a neat little bestseller called the Bible. Do we really need God to “open” and “close” the proverbial doors, when he’s already given us access to all the decision-making tools we’ll ever need?
There’s so much more to talk about – (The role our desires play in God’s will for example) but for no apparent reason we can’t right now. Maybe it’s a sign.
Filed under: religion | Tags: Christian Mysticism, Marriage, poop goes splat, Signs, Will of God, Wisdom, Yellow Rose
Christianity as Magic. I like that. I secretly hope that’s why you are reading this first sentence.
I had a discussion recently that brought the Gill of Wod (Will of God for you anagrammatically-challenged Who am I kidding? Nobody reads this.) And it dawned on me that we have a whole subset of mystical Christians and beliefs in the church.
Now let me back up because this is starting to sound ridiculous, even to me.
A few days ago I overheard (that’s a fancy word for eavesdropping) a conversation about discerning the will of God. The funny thing about that conversation was that if I had replaced the concept of God’s will with something like “fortune telling” or “palm reading” the vocabulary would have hardly changed. The conversation went along the lines of looking for signs from God to determine what choices he wanted a certain individual to make.
The age old argument can be characterized something like this.
A. God has a perfect (and particularly specific) plan for you life.
Or
B. God equips us with wisdom with which we make biblical decisions.
At first blush most people aren’t going to see the contradiction between the two positions. The first has had so much “press” in the form of church related teaching that it’s practically become part of the canon of scripture. In fact for me to even make point “A” made some Christian squeak with incredulousness. (It’s true, I heard it with my own ears)
In fact if point “A” isn’t true then years of tract-making and witnessing goes right down the tubes. I can hear it make the particular splatting sound that you-know-what makes when you throw it against a wall.
So what proof can be offered to derail a long and storied heritage? It’s a good thing I wrote the previous sentence or this post would be short, even more confusing and even more problematic for me.
The Dilemma of the Yellow Rose
Let’s pull the emergency brake on this thought process and drift around a logic corner.
Take marriage as an example of the point I’m trying to make. (If you’re not confused yet – just wait – I haven’t even begun) Most young and single church-goers have, by osmosis, learned that there is one perfect person for each of us to betroth. This idea is simply an application of point “A” from earlier. Essentially we are told, “that singular individual is out there, somewhere, beneath the pale moon sky. The way to find them is to discern the signs.”
Evidently we’d go on a date and if by the end of the date our fleece is dry but the ground is wet then they’re the one! (Wait that sounds a little dirty, sorry.)
I actually heard of one case where the singular girl, looking for the singular guy made a mini-pact with God. In this case God would supernaturally encourage “the one” to show up for a date with a yellow rose. That seems reasonable. A yellow rose is sufficiently unusual that the appearance of such a rose would indeed constitute a sign from God.
However if you’re going to set up these sorts of checks and balances it’s much safer to keep them to yourself. If, for example, you shared your “sign from God” with, say a younger sister – she might bring to bear an undue amount of influence on the situation and thus your future.
Yes, in this case the little sis told a prospective young man to bring with him one yellow rose. This was sign enough for the young maiden and in short order they were wed.
Match made in heaven, right? God had a perfect plan for her life and, as part of the package, a perfect young man and a perfect yellow rose. Everything worked, right?
Well that particular couple is divorced. Evidently the young man had a penchant for beating and cheating on those to whom he was wed. Now we’re left with a dilemma. Did God want the young “yellow rose” woman to be beaten and cheated on? If so we have a different sort of problem. If not then there was a problem in the way in which the suitor was determined.
Take God out of the above story insert tarot cards and you essentially have Christian mysticism.
The problem I have is that God has equipped us with plenty of decision making factors when it comes to a mate and not a single one of them involved a rose, yellow or otherwise. God, according to James 1, will freely give us wisdom. Why would we need wisdom if were simply search for the proverbially white rabbit (or the not so proverbially yellow rose)? The short answer is – we don’t. If knowing God’s will is all about following signs we simply need to ask for better eyesight not more wisdom.
But wait that’s not all…
(Part two -coming soon!!!)
Filed under: religion | Tags: "Jesus Without Religion", elitist jerks, Gregory Boyd, judging books by thier covers, juxtaposition, Mother Theresa, Perfectly good words, religion, Repenting of Religion, Rick James
I judged a book by it’s cover today and it felt good. I took a few steps back to get a running start at a huge leap of logic. Yes I dismissed the content of a book simply because of what was on it’s cover. And because of my snap judgment I’ll never read the book. Wow I’m really living on the edge.
The book at the center of my storm of my personal prejudice and controversy is entitled “Jesus Without Religion” Snappy title, right? I’m you sure you read a title like that and you think – “Wow some guy is cool and edgy for dissing religion, man! I’m buying this book.” I’m sure that you will by the book and then change your worldview and become the next Mother Theresa. You watch that’s what will happen. I’ll never read the book (at least of my own free will) but the title was enough to make me mad. To be fair I’m sure the book is great but I’m just saying that to sound unbiased.
