God the Father AND the Son
January 11, 2008
What the Church says: God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is the Holy Trinity of the Church and can be all three persons and one God at the same time. How? Why? The semantics don’t matter; God just is. The Son is separate from the Father, but is the Father… The Father sent His one and only son to die for us…He sent…himself…
What they say: How does that make any sense?! How can God be someone that He isn’t? One moment He is the Son, but the next He also isn’t? How can God be flesh and killed when God cannot be destroyed, and the Bible says that no eye has ever seen His face!? Oh, but because we have seen God the Son instead of God the God, we still have not looked upon..His..face… If God is omnipresent, what is the need for the Holy Spirit? God is everywhere inherently, right?
If God is the Son, why did he pray to the Father asking that he not have to take on the yolk that God the Father put on him? Jesus asked that the cup be passed away from him…but why ask himself? If Jesus was God the Son asking God the Father, wasn’t he really just God himself asking God himself to spare…himself? And if Jesus was God the Son, a manifestation of God the Father, how could he have the flesh to be spared (after all…God has no beginning or end..)? Either Jesus was a good man, faithful servant, loyal prophet, or he was a liar. Newspapers are filled with the lies and corruption of man; just because it is in print, does not make it valid. The Bible telling us that Jesus was God does not make him God.
What I say: When a born again Christian proclaims to have recieved Christ in their heart, they say that Jesus is in them; that he lives in their heart. Does Jesus really live in their heart? Of course it is silly to get so legalistic, but why get legalistic about the terms of God being both Father and Son?
The Bible says that man cannot look upon the face of God, but yet man was constantly looking for their Saviour. How could God make himself shown to man if not to change how He shows himself to man? God as the Son was the way to bridge the gap; from man to God, Jesus stretched out his arms for us.
There are many men that can be called great, good, loved men; but Jesus was perfect…how many other men are noted to be such? Sure we can discount him as just another good prophet…but was Mohammad perfect? Is there any other documents of another man, let alone a prophet being perfect? Perfect! We seem to let that concept escape our reasonings; who else but God could be perfect?! It’s like a cruel joke on us really: God can say ‘I know it can be done because I did it’ anytime we say it’s too hard.
I’m going to have to take a TBC (to be continued); like my other posts, these are just ‘openers’ to themes to come. Kind of like ‘Answers 101.’ Stay tuned for the rest of the semester when we hit Intermediate Answers. 
Tags: God, Father, Holy Spirit, Trinity
In the Beginning
November 17, 2007
What the Church says: God is, was, and always will be; God is Alpha and the Omega– the Beginning and the End. He was not created; God just is. God created the Heavens and the Earth, knitted our innermost being while in our mother’s womb, and gave life to every creature and being in existence. God is the Creator, Designer, and Master Craftsman of all the wonders the eye can see. God is the very ‘uncaused‘ that caused the universe and the world that we live in. His existence cannot be denied as doing so would create the very paradox that to deny something is to acknowledge first that it exists and then that it does not (ie. I cannot say a Minotolo exists or does not exist until I establish that it does exist).
What they say: If God just ‘is’ and has always been, then why can’t we use the same argument for the existence of man? That the earth and its creatures just ‘are’ and always have been? Why is one argument good for the Christian but not for others (an idea explicated by Carl Sagan an adopted by atheists and agnostics alike). After all, since there is no concrete proof of ‘God,’ how can we say that He existed post-creation and that creation was not before Him?
I can freely say that a Minotolo does not exist because it does not– not because it does, and I choose to deny it. I do not first have to admit that something exists in order to say that it doesn’t; all I have to do is call you an idiot for thinking that a Minotolo exist. You have to define a Minotolo before telling someone it exists so that I can then again call you an idiot and prove that a Minotolo is actually something totally different or still does not exist.
