Does God Exist?
Our
insistence on the Absolute Existence of God, although a bit tongue-in-cheek, has
drawn some comment in Facebook. Here is
the whole conversation.
BW Posts
“The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can
this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So,
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood
has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is
true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh
and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live
because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
This is the bread that came down from
heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.’
”-John 6
HS Responds
“The indispensible evangelism text.”
JY Writes
“Hurray for cannibalism?!”
HS Replies
“That accusation was resolved centuries ago!?”
JY
“Yeah, in that if you eat the flesh of ones own species you
are practicing cannibalism. But hey if
eating human flesh is your thing don't let me cramp your style. All I ask is don't try and twist definitions
and logic around to make yourself feel better. Lying to yourself never helped anyone.”
BW
“Ravi Zacharias addressing a group of Christians said, ‘The
anger with which they[Atheists] speak about God you would not speak against the
Tooth Fairy.... Something in the back of their minds tell them – “He’s REAL and
we’re ANGRY!” Why use the time and
energy to attack a God that “doesn't exist”?’ ”
“Why do you hate God [JY]? Or if you won’t answer that, why do you hate
the idea of God?”
JY
“Lol The idea that I would actually possess hatered towards a
fictional being is absurd. That being
said the existence of your God in particular is a interesting one because
wether I like it or not it's believers think it can tell me and others how to
live by affecting public policy. As I've
already said, I find your traditions of eating the living flesh of your deity
odd but I would never try and change anything about you or how you live. That is something missionaries in Africa or
Asia can't really say now can they?”
HS
“Since there are at least two distinct topics involved here,
we need to separate them in order to make any sense out of the conversation.
For a thorough proof of the existence of God, please consult http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-absolute-existence-of-god-1.html.
Look forward to
the-absolute-existence-of-god-2, soon to come as well. The clear, sure evidence for the existence of
God is sufficiently manifest for all to see.
However, some folks want to pretend they cannot see it; in reality, they
will not see it. Denying the existence
of God is a logic error on the order of denying that the sunrise took place
this morning.
As far as the ancient claim of cannibalism is concerned,
Christ’s outrageous sermon offended nearly everyone in earshot. Evidently, Christ intended to offend those
listening. Many of His hearers had a
cold, dead, rule bound idea of God; for these, God was nothing more than a set
of demands (not the Ten Commandments, not even the other regulations handed
down through Moses, [these were] extra manmade ceremonial rules). God was no longer a person to them. Christ demands that we consider what our
relationship to Him is.
What is our relationship to Him? If we were related to God as carnivore and
kill, or as manslayer and victim to be devoured, the John 6 picture would
indeed be too much to tolerate. However,
this does not describe our relationship to God.
Rather, He is Creator and we are creation, He is Groom and we are bride,
He is Head and we are body, He is Vine and we are branches. In all of these metaphorical relationships,
the essential sustenance of life is passed from God to man, which is to say
that it is eaten and drunk, without any event of kill or cannibalism. Man cannot live without God. Indeed, ‘Man cannot live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’
The relationship of Groom and bride is especially fascinating. In the beauty and mystery of the marital,
sexual relationship, bodily fluids are transferred between man and wife, and
new life is created. This is indeed
wonderful, but it is not close to being cannibalistic. It is not accidental that God calls this
relationship, ‘one flesh.’ In
redemption, we become one flesh with the Theanthropic (or Theandric) Person: we
who are mere men, become men-gods through our relationship with the God-man. Nor is it accidental that the woman is named
Eve (or Zoe in Greek), which means life.
Since there is no direct role model other than these
metaphorical relationships, humanity must be content with embracing this
mystery of our relationship with God as something logically outside of our
grasp. The metaphors show the logical
possibility of such relationships, but do not tell us directly how this plays
out between God and man. So, we must be
content to accept them by faith.
There may have been some excuse for the cannibalism
accusation in the first century. Nowadays,
it simply displays unbelievable ignorance.”
JY
“Firstly there is no conclusive evidence for or against god's
existence. Even as a atheist myself I
understand that science is the study of the natural world and sense your god in
particular is WAY outside the natural order it would be impossible to properly
study or judge a being that can warp time, space, matter, and even the very
laws that govern each at will. ANYONE
who claims to know or prove the existence or nonexistence of such a being is a
delusional imbecile of the highest caliber.
What I will address however your arguments where science is
involved. How on Earth do you see the
sharing of genetic material to make offspring and consuming the flesh of others
to be equal? You even throw in a
marriage metaphor which btw makes it sound like eating a spouse is justified as
you are ‘one in the same’. To be fair in
the natural world cannibalism is not very uncommon (albet rare for mammals like
ourselves and less so for reptiles and insects). We as humans tend to view it more taboo then
murder, rape, or incest because of this wonderful thing called empathy which
allows us to understand and conceptualize what we are putting another sentient
being threw. Hell thats why most
vegetarians are who they are because they apply that to non-human beings.
