Reaction to Reading the Joy of Life (Part Three)
Living the Joy of Life (Part Three)
I recently came across a paper pamphlet handed to me at the train station. Unlike the usual religious pamphlets, this one employs a unique method of persuasion. I wanted to write about my reaction to this pamphlet. The following is my opinion after every paragraph of the article.
Everyday we make choices; some we want to make, and some are forced upon us. We make a choice not to step in front of a moving car, or touch an electric wire, or so many other things that we probably do not even think about. Then there are choices that we take very seriously; who we will marry, what career we want, and even where we may want to live, and to buy or rent a house. Yes, choices are always there, some we might wish we would have done differently but always hoping that we have chose correctly and are pleased with our decisions more than not. Looking back I am sure that given another opportunity we would have made some changes, but by and large pleased overall.
Excellent opening about life that everyone can relate to. If you are a more direct writer the opening that serves as more of an impediment to the main idea. In my case, I rather enjoyed receiving a religious pamphlet that did not immediately jump to dumping God down on people. The selection of choices as an introductory topic is great since it is easily relatable for a large portion of the audience.
So, what about God, how do you stack up with your choices regarding your relationship with Him? Has he been an important point of focus in your major decisions, or did you feel that you could handle most of life's issues on your own experiences, and wisdom? Some people are called "Jack of all trades" and feel comfortable in tackling most needs that may need fixing, but there are always issues that need special care, and we would not want an inexperience person to touch it. E.g., we would want the skill of a surgeon to operate on our body, and not just someone who has read a book on the subject. Even in the non-life threatening issues, such as financial investments, would you not want someone skilled in that area of expertise also?
Questionable introduction of God as a specially skilled individual. Here comes the argument for why God is an important figure to have in your life. The article attempts to paint God as a specialist on life decisions sort of akin to a spiritual consultant. The rest of the paragraph argues for why we use or hire a specialist on a topic. The logic goes that we want an experienced specialist to deal with our problems, not a novice. Therefore, we would want God as our spiritual consultant because he is a being who created humans and as our creator he would be an expert on choices and decisions in life. I do not see God as a type of special consultant to ask for advice. Rather He is more of a spiritual being to ease one's worries.
So again, what about God, where does He fit in to all of those choices? Sure, you might answer, "I always pray before making an important decision." Without mistake that is always wise, but are you confident that He will be there for you, and give you His best? Let me ask you an important question. Why should He? Are you and He on such intimate terms that He would give you all things that you ask for, no matter what it might be? Jesus gave us something to think about in Luke 11:11-13 "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will be give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then. being heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" The criteria of God's blessings are found in the relationship with the father; how He gives to His children and not a stranger. Can you see here how God is careful to give to His children only the proper gifts in any given situation, and if we, as His children, ask for something that may be unwise and even harmful, how He might withhold from us what we want and give us what is best?
Here, a following of God is shown as a sort of secret society where only those that truly believe in him will receive his gifts. Other superficial Christians are hinted as unlikely to receive his aid. Yet the paragraph ends on a interesting note by saying that "God is careful to give to His children only the proper gifts in any given situation." God is portrayed as a parent that provides gifts only when warranted. Thus, only true believers might get their wishes granted. This is perfect mastery of crowd pleasing as it provides benefit of a doubt for Christian believers. There is no complete certainty about whether one is truly "intimate with God" or not. Maybe a Christian prayer was unanswered because God deemed the timing unsuitable? Maybe the wishes will be granted at a later time for this pious individual. The only one who will truly know is God. This, even in the face of complete abject failure of their wishes and dreams, Christians can still claim their loyalty to the Lord.
But, wait a minute, maybe God is not a part of your life, and maybe you do not even believe that there is a God, what then? Is God really necessary of is He just a figure that primitive people conjured up to fill a void in their lack of understanding as far as man and his world was concerned. Some men of science believe that they have solved most of the mysteries of life and space. Of course, they are much wiser then their ancestors, and look down upon all others who still hold to an intelligent design for all of creation.
Atheists and other spiritual sects are introduced through hypothetical questions. Yet after the questions the writer moves on to what it calls, "men of science." The link is drawn between the atheists and scientists. This depiction of scientists as atheists challenging the power of the Lord is expected considering a major argument against God rose from these secularists. One historical example of a scientist who has challenged divine power is Galileo. Galileo confronted the geocentric theory of the universe with his support for the heliocentric theory. Unfortunately, his support for the heliocentric theory lead the Church to charge him for heresy and resulted in his imprisonment.[1] The same modern day scientists have continue the battle with religion online where issues of Creation and Origin of Man are debated. Today, the United States has witnessed growth of secularists, a major challenge to the dominant Christians. Thus, it is expected for the article to paint the secular scientists as arrogant without humility.
Just suppose that there is no god, and indeed man is the mater of his own ambition, and given enough time he will solve the mysterious of life itself; would that be good enough?
To counteract the scientists and their theories, the article goes for the hypothetical question of humanity in the face of God's nonexistence. This question is an excellent tactic in that it avoids the whole argument about God's physical presence (where the scientists with their numbers have the advantage) and instead focuses on more vague life meanings. I support the author's focus on more vague life meanings as I see God as a supportive spiritual entity rather than a physical being with a presence.
Probably not, but a question far more important that demands an answer is: "What reason would there be for life with God if man is the sole reason for his existence, then why does he die so soon, and who measures the quality of his life? Who establishes the rules for human behavior? Why is it considered wrong to steal if my need for something is greater than the need of the owner of such an object? Why must I always tell the truth even if it suits my personal needs to lie about an issue? Can you see that the list could go on almost without end for such suppositions of personal logic? Indeed is humanity no more a life form than a weed in a garden; both having a short life span, and nothing of any lasting existence.