What I say: The first problem that atheists run into in using an argument such as the Earth always being just as God always has been is that they are trying to compare a holy deity to an anthropomorphic (like man) being. In other words, we are comparing apples and parachutes. The Bible tells us that God is a spirit (John 4:24) and that God never was man. It tells us that God is in a whole other dimension by saying that He is beyond time (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) and is in fact in control of time (Acts 1:7). How can we even begin to compare the Creator of time to imperfect man???
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
Revelations 21:4 tells us what Heaven will be like– the Heaven that God offers to us and where He is seated on His thrown. Such a place is like the antithesis of what we have created here on Earth. How can we compare what we have created to what God has created?
To simply state that there is no evidence of God is like a hollow excuse; all I would have to contend is that there is a God then and I would be right? It is science that for every effect there is a cause, and this argument has been used by the Christian community to show that creation (effect) came by means of God (cause). Atheists will say then what caused God, but what they forget is that there has to be an ultimate uncaused; moreover, that there has to be a ‘first domino’ to knock down all the others, and God is that domino.
You don’t have to call me an idiot for saying a Minotolo exists; you merely have to discuss with me what a Minotolo is**. Once I have told you what a Minotolo is and you still don’t believe me, you can deny that exists, but that doesn’t have to mean that it doesn’t. But if I say to you that I have seen a Minotolo, how can you who have not seen it say it does or does not exist? In the same turn, I can say I have seen God, but you denying His existence does not make it any less true or that God does not exist.
**I will dive further into this ‘idea’ in further posts, but being at work at the moment, I cannot. For the sake of the topic, though, I did want to touch on it briefly.
Tags: God, Alpha and the Omega, uncaused, atheists, agnostics, holy deity, anthropomorphic
Can’t, Never Could
November 5, 2007
I had a teacher once who hated to see her kids give up so easily on anything. Whenever she would hear us say that we can’t do something, she would say to us: can’t, never could. It never really made any sense in my mind’s eye, but today is a little more clear. See, if we say we cannot do something, then logically we never could have done it, right? In other words, the only reason not to be able to do something is because it just never was doable. But if it could be done, then I should be able to do it and not saying that I can’t.
I recently read an opinion article of a young man who thought it fitting to propose the title ‘You Can’t Protect Everything.’ My disdain for the article has nothing to do with its title however. Let’s take a look at an excerpt from that article:
Let me express the voice of those thinking students who understand what nondiscrimination really should be about.
If you look carefully at the list of things which the university does not discriminate against, they are all things that one is. They are not things that one does.
In other words, I did not choose to be born male. Nor did I choose to be born white. In fact, with ever more shrill cries for affirmative action, I might have chosen to be born neither.
The policy states that the University does not discriminate based on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability or veteran status,” according the article.
Each of these affiliations relates to things that a person is. A person is black. A person is female. A person is old. A person is disabled. One doesn’t choose to be these things. One simply is.
Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.
While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.
There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.
But, let’s say there was a gay gene. How would this gene be inherited? How would this gene last for more than one generation?
I was so taken aback by this ‘educated’ man’s ignorance that I simply had to post a reply to his column in the comments section. My comments on his opinion:
“Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.”
Why is it justifiable to make exceptions to a point that you are attempting to make so as to merely support your side? You attempt to make a point that we do not choose to be a sex, race, or age, etc. and therefore should rightfully not discriminate against those, but not homosexuality. Yet, you realize that your point does not hold water when it comes to the aspect of religion so you are quick to make the First Amendment comment. What about ‘veteran status’? Don’t we have those who choose to go into the military, thus choosing this status?
“While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.”
Really? I didn’t know I ‘do homosexuality.’ I was under the impression that I ‘am’ a homosexual. So do you ‘do straight’ or are you just straight?
“There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.”
There is also no such thing as the religion gene or the veteran gene for that matter. But that’s not what is up for discussion is it? So why bring up a moot point?