Lastly I want to address the HUGE amount of mental gymnastics
I see in your explanation. Just because
you or your church has decided that eating the flesh of Jesus isn't cannibalism
doesn't mean it actually is not cannibalism.
If you want it not to be cannibalism then ask Websters to change the
definition because your tradition still meets the current criteria. Your opinions have ZERO weight behind them if
all you have to justify yourself is philosophical bullshit that is meaningless
to anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do! You say humanity ‘must’ embrace this
mysterious relationship with god when it simply doesn't. How many billions currently live honest
peaceful lives without giving your god a second thought? Do you understand how insanely arrogant you
sound when you say such things?”
HS
“It is difficult to believe that you read the proof of God's
existence. Science has nothing to say
about this. History is too large to put
into a test-tube. The Jews claim that
their ancestors met continuously with a Person named I Am, over a period of 860
years. If this claim were based on the
observation of one Israelite, we might have cause to doubt the evidence. If this claim were based on one occurrence,
we might suspect illusion or delusion. That
several million people observed this Person, and built a nation in obedience to
His commands is virtually indisputable. That
this nation was destroyed, only when this Person abandoned the Jews because of
their sins, is remarkable. The
credibility of the documentary evidence is unimpeached (it is a credible diary,
or logbook kept over many generations). Numerous
tests of personality are all met. By
your argument millions of Jews throughout history are, ‘delusional imbecile[s]
of the highest caliber.’
With regard to ‘You say humanity ‘must’ embrace....’ We have no intention of coercing your
conscience, or telling you what to believe.
You can, may, and will believe what you wish: it is a free country. However, we did not attack you or intrude
ourselves into your conversation. Rather,
you intruded yourself into our conversation and began to attack us. Nevertheless, we welcome such uninvited
involvement in the interests of pursuing Truth.
Having said that, there are unavoidable cause and effect relationships
involved here. You have chosen your own
path, and you will (you must) live with the consequences of that choice.
As far as the cannibalism claim [is] concerned, this is just
so much flogging of a dead horse. The
discussion lost philosophical importance over 1500 years ago. I’m amazed that anyone thinks it is any
longer important. For example, see: http://www.academia.edu/787977/Eating_People_Accusations_of_Cannibalism_Against_Christians_in_the_Second_Century. Notwithstanding the opposing claims of http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm,
the argument is absurd. If you wish to
believe this sort of thing, it’s a free country, you may believe whatever you
wish to believe. That does not give you
the right to lay this at our doorstep. We
do ‘understand how insanely arrogant you sound when you say such things.’
As far as the credibility of our arguments is concerned, we
never intended to persuade you to begin with.
We know full well that, ‘A man convinced against his will, is of the
same opinion still.’ You will continue
to believe what you wish to believe. Our
arguments serve only one real purpose. They
serve to support those who already believe, and to encourage those who are
seeking to believe.”
JY
“First of all I never attacked you and still haven't. At most my ‘hurray for cannibalism?!’ was
playful ribbing at best. It was merely a
joke. It's the same way ‘zombie Jesus’
is mocking the similarities between the two.
If that offends you then learn to get a sense of humor; this is the
internet.
Secondly the church does impose itself on others and you are
LYING if you say otherwise. If we had
this conversation in Europe 400 years ago my very life would be in danger for
sharing these opinions. People In this
very country have been burned alive for witchcraft in the name of your religion
so don't you dare say Christianity doesn't force people into its way of
thinking because it has and to a degree still does to this day via the fear of
becoming ostracized or eternal hellfire.
Thirdly, this has nothing to do with science? Why the f@&k not?!. Thousand year old slips of paper written by
desert nomads who had about as much traditional education as a modern 1st
grader have more credibility then Math, Gravity, and other replicable
experiments you yourself are able to do right this very instant? Are you mad?!
If building cities, cultures, and keeping records is all one takes to
legitimize a Deity then please explain the illegitimacy of the Hindu, Muslim,
Greek, and Mayan gods because I would love to hear it. Also this notion that because multiple
authors wrote about something around the same time means thats actually the
truth is absurd. For thousands of years
everyone on Earth thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and from the
evidence they had that was a reasonable assumption however does that mean they
still wernt under an illusion? Of course
they were, even if that explanation made sense and was excepted world wide it
was still WRONG. Please, all I ask is
that you look at the world from not from one angle or even two but from five or
six different ways.”
HS
“You could have fooled me.
It sure does look like an attack to me, looking at it from seven
different ways. You’re talking about my
King.
Actually, it is scientifically correct to say that the Sun
revolves around the Earth from the perspective of an observer on Earth. The language of the ecliptic is still
appropriate and useful scientifically. It
is equally, scientifically correct to say that the Earth revolves around the
Sun from the perspective of an observer on the Sun (hard to accomplish in
reality). Scientifically we do not know,
nor cannot find the absolute center of the universe, because our measurements
are all relative to an assumed origin. So
actually, the idea that the Sun revolves around the Earth is not and never was
wrong. What is wrong here is your
understanding of science. The point of
discussion always depends on the arbitrary choice of Cartesian coordinate
systems.
