I can honestly say that right now my beliefs are like a liquified catepillar in its cocoon during metamorphasis. The only real difference is that the metamorphasis of catepillar has a determined direction and outcome while my direction is not so certain. I don't know if I will end up back as a catepillar or as a butterfly. The temptation might be to say I already am the butterfly or the catepillar but I know that is not yet the case. When I do emerge from my cocoon I am excited to embrace whatever form I have taken.
I say all of this in light of the statement that I make in the "This I Believe" section on the right hand side of the blog. I want to elaborate a little on my beliefs as stated on this site, but please keep in mind the state I find myself as stated in the previous paragraph.
Talking points:
1. Why do I believe Christ said He was god?
2. Why do I believe Jesus Christ said He was the
source of salvation for the world?
For me the answer to questions 1 and 2 is the
same. I have heard and pondered on the thoughts of
many in regards to the idea that Jesus was a great
teacher or a prophet. I just can't by this
interpretation of Jesus as seen in scripture, and I really have tried. In the form that Jesus is
presented to us in the New Testament (no other form
exists that I know of), he clearly states the
antithesis to the claim that he is merely a prophet or top-notch teacher. Looking at the book of John
alone it is apparent to me that Jesus does claim both to be
God or at least from him and the same as him. He also
claims quite apparently to me to be the source of salvation
for the world. Of course the
caveat here is the way I made my initial statement of
belief does not provide some implicit truth but rather
what I think the Bible says. If the Bible is held to
be perfectly true, then one could extrapolate further,
but I am not currently in a determined camp in regards
to that notion.
3. Why do I believe God created us?
I can honestly say that I do not have a rational
answer to this question nor do I think one exists. It may feel rational
intrapersonally intuitively or anecdotally but it is not rational
extrapersonally. This question and my answer to it are very hard for me.
4. What do I mean by salvation?
The apocalyptic view of the New Testament is very
difficult for me to believe. So if I were to give you an answer
as to the object from which we are saved, I would say
imperfection. Imperfections in creation that are caused by unedifying choices made by a free-willed humanity. So salvation to me means that God is in the midst
of restoring creation to its original order. Jesus then would be the embodiment of those tools of restoration which we should take seriously and implement as we play a small but not inconsequential role in restoring creation. Cognizant of some logical holes in this model of salavation, I would not claim this as a belief
just yet.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
General Revelation and why I Don't Believe it Works
I believe that a widely held belief by most Christians is that God reveals himself in two ways: specifically and generally. Specifically being through scripture as attributed most frequently to Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17) in the Holy Bible (although at the time he had no idea of the New Testament as a part of God's word or that a simple letter he was writing would be considered a portion of God's word). The latter of these two is taken from Paul in Romans 1:20 where he states "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
When I hear this scripture I think of my own experiences in the past when I looked at nature, "Wow, how could this be achieved by anything other than the hand of God". This is an expression of awe, of course, and, I believe, does not bear any insight in the existence of God. I believe that Paul was not the first person to have had the idea that the credit for this awe goes to God, but that this sense of awe had its genesis well before Paul's parents thought of conceiving. This of course is supported within his statement. I believe, contrary to Paul's statement, that this awe is inspired more by a lack of understanding which is then attributed to the revelation of God.
I can think of many times in which I have seen something that is simply amazing and have not attributed the cause of this awe to God. I believe most people can. Take a magic show for instance. The awe we experience here is simply due to a lack of understanding of how the trick was completed. Upon understanding, the awe does diminish. This behavior can be seen easily over and over in the life of a child. Just think of the magical quarter your uncle or friend of the family used to pull out from behind my ear? I believe this understanding leaves room for the following idea. Before people had sufficient understanding of natural processes in nature they had a greater awe for its complexity since the undersanding of its workings was limited. Crediting it to God for Paul and others in the Juedeo-Christian tradition or god for others then is not such a far stretch. So do I still have awe? Sure, but in my understanding of its working I am able to respect its complexity through its own workings understanding that it is not, I believe, a magic show.