And then to go on to compare homosexuality to body piercings! I love it! Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s not forget about clothes! The government should not protect us from being discriminated against because of what we wear! That’s our choice after all! But wait… does not a nun wear a habit and priest wear their vestments? So we can discriminate against them because they are wearing silly clothes…no wait, we can’t because they are religious people who only wear them because that is their religion so to discriminate against them would be to discriminate them based on their religion…wait…right?!
The thing with clothes and jewelry and any other accessory you choose to adorn for the day is that these are all accessories! These are not who you ‘are.’ But then you will say that you can choose not to be gay, right? But then you still have to admit that being gay or straight is just that: ‘being.’ You are comparing inanimate objects to a state of being. This is like comparing apples and parachutes.
All in all, you attempt to bring up several points as to why rights of homosexuals should not be protected, but when you apply the vacuum test, they fail. You cannot apply one logic to homosexuality, one to religion, and then yet another to veteran status.
Do a little more research before you post illogical barbel. After all, even an opinion should use some logic; because if it doesn’t, it’s really just a load of bull.
I would like to point out that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Sure, many think that being gay is a choice. So today I’m gonna choose to be gay. Tomorrow I think I’ll choose to be bi. Maybe next week I’ll dabble with ‘other’. I’ll choose to be straight only every other weekday though….
Obviously the author and I have different opinions on what our choices are, but it is not for lack of knowledge or research that I make the statements that I make. An educated opinion, while still an opinion, allows for educated debate.
Just as when I spoke on children growing up raised by gay parents, I think it is highly illogical that someone would choose to be chastised all their life. That even as a young child, that they would go against peer pressure and love someone of the same sex. So when someone says to me that being gay is a choice, I have to wonder why? Why would someone choose to be the outcast? Perhaps because I don’t choose to be an outcast, I will never understand it, but I still want to. I try to put myself in other people’s shoes; play devil’s advocate so to speak, but I still can’t understand the ‘why’.
I must say, I enjoyed one follow-up editorial that another student wrote. There were a couple of others who wrote in reply to the editorial as well:
Sexuality, Rights Are Who I Am
All in all we realize that no one will ever have the ‘right’ answers; that in a world where relativity and opinions allow us to be the ignorant race that we are, we cannot find the happy medium that is unity.
Tags: discriminate, homosexuality, ignorance, gay, rights, opinions, choice
Prove God
October 12, 2007
What the Church says: God is. He just exists. There is no ‘definition’ of who He is and His ways are supreme, righteous, and warrant no challenges; after all, the Bible says that we should only test the Lord in our tithes and offerings. God does not have to prove himself and, in fact, to do so would be to challenge who he is. That being said, the Bible itself proves the existence of the Almighty anyways so why question who He is?
What they say: How can you use the book that publishes God as the creator to justify who he is; moreover, how do you prove ‘God’ with… ‘God?’ Specifically, the Bible is the one that establishes God as the Judeo-Christian entity that we have ‘accepted’ and now ‘challenge,’ but in order to validate it’s claims, the Church tells us to…look…in…it. Moreover, if I created a text that established that Muskucs exist in captivity and that for proof of their existence, I ask you to look to my writings…which first establish their existence and nature…have I not then created for you a circular logic that will only leave you at step one over and over again?
But say we accept the writings of the Bible on the character of God; not accept who He is perse, but rather what is written in the Book. How, then, are we supposed to ‘accept’ this version of God when what we see in our world totally contradicts the existence of a benevolent deity? We are supposed to accept that God is loving when children are being abused and killed daily; we are supposed to believe that God answers prayers when our mothers, fathers, and spouses die of cancer. We are supposed to accept that God exists in a world full of suffering, pain, evil, and despair. Because this book tells us. And never mind that we can’t question why or how He exists in such a state of contradiction, but that we should walk in faith. Seems all too self-fulfilling for the prophets and a cop-out for modern man.