Please don’t lecture me about what science can and cannot do. I’ve given over 50 years of my life to the
study and application of science. That
includes advanced studies in statistics, measurements, scientific method, and
error evaluation. The practice of
science depends on the repetition and replication of experiments. In terms of practical practice, no single
scientist can handle an experiment lasting more than a month; the human memory
is just not that good. Hence, long
experiments require extra controls. Replication
requires building a new apparatus, or at least tearing down the old one and
putting it up again. We all know what
repetition is. Repetition and
replication are important because they expose error factors caused by unknown
variables. The study of this error leads
to new discoveries. It is simply
impossible to replicate or repeat any sizeable event of history such as
Slaughterhouse-Five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut). Science can be used as a tool to evaluate
historic artifacts, but even this can be misleading, especially in the case of
radiometric dating methods, which are notoriously inaccurate. In such evaluations the experimental tests
can be repeated, or replicated with differing apparatus until the artifact is
consumed. Since no one wants to see the
evidence consumed, this sort of experimentation is usually restricted. The artifact itself is far more valuable than
any experiment that can be performed on it.
Science is a very small and limited tool, totally inappropriate for the
study of art, history, literature, poetry, or music. The best that science can do is pick away at
minor peripheral details of these subjects.
Science must not be confused with evidence. The studies of art, history, literature,
poetry, and music all require evidence. However,
each of them also requires its own specialized principles of evaluation and
controls for verification. Science has
nothing to say about any of this, because science is simply too small an
instrument.
Now that we have created the seventh dimensional vector space
that you require, let’s explore further.
By the way, are you equipped to handle the algebra and calculus of the
seventh dimensional vector spaces you insist that we explore? The artifacts involved are not
thousand-year-old slips of paper; they are two thousand-year-old parchment
(leather) and papyrus documents, some of which are almost perfectly intact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_scroll). Other pertinent artifacts are five
thousand-year-old monuments. These ‘uneducated
desert nomads’ mastered astronomy, invented alphabetic writing, built
civilizations, developed the sciences of embalming and ceramics to unexcelled
heights, mastered bronze and iron metallurgy, and had a command of mathematics
that would stump most modern collegians.
Your idea of ‘first grade education’ is simply arrogant and ill informed. We urge you to apply your own medicine and ‘look
at the world from not from one angle or even two but from five or six different
ways.’
The merits and claims of Hindu, [Muslim], Greek, and Mayan
civilizations all hang on the artifacts they left behind. Muslim civilization is late, only arising
after 570 AD. Science has no more to say
about these civilizations than it does about Babylonian (Sumerian), Egyptian,
Canaanite, Hittite, Philistine, Hebrew, Edomite, Syrian, Assyrian, Neo
Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman, Christian, English, or American
civilizations. That’s nineteen different
perspectives. On which of these are you
a subject matter expert? Which of these
civilizations has artifacts that disclose meeting with a Person named I Am, who
is also called God? If you really want
to go there, produce the evidence and let us compare the credibility between
the Old Testament evidence and the evidence of other civilizations. You know where my evidence is found. You made a claim. Where is your evidence?
The church and christianity (please note that the
capitalization is deliberate) have done some incredibly stupid and inexcusable
things. Please note the Christian New
Testament claim that the Church has always been infiltrated by wicked people. Moreover, becoming a Christian does not
immediately remove a person’s sins, so real Christians also do stupid things
(like continuing this conversation). No,
the arrest of Galileo, the wars of the sixteenth century, and the Salem Witch
trials are not Christianity's brightest hour.
However, I do not sit in judgment of my ancestors, they were people of
their times.
Let’s talk about water boarding. Are you willing to accept your responsibility
for the practice of this act in our civilization? We may not condemn an entire civilization for
the corrupt acts of a few. We may not
condemn the German people for Adolf Hitler.
We may not condemn the United States for the bombing of Dresden. We may not condemn you for CIA water boarding. And we may not condemn Christianity for
Vladimir III.
As far as coercion of individuals is concerned, let’s talk
about what God has done. God created man
with a free will, a perfect intellect, and uncorrupted emotions. You have nobody to blame but yourself that
your will is now enslaved to your pet sins, your intellect is less than
flawless, and your emotions are so tangled up that you cannot even understand
yourself. You were made to be a free
man, and because of Jesus Christ, you have the potential to be free once again. It is irrelevant that people do or do not
coerce you, or that you feel coerced. God
wants you to be free. You are not free
because you don’t want to be free. You
chose your own brand of slavery. What
are you going to do about that?
If you want to believe that Jesus Christ giving His life in a
cruel Roman crucifixion for you constitutes an act of coercion against you, so
be it. I will never dissuade you, and
I’ll never try. I can’t stop you from
feeling coerced either, you decided to be that sort of victim, and coerced you
will continue to be, even if it’s only in your own mind. Is your life in danger now? Why not?
As far as other angles are concerned, what other angles did
you have in mind? It’s your move.
By the way, your jokes aren’t very funny.”
No comments:
Post a Comment