…Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. 2 Peter 2:10-12
Today’s Reading: Ezekiel 37-39; 2 Peter 2
The more and more that I think about it, the more I don’t understand people who are quick to speak badly of God.
Of course I am looking at this as a Christian but the same holds true for any faith in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong with saying that you don’t believe in something or calling out the actions of certain followers for being flaw when they are.
But if you don’t believe in God or don’t know for sure if God does or does not exist what is the point in even speaking on it? How can anyone know for sure anyway? What is the point of speaking with such certainty on “matters they do not understand”?
When it comes to spiritual matters what we “know” is what we believe. Many folks of course have experiences to support their belief. I am such a person. I have experienced some things that were so concrete that I could never say that God does not exist. But when I speak of God to others I don’t position God as something that they are foolish not to believe in. I do my best to connect that dialog to my experiences.
This is not an attempt to define God solely within the context of my life. I’m not the biggest fan of the “I think, therefore I am” line of reasoning. But I find that sharing God with people through the experiences of my life provides others with an opportunity to hear about God through something that they can identify with, the human experience.
To those celestial naysayers I have one question. What if God does exist? Would that change how you spoke of Him? If you were to momentarily suspend your doubtful reason and read the words above as if they were truth how would you feel about the things that you have said to others about God?
Of course not everyone who is atheist or agnostic takes on this kind of hostile posture. I have many friends who do not believe in God and they are nothing but loving and respectful when it comes to my faith. They just beg to differ.
And I totally respect that.
But it seems that more and more I hear folks, whether it be in the media or in regular life, boldly proclaiming the “weakness” of God, boldly ridiculing the invisible God and in turn celebrating the foolishness of those who choose to believe.
It’s cool if you decide that you don’t believe. Everyone is entitled to believing what seems right to them. But believing in what you believe does not have to include disrespecting what others believe.
Of course us Christians have a ton of work to do in this respect as well…
Live and let live. Easy.
ReplyDeleteI must though disagree I believe Descartes is onto something about "I think therefore I am." Or more so "I exist." Based on my admittedly limited understanding of Descartes, I think he's saying if I am thinking, even if incorrect, or dream state, I exist.
I.e., relationship status being determined by one's thought of its existence simply means, I feel a relationship can exist with this flower because I think it can. Not that the thought is correct. Or that it's even true. Just something exists, because I'm "thinking" it does.
So in a way to me, it seems Descartes supports God believers in that if they merely think God exists, God does. No support required.
CONVERSELY-removing the human experience from the belief would leave the God thought unsupported. And I must agree, having understanding created through human experience vs. thought alone (unless telepathic which would be the ultimate human experience) creates feelings of connected meaning.
Human, animals, and plants alike, all seek connectedness to one another. Pieces that are part of a whole. That can only be achieved with common experience. Even those that think alike connect experientially with one another because of the feeling created by being around others that think as they do. "Thinking as they do" a human experience creating connectedness through thought.
Simply, we are the human experience. How ever we live or believe it to be that experience to be. One thought does not exist without the other. One thought exists BECAUSE of the other.
@Alegria I'm glad someone disagreed with me here! haha. Here's my issue...
ReplyDelete"So in a way to me, it seems Descartes supports God believers in that if they merely think God exists, God does. No support required."
I have a serious problem with that. He is "proving" the existence of God through himself. What happens after he dies? What about before he was born? This "me" centered view of the world Is the root of a ton of problems. It's why we have out of control pollution, poverty, inequality, crime etc. That our society has convinced us that it is ideal to view the world through the prism of self and to maximize our own self interest is sooooo problematic.
"CONVERSELY-removing the human experience from the belief would leave the God thought unsupported."
Totally disagree!! haha... Logically you could extend that to say that God didn't exist before we did... something that I don't believe. This planet has been around way longer than the human experience has been. How did it get here? Was it created? Is it the result of a series of cosmic accidents or is it the result of rules set out by a divine plan? Of course that is the big question right?
I think that the God approach suffers under our self centered view of existence. If nothing exists without someone being able to see or observe it... then existence is limited by the capacity of human understanding. Is the capacity of human understanding infinite? How can we hope to understand all things when we can barely even understand how we think or live or work.
At a certain point discovery requires us to step outside of our perspective and search for truth beyond our imagination. The better we get at doing this, the closer we get to a communion with God. I imagine in the future that we can achieve a marriage between the scientific and the spiritual in a way that doesn't diminish either one.
I know I have digressed but I believe it is all related. Looking at existence through self limits existence by the frames of our imagination.
I think that existence, and God, is bigger than that.
Such an awesome response! I felt compelled to respond and have been wanting to since I read it days ago.
ReplyDeleteI understand Descartes idea of life being based from individual thought into existence. I don't though believe you can always ignore the collective experience. Nor though, can you always follow the collective experience.
-Looking at existence through self limits existence by the frames of our imagination.-
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? This world that we live in today, it is reality because we experience it or are we all actually sleeping dreaming a collective reality created for us? You know, like The Matrix.
If you are a believer in God, as we are, the fact that we believe in God will allow us to see events that support God's existence. Just as those that are not believers in God will find ways to discredit those events.
This to say, I feel believing can effect belief. Whether its one believer or a million. Does popular collected following of a belief make it greater than if only followed by one? I say no if that belief relates to that persons experience.
I think we agree though, that for the both of us, God's existence in our lives is beyond our understanding and experience. We appreciate others may not feel the same, nor should they, as the existence of God in my and your life may and can have a totally different meaning than it does for them.
What’s most important to me above all, is that regardless of where we stand about God (generally speaking) no one belief is better than the other. Although we can all have our preferences.