What I say: When you were born, the hospital created a record of your birth and issued your parents a birth certificate which they used to obtain a social security card for you. When you hit adolescence and needed your driver’s permit, you had to provide these things to the DMV as proof of who you were. Did they ask you to prove who you are? Moreover, did they ask you to perform selfless acts of love to prove that you are a loving person? Or to save a child from a murderer’s hands to prove that you are merciful? Did you have to do anything more than present these papers backing up your claims of being ‘you’? Why, then, do we ask the same of the Creator? He cannot be just as we are? Are you any more of a John or Jane because you can perform spectacular sights on command; more specifically, are you defined by what you do rather than your inherit nature or being? Yet we as the inferior man presume to put standards on the superior God?
At the point where we grant that what the Bible teaches is accurate, we grant that God is. Why? Because that is what the Bible says. We cannot take parts of the Bible to suit our needs; it’s an all or nothing deal. Why? Because the Bible says! At the very minute that we concede the Bible, we concede God; or rather, the idea of God– not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God. Meaning, we concede that there is a God so the next step is to determine who He is. Moreover, is he the God represented in the Bible, the Qur’an, or the Torah? Yet how can we question who he is when we have already accepted that the Bible is an accurate source? It would seem the paradox that we created would lead to the assumption that there is no answer and/or that God is a nice idea albeit an illusion.
But the ‘logic’ does not have to be so circular; we go to the Bible and hear about this ‘God’, we read further to find out more about this ‘God’ and who He is, we become to know ‘God.’ The issues in the whole ‘prove God in relation to the world’ debate, is not whether or not he exists (that is for another debate), but that his existence contradicts what is written about him and the way the world operates. However, they also use this contradiction to then say that He does not exist which doesn’t work because in order to initially say that He contradicts the nature of the world, we have to concede who he is! It’s like law: you cannot establish motive after the fact.
Semantics and logic aside, we should not be challenging the ‘who’ of God, but rather the ‘why.’ Why do we deserve such a merciful Father? Why is He always in our court? Why does he love me uniquely? It would seem that in light of the world, why is God still the unchanging lover that He is?
Again, I would like to note that this is but the mere tip of the iceberg, but that it is also from my stream of consciousness alone. Til next post…
Tags: question, God, prove, Judeo-Christian
Good God!
September 19, 2007
Free will is not mutually exclusive with the omniscience of God; God’s foreknowledge does not force me to do or not do an action (after all, I don’t have the same knowledge so how do I know I am doing that which is ‘preconceived’). I know and egg will break if I drop it, but does my knowledge of this make it any more possible or impossible? Measuring determinism to knowledge is like measuring carrots to tires– two separate entities…
God does not have to prove Himself; He would not be any more ‘God’ if He did one more miracle than He already has or chose not to make the rain stop. Just as I can’t be anymore ‘Jen’– I just am and there is no one like me, God just IS. The real issue should not be if God is possible, but if an actual creator exists (then….lol….look around…it’s apparent)…
The president met you four years ago…once. He sees you again and remembers your name. Do you feel special?
God knows your name, the number of hairs on your head, the intimate thoughts in your head, and has your name engraved on the palms of his hands. He has promised men in exchange for you…how much more special do you feel?
God’s Love
September 18, 2007
What the Church says: God is love. He is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (everywhere), and omniscient (all knowing). God is merciful, forgiving, and is the father of all. God loves all his children. All who follow him will go to heaven; sinners go to hell.
What they say: How can God be so loving and there are children dying, wars, and unjustified homicides? What kind of ‘love’ promotes war and chaos? What kind of ‘love’ allows for such a place as hell? After all, if he forgives all our sins, why the need? If God is all-good, he wouldn’t allow this state of being we call civilization. If God is omnipotent, he would not allow the bad that which he knows we are going to do. If he were omniscient, he would know to stop us or change our actions before they do ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’. **An aside: some say there is no right and wrong even. This will be discussed in later posts.