The author makes a bold statement that even if mankind reached the infinite limits of knowledge, without God life would be unsatisfactory because people are social creatures with complex social problems. To demonstrate this aspect of human complexity the author points towards the certainty of death, human legal law, unjust laws, and morality versus material gain. All these philosophical issues are hard to quantify and break down scientifically.[2] The final nail in the coffin comes from the author’s last statement in the paragraph “Indeed is humanity no more a life form than a weed in a garden … short life span, and nothing of any lasting existence.” I am in complete agreement that a human life is, but a small speck in the vastness of universe. So often we are stuck in our tiny worlds worrying about an assortment of issues that often have no large impact whatsoever that we forget how evanescent life is.
Really, without God in the picture giving us a reason for life, what is the purpose of it all? Would it not be better never having been born, and escaping all the hardships that come with life? Can you explain why a child must go through life deformed from birth? Or how about Siamese twins, why do they have to endure such a life experience? No about about it, life without a Creator is unreal and makes no sense at all! Can a flower love? Why do the starts in the heavens stay their course? What would happen if the Earth should move slightly from its present rotation? Can all these things just be a chance happening without an author/creator? We need God to bring reason and purpose to life, and there can be no other answer to creation, but God.
The writer goes all in with the chips. No more messing around with other arguments. God is the sole provider of living morally. God is needed “to bring reason and purpose to life.” God is the sole answer to creation. All these events and factors of the natural universe are considered to be result of a sole creator. While I like that the author finally put his or her foot down regarding God’s role, this is the point where I break from the supporting the author. Up until now I generally agreed, to somewhat of an extent, with the author. However, it is completely possible for all these things to be a “chance happening without an author/creator.” All of the events on this timeline could be a drop in the bucket of a universe with multiple timelines, each affected by an assortment of interconnected variables. A change in one variable could cause a dramatic shift in the timeline via the butterfly effect.
Without God humanity is left with a defective sense of right and wrong, void of the character of the perfect emotions of love. We see this evidenced in history where man's ambition is to conquer and destroy. Love is giving, not taking, and without God self rules. 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
The author starts the 8th paragraph of the text with claims that “without God humility is left with a defective sense of right and wrong.” I strongly disagree. Even with God humanity has a skewed sense of morality. My study of history has demonstrated that a belief in such as God has led to much bloodshed. Battles between the Christians and Muslims during the Crusades led to the deaths of thousands on both sides. Worse, battles between the Christians themselves over the correct form of worship have resulted in an equally dreadful carnage. If God is a provider of a sense of right and wrong, how come thousands were slaughtered in his name? Why did his followers not see the wrongs they committed when murdering their fellow brethren?
However, the author does make an interesting point when stating, “Love is giving, not taking, and without God self rules.” While I doubt that without God everyone would become selfish and greedy, there is a historical trend towards individualism with rising capitalism. An ever-greater accumulation of wealth has led to the pursuit of materialism on an unimaginable scale. It is no wonder that some have turned to faith in order to escape the worship of material possessions.
Bottom line: we all need God to make us righteous, and responsible.
Above is a simple one liner from the author that declares the whole article’s main point. This declaration is an appropriate statement following paragraph 7 and 8’s worship of God as a source of morality and love. However, I disagree with the righteousness aspect. While God can provide a sense of responsibility through shared life, righteousness is a part of the human realm. The decision of what is right and wrong comes from human societal standards, not an omnipotent deity. Can a belief in an omnipotent deity shape societal standards? Yes, but an omnipotent deity is NOT required to have societal standards.
Philippians 2:10-11 "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."Romans 10:9-10 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."Hebrews 2:2-3 "For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him."
Now the writer is dropping biblical references like no tomorrow. However, the first two biblical references mention Jesus a figure not really mentioned in the early part of the pamphlet. Suddenly name-dropping Jesus makes me suspect that the latter half of the pamphlet after paragraph 9 was written separately for a different article. Only the third quote somewhat relates to the morality of God with its mention of transgression and disobedience. After this part the writer abruptly provides a list of three actions that must be under taken to place faith in the Lord.
1. Admit your need for God's forgiveness. Turn from trusting in anything else for eternal life and trust only in Christ.2. Believe that Jesus Christ died for sins on the cross, came back in life from the grave, and is your only way to Heaven.3. Accept Jesus' offer to forgive your sins and become your Savior.
Pastor ______ Church of Our Saviour Newark, NJ 07107
The list is provided without any explanation. There is no conclusion after the three listings either. I highly suspect that the last paragraphs were copy and pasted from a different discussion or article.
Overall, I felt impelled to write about this pamphlet given to me because of how much effort was put into writing it. Unlike other religious pamphlets that praise Jesus and the Lord into ad infinitum, this one attempted to gradually convince the reader through reasoning. First the article focused on life decisions. Next, it probed about God’s involvement in life. Then, the article describes the opposition from secular scientists. Finally, the writer lays out the main argument in favor of God. The gradual process as opposed to outright asserting God’s dominance kept me reading past the first page. Up until the end I was convinced I was talking to someone that shared my views.
[1] Stump, J. B., and Padgett, Alan G., eds. The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, 14-24. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2012. Accessed June 29, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[2] Though that does not stop people from trying to quantify them through fields such as political science.
No comments:
Post a Comment