It’s an example of a current trend to be catchy by juxtaposing what would normally be two congruent topics. The James’ book certainly isn’t an isolated incident. “Repenting of Religion” by Gregory Boyd or “How to be a Christian without being Religious.” by Fritz Ridenour. I’m sure there are more but that’s just another example of my athletic assuming ability.
The issue is that this practice is indicative of a larger problem. James (and I’m too lazy to look up precisely where) said that “pure and undefiled religion” was to help “widows and orphans.” You plug in a scriptural definition into the word “religion” and James, Ridenour and Boyd have a problem. Let use their book titles with our biblical definition of the word “religious”
“Jesus Without Helping Widows and Orphans” Rick James
“Repenting of Helping Widows and Orphans” Gregory Boyd
“How to be a Christian Without Helping Widows and Orphans” Fritz Ridenour
The problem with “Jesus Without Religion” (aside from the fact that it’s by Rick James. If you don’t know what that means you should watch more TV. Elitist jerk) What Mr. James does is to try to identify with potential Christians not by adopting their culture but by adopting their values. Now adopting customs and culture to identify with a potential disciple is a practice encouraged by the New Testament (Read 1 Cor. 9). But what is not encouraged is adopted the values of those we seek to help.
What Mr. James (and those like him) do is get all in a tizzy buddy-up to self-proclaimed-anti-church disenfranchised… (I’m not sure how to finish this thought) …people. Let’s wave the white flag and say “We’re cool too! We can dis religion together!”
Look if we want to be an example we have to be willing to be different. We have to be willing to be misunderstood. We certainly aren’t going be more clearly heard if we keep changing the definitions of perfectly good words. It sounds harsh (and I’m intentionally using harsh language to make my point) “I’m religious, you aren’t but you should be. And I can show you someone that can make you religious.”
What Mr. James does is take a perfectly good concept and turn it into a negative.
Now this certainly isn’t original with James. He’s just bought into a trend that’s been around for years. The Ridenour book was published in the 70’s.
If we really want to influence people why don’t we teach them what religion is rather than agree with them when they have a wrong idea. That doesn’t help either of us. Now you may have to disregard the last few hundred words. I never read the book. I just judged it by it’s cover.
Filed under: Blogging | Tags: Blogging, Blogs, celebrities, figure skating, Paris Hilton, Why aren't I out doing something else more important?, Why Blogging is stupid
My wife hates blogging. I can’t say I totally disagree with her. However I’m opposed more on the basis of the name. What a stupid word. Blog. I can see it used so much better in other contexts, – “OK, who forgot to flush and left the huge blog in the toilet?” or “Gross, when you sneezed you got blog all over the windshield.” Or “Man, what a night I had so much to drink I think I blogged my guts out.”
I suppose it’s because it hasn’t yet become part of my vocabulary and still sounds…well stupid. By the way being aesthetically opposed to something is legitimate. I don’t have a reason for that previous sentence but it will all become clear if you just read my second point. I won’t say “bling” either and I don’t write the abbreviation for “laughing out loud.” So don’t tell me any instant message jokes. By the time I tell you I’m laughing, it won’t be funny anymore.
1. It’s a stupid word
(I know I really communicated this point in the previous paragraph I just needed something to start off my outline.) The problem with the word “blog” is that it’s sounds like people who don’t know how to speak Chinese making fun of Chinese by making sounds that sound very little like Chinese. (I used the word Chinese about three times too much in that last sentence).
2. Do we really need more information?
Look we already have enough (too much) information. Worse, blogging isn’t a result of a studiously generated opinion it the result of…well not a studied conclusion. While I know that’s not always true, smart people do blog -exactly 97.2% of blogs are stupid. Much like this one.
Now that isn’t to say that we can’t entertain ourselves mindlessly with the minutiae of other peoples daily lives. However I submit that the ones that blog their lives for all to see are morally opposed to buying celebrity gossip rags. We’ll write about pointless moments in our own lives but we can’t see why anyone would waste good money to find out about Paris and Brittany. At least the “Star” is making money! We (I started to say “you” but here I am blogging) are simply wasting time – ours as well as others.
3. We do things that don’t make good sense.
This third point isn’t really a point. While it’s a great example of my second point, it remains a very true statement. Not to say that blogging is the first thing that humans have done that is pointless and stupid. I could come up with a top ten list of pointless and stupid things we do, but top ten lists are an example of what I’m talking about. Hey look! A figure skater beating up a sychronized swimmer on YouTube – I better forward it to every e-mail address I can find!
So, all that being said, here’s a paradoxical blog. By a person opposed to blogs. And who doesn’t even like the word.