The second part of the general revelation story that is so often skipped over is how gut-wrenching and putrifying some parts of this world are to the mind. Is this a sign of God's existence? If so, what does it say about that God? Don't worry I have already thought about why I would think something is gut-wrenching in the first place (because it reminds me of my own immortality not because of a moral standard). If I listened to Paul, I could take these screw-ups in nature as a proof that God does not exist as easily as I could do the opposite. So, in summary, it does not suffice for me to assume that simple awe of nature in its complexity serves universally as evidence for God in whatever sense he is defined.
I believe that many Christians draw an interesting conclusion from the possibility of general revelation. That is no one can incite insufficient evidence as to the existence of God, and if they do, it is not because the evidence is withstanding but rather due to the insufficiency of man. As stated previously, I believe it is the exact opposite. The insufficiency of man's knowledge and understanding in the past led to an inaccurate attribution of nature as evidence for God.
Another interesting conclusion that I believe many Christians hold to (including myself for a time) is that this general revelation leaves no man unaccountable to God for his/her unrighteousness. I believe this belief is a void in Christianity since the central message of what is referred to as conservative or fundamental Christianity is that belief in Christ is required for absolution from these sins and acquiring eternal life with the creator. I believe this poses problems when one is required to hold to a specific type of revelation when only exposed to the general revelation. I also believe the supposition that general revelation somehow holds us accountable is a farce because the statement as posited by Paul breaks the law of contradiction. He is basically stating that we are seeing what is not seen. I believe holding one eternally accountable for believing such a contradition is a very tough pill to swallow.
When I hear this scripture I think of my own experiences in the past when I looked at nature, "Wow, how could this be achieved by anything other than the hand of God". This is an expression of awe, of course, and, I believe, does not bear any insight in the existence of God. I believe that Paul was not the first person to have had the idea that the credit for this awe goes to God, but that this sense of awe had its genesis well before Paul's parents thought of conceiving. This of course is supported within his statement. I believe, contrary to Paul's statement, that this awe is inspired more by a lack of understanding which is then attributed to the revelation of God.
I can think of many times in which I have seen something that is simply amazing and have not attributed the cause of this awe to God. I believe most people can. Take a magic show for instance. The awe we experience here is simply due to a lack of understanding of how the trick was completed. Upon understanding, the awe does diminish. This behavior can be seen easily over and over in the life of a child. Just think of the magical quarter your uncle or friend of the family used to pull out from behind my ear? I believe this understanding leaves room for the following idea. Before people had sufficient understanding of natural processes in nature they had a greater awe for its complexity since the undersanding of its workings was limited. Crediting it to God for Paul and others in the Juedeo-Christian tradition or god for others then is not such a far stretch. So do I still have awe? Sure, but in my understanding of its working I am able to respect its complexity through its own workings understanding that it is not, I believe, a magic show.
The second part of the general revelation story that is so often skipped over is how gut-wrenching and putrifying some parts of this world are to the mind. Is this a sign of God's existence? If so, what does it say about that God? Don't worry I have already thought about why I would think something is gut-wrenching in the first place (because it reminds me of my own immortality not because of a moral standard). If I listened to Paul, I could take these screw-ups in nature as a proof that God does not exist as easily as I could do the opposite. So, in summary, it does not suffice for me to assume that simple awe of nature in its complexity serves universally as evidence for God in whatever sense he is defined.
I believe that many Christians draw an interesting conclusion from the possibility of general revelation. That is no one can incite insufficient evidence as to the existence of God, and if they do, it is not because the evidence is withstanding but rather due to the insufficiency of man. As stated previously, I believe it is the exact opposite. The insufficiency of man's knowledge and understanding in the past led to an inaccurate attribution of nature as evidence for God.
Another interesting conclusion that I believe many Christians hold to (including myself for a time) is that this general revelation leaves no man unaccountable to God for his/her unrighteousness. I believe this belief is a void in Christianity since the central message of what is referred to as conservative or fundamental Christianity is that belief in Christ is required for absolution from these sins and acquiring eternal life with the creator. I believe this poses problems when one is required to hold to a specific type of revelation when only exposed to the general revelation. I also believe the supposition that general revelation somehow holds us accountable is a farce because the statement as posited by Paul breaks the law of contradiction. He is basically stating that we are seeing what is not seen. I believe holding one eternally accountable for believing such a contradition is a very tough pill to swallow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
