We all have acquaintances whose company we enjoy, but that doesn't mean we agree with everything the other holds as their beliefs. Even spouses are subject to disagreement in
many areas, that’s what makes marriage interesting and wonderful. I have many friends close and casual, and of
the friends I am blessed with, the closer the bond, the less time we spend
discussing the areas we disagree on.
However, with the advent of social media, I have other friends that
enjoy discussing almost exclusively the things we don’t have in common.
This has become a source of entertainment and enjoyment as I
have always been one to wonder what makes things tick, including other humans
and myself as well. Having discussions
of religious and political content can become very heated and frustrating sometimes,
but the people I share with are very good about keeping the discussions we have
from interfering with our camaraderie’s.
One topic that always piques my interest is the discussion
of the existence of God. My fellow
social media-ites and I seem to get into an exchange regarding God’s existence,
and their insistence He doesn't.
The
discussion usually goes something like this:
Me: “Our God is an
awesome God and I thank Him for saving a wretch like me.”
My social media buddies: “There is no god, only weak minded
people need a crutch like an imaginary deity.”
Me: “Bite me you ungrateful wretches, God created and
sustains everything.”
Media buddies: “Oh yeah… prove it.”
Me: “the Bible says… “(And I quote off a bunch of verses
that remind us God created and sustains everything)
Them: “The bible is a book of inconsistencies” and then they
go on to recite the 3rd law of thermodynamics, or some such pointy
headed information as their proof that we came into existence from navel lint,
or whatever their argument entails and the discussion is reduced to a battle of
each of us regurgitating the proofs we hold to be evident to us, and the claims
that the other won’t listen to the “truth”.
This is frustrating to me as I am not a very adept debater,
but I love to talk about and discuss differences between people. In my observation, in a battle of words, neither
person can successfully convince the other that conclusive evidence exists to
either prove God exists to the non-believer, or prove He doesn't to the
believer. So it seems to me if that is
the case, it becomes a matter of the next best thing or other evidences that
either elevate or reduce the position held by either arguer.
Being of a pragmatic school of thought, I am always
interested in what yields the best outcome for the given purpose something has,
or what demonstrates the most compatible outcome when being exercised. This is where I believe God and Christianity
prove to be the most logical, and compatible to human existence, therefore
bolstering the fact that God’s Word is in fact from God and not just a collection
of human ideas that “just work”.
If you were to set up an amoral society purposely, one of
two things would happen: it would destroy itself, or adopt moral limitations
that allow it to survive or even flourish.
God’s Word is chock full of specific moral imperatives that if practiced
to a tee, would sufficiently enable any society to flourish. I don’t think the same can be said for
amoralism, or an anarchistic approach to moral behavior.
And since the evidences either side can present are of
knowledge that can only be known within the confines of what man can grasp, by
weighing the knowledge God’s Word can impart against the knowledge man can know
at the time of the argument, only the knowledge that can produce tangible fruit
can be trusted as reliable in my pragmatic way of thinking. To put one’s faith in another scientist’s
theory, or perceived knowledge that may or may not be accurate because of the
relative “newness” of claims or limitations of knowledge of the given time could
be spiritually and morally disastrous. In
addition, the knowledge man calls truth today will surely change in time to
come as he gains greater understanding, and insight, of what he is
studying.
Consider the absolute
worst thing that would happen if we lived in a truly theocratic society using
the Biblical guidelines. People would
live a moral and productive life by following all the edicts in the Bible. On the other hand, the lack of adherence to a
specific moral code of conduct and the propensity of man to deceive his fellow
man for ill-gotten gain is evident in the world in which we live today.
Who is to say that the scientists of tomorrow won’t be faced
with even more concrete evidence that we are living in a world designed and
maintained by a Creator? To me it seems ludicrous
to claim to be a scientist and completely rule out an entire avenue of thought
held by previous generations, as a matter of convenience and rebellion. It seems as though a specific outcome of
thought is the idea, not scientific truth.
My compatriots always throw the idea that religion has been
the impetus for wars and murder over the many years of history. I take this to be a broad stroked claim that
lacks specific definition so that in a casual conversation it tries to lay that
claim at the foot of Christianity.
Anyone knows throughout the millennia that historical records have been
kept that there have been wars and slaughter in relation to many causes, many
of which were perpetrated in the name of religion to lull the masses into a
false belief that the warring party was supported in their quest for
blood. Even our leaders of today erect
false flags to insight our allegiance to their causes for war, and so I believe
it has been with many of the so called “Religious” wars. The world has known many a tyrant that has
invoked the name of God or a reference to the Bible as a means to their
end. However, if anyone cares to heed
Jesus Words, you can see a much different and far clearer picture of how God
would have us interact with each other.
I wrote this as a way to try to break the verbal “stalemate”
I always seem to find myself in when addressing my atheistic friends. They like to try to set the tone of the
discussion as their knowledge being the ultimate wisdom, and the ownness of
proof being on my belief in God being on
trial against the pop-cultural wisdom,
but to me their grasp of knowledge is the least reliable and most prone
to change over the course of time.
The pragmatic and time tested results are the tangible evidence
that God’s Word is true, and continues to remain unchanged.
No comments:
Post a Comment