What I say: God loved us so much that he gave us free will. Think about it: did you like it as a child when your parents did not let you do that which you wanted to do? How beneficial would it have been if they decided to make all your decisions for you unto adulthood? What is it we are taught? That we need to make our own mistakes in order to be a better person? Why is this same concept not applied to the father-child relationship that is God and man? God allows us to be who we want to be in order for us to grow. We can’t know that we need him til we need him; we can’t know that the blindness that is ignorance is a crutch until we find out for ourselves. Who wants a forced love?
So if we have this free will, how can God control us? Is this not the antithesis of free will? How does a master control his slave if he has freed his slave? He has no more control over this fellow man than the next master. If we are going to use a vacuum test for every quality of God, we have to use it for the non-quality. Think about it: if God controlled us at all times, how is he loving us? How is he letting us be who we are. Moreover, God wouldn’t have to love us as then we would be nothing more than robots that he controls– toys to play with. It defeats the purpose of a loving God, a Father, a reason for life.
God is not fair– he does not have to be– he’s just. A judge may send away his only son to imprisonment for life for killing a man, but that does not mean that he loves his son any less. Is it fair that he has to send away his only son? Some would not think so; moreover, he would not think so. Is it just? The law is the law; a judge cannot deny that which has been established by the lawmakers. Why is God not fair? Because it would contradict his very nature. It would mean that he would have to intervene and control our every move; sure, not all of us are killers, rapists, or child molesters, but then we are presuming to set standards on what is a greater or lesser evil. If God has to intervene in instances of ‘greater’ evils, why not ‘lesser?’ To control us would to kill our nature and our very being. It would eliminate our identity. By not being ‘fair’ by our standards, He really is being fair by a universal standard: is it not more fair to allow us to be who we are and to be afforded the glory of God and Heaven than not? Relativity tells us that there can not be a standard of what is and is not fair so how can we hold anyone let alone God accountable to a dynamic illusion?
God’s knowledge of what I am going to do does not make him any more or less loving. Jesus wept. Is it not the natural reaction of a parent to weep when their child has gone against what they have taught them? Just because God does not do anything in our eyes, does not mean that he is not doing anything at all. He can cry right along with us, can he not? But actually, God does not have to react at all to be more ‘godly’ than he already is. He does not have to prove himself. Do you have to prove who you are to your parents on a daily basis? To your wife? Perhaps your kids!? Why then does God have to repeatedly prove himself to us? Why does he have to be a good guy for our viewing pleasure and to appease our logic? Where does it say in any book anywhere that God must do xy and z in oder to prove that He is who we know him to be? Since when did we set the standards of the Almighty?
We bitch and complain that God is not loving by not stopping baby killers and child molesters. We argue that he isn’t loving because he does not give them their just deserves. Yet we don’t like the idea of hell? We don’t like the idea that God would set up a place to punish the very beings we despise because said place is also a contradiction of his loving nature… Remind me again…what is fair? …But wait, is God throwing people in the lakes of fire without warning? Does he hold a random lottery where he decides who will go and who will stay? Is there no forewarning of the consequences to come? Then how is he bad? How is he not being just, fair, or even loving? He loves us so he sets up a place where we can live in eternal happiness. Would you be happy forever with the sinners of the earth? You don’t seem very happy now…
Until next time: I have not even touched the tip of the iceberg of what ‘I say.’ Stay tuned for the cluster fock that is my mind.
Tags: God is love, free will
Nazarene
September 15, 2007
Why, Nazarene, do you help these men?
They forget you, curse you, and use you
Their faith without works, carpenter-
When did they help you win?
They listened to your words
But they did not care for a Jew
As you were crucified.
They listen to my words- light;
They kill, steal, lie, and turn from you.
What smooth talking ways do you have?
With your do’s and don’ts and trying to do right?
Come on down here, Nazarene
Take your children home.
Do you think they’ll remember you?
Not with me here to cause a scene.
