I think the most important reason the identity of God is under debate is because it affects who we are and what God expects of us.
For example, if there were no God, then we are what the scientists say, the product of our genetics as the result of evolutionary change. I won't claim that we are the peak of evolution, because that is a little presumptuous, and does not allow for error or degeneration in genetic coding. Some people think this view point is freeing...but if you follow the logic, it is actually quite oppressive. They feel that if we are indeed the product of our genetics, it takes away responsibility because we can blame our actions on our genes rather than on free will (which does not exist if you are merely following genetic coding). We could also justify all human behavior by saying it is 'natural' and therefore not bad behavior at all. We can also blame dangerous behavior on bad genes, saying I was just 'born that way'. This is called Biological Determinism. Let's keep following this train of thought and see where it leads. You see, people could justify the extermination of millions by saying that we were cleansing out the bad genes - as Hitler (and others) did. This philosophy is called Eugenics. It proposed the possibility of life that is unworthy of life. We could justify the separation of classes of people by saying genetically they are inferior to those who are born with 'better genes'. It creates a genetic caste system that would rival old India. We would be reduced to something more animalistic...more mechanical, rather. We would be only the sum of our parts.
Yeah...This is why I am not atheist. It is actually a rather limiting view point. It says a lot of "you can't' rather than 'you can'. I remember the film GATTACA and how these people were strapped and restrained by the extent of their genes. But the story was really about how you are not your genes...but what is human, what is real is not our coding.
So, as an non-atheist, I believe in a God. The issue now comes to what kind of God. Am I a monotheist or a polytheist? And can we tell the difference? Monotheists worship a singular God. Polytheists worship a pantheon of gods. I consider myself a monotheist because I worship God the Father...but I don't believed in the Trinity, and I believe that God the Father has a son. To some this may be confusing, but let me make this clear. If God is our father then we are his children. And what do children do? They grow up to become like their parents.
Add it up.
When God gives us commandments, says some things are right and some things are wrong, He is telling the truth. And though we may think his rules are limiting, they are in fact the rules that make us grow into healthy 'adults'. God has also given us the freedom to choose this for ourselves. Most of the bad in the world in self-inflicted. Most of the evil is self-created. Like a child having a temper tantrum breaks their own toys. Think about it. God may be asking us to eat the spiritual equivalent to brussel sprouts, which we may hate - but it is intended to do us a world of good. We are not the sum of our genes. Our genes are merely a starting point. And though physically we may have advantages and disadvantages, these are given to us to learn from, grow from, and (hopefully) use to help others.
The nature of God dictates the nature of what the purpose of our life is. If God is some weird thing that is a complete mystery to man, man can feel distant, abused, and be manipulated, as this God doesn't really have any personal affinity to man except as a special project. If the 'gods' are just as mad passionate and uncontrollable as the Greek gods were, then mankind can get away with emulating the same behavior. But if God is our father, then He is personally attached to us and concerned about our health and progress. If God is our father, He is also someone to be emulate as He is the example of what we need to be.
Proof that God is our Father is all over, actually. It is almost innate into human thinking to emulate the Divine. For example we say things like "Cleanliness is next to godliness." Why should we care if it wasn't important to emulate the divine?
"To err is human to forgive, divine."--which implies that we ought to forgive. Thus we ought to emulate the divine.
And why?
It impresses upon us the possibility of achieving divinity.
So why does a chunk of Christendom think this is a bad thing?
I don't know. I don't get it. It is like Nelson Mandela said:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
Just saying....
No comments:
Post a Comment