One of my closest friends - Zac Nagel - posted the following in response to my previous post, "The Point". In keeping with the spirit of this blog as a discussion, I do not want his views to be lost in a comment thread. I feel that a separate post, in the form of a "guest post", is needed to do his response justice.
Yes, it is too bad that many Christians resort to trite similes to make a profound statement. It usually ends poorly, as in this case. However, just because the vehicle is ugly and broken-down doesn't render the truth it is carrying to be false.
In response to #1:
If God does exist and He did create mankind, why is it foolish to think that He has the best perspective on man's purpose? And I think your analogy is more supportive of the theistic position...if an engineer designs something, say a computer, and it is being used as a boat anchor, then the engineer's perspective on the device is meaningful...the device is not being used to its full potential and purpose.
In response to #2:
It doesn't look like you've posited a disagreement here...
In response to #3:
I disagree with the idea that God was "bored", he is and always has been self-sufficient. So creating mankind was not necessary to fill some divine void. Furthermore, I'm not seeing the logic in your alleged tautology. If we were created by God for a specific purpose, then we find meaning in life by fulfilling that purpose.
In response to #4:
There are many layers to this point, so I'm only going to focus on two of them. The wording you used for "how much we believed" makes it sound like a scale of graduations. In truth it is a digital outcome: Romans 10:9 tells us "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (ESV) So there is no concept of how much, but rather did you or did you not believe. This ties into your final assertion: "...they can convince God...". We can convince God of nothing. He has granted us a gift of eternal life, if we wish to accept. We cannot pay for it, leverage God into granting it, nor obligate Him into offering it. He has extended it of His own volition. There is no amount of goodness (real or contrived) that can convince God that he must do something on our behalf.
In response to #5:
Science and God are not enemies. In fact, the majority of science has arisen from societies with theistic world views. This has become muddled due to the institutional church losing its focus on its main purpose (to "celebrate the glory of God" as you say) and instead become involved in nationalism and other political power struggles. One response has been for naturalists to hijack the theory of evolution to provide an intellectually satisfying world view that doesn't involve God. So now there is a perceived implicit conflict between those who believe in God and science since science is explicitly invoked by naturalists to satisfy the 1st world view question of "how did we get here?"
In response to the final paragraph
The response I have to this thought is: what happens if you're unable to fulfill your self-made purpose? If you are infirm and cannot care for others or those around you or the planet? Or if you're blind and deaf and unable to admire beauty? Ultimately every self-fashioned purpose will fail, if nothing else it will in death. So what then, was/is your life meaningless and a waste? It is only in God who identifies himself to us as a Heavenly Father that we find a purpose that cannot fade or decay.
Yes, it is too bad that many Christians resort to trite similes to make a profound statement. It usually ends poorly, as in this case. However, just because the vehicle is ugly and broken-down doesn't render the truth it is carrying to be false.
In response to #1:
If God does exist and He did create mankind, why is it foolish to think that He has the best perspective on man's purpose? And I think your analogy is more supportive of the theistic position...if an engineer designs something, say a computer, and it is being used as a boat anchor, then the engineer's perspective on the device is meaningful...the device is not being used to its full potential and purpose.
In response to #2:
It doesn't look like you've posited a disagreement here...
In response to #3:
I disagree with the idea that God was "bored", he is and always has been self-sufficient. So creating mankind was not necessary to fill some divine void. Furthermore, I'm not seeing the logic in your alleged tautology. If we were created by God for a specific purpose, then we find meaning in life by fulfilling that purpose.
In response to #4:
There are many layers to this point, so I'm only going to focus on two of them. The wording you used for "how much we believed" makes it sound like a scale of graduations. In truth it is a digital outcome: Romans 10:9 tells us "...if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (ESV) So there is no concept of how much, but rather did you or did you not believe. This ties into your final assertion: "...they can convince God...". We can convince God of nothing. He has granted us a gift of eternal life, if we wish to accept. We cannot pay for it, leverage God into granting it, nor obligate Him into offering it. He has extended it of His own volition. There is no amount of goodness (real or contrived) that can convince God that he must do something on our behalf.
In response to #5:
Science and God are not enemies. In fact, the majority of science has arisen from societies with theistic world views. This has become muddled due to the institutional church losing its focus on its main purpose (to "celebrate the glory of God" as you say) and instead become involved in nationalism and other political power struggles. One response has been for naturalists to hijack the theory of evolution to provide an intellectually satisfying world view that doesn't involve God. So now there is a perceived implicit conflict between those who believe in God and science since science is explicitly invoked by naturalists to satisfy the 1st world view question of "how did we get here?"
In response to the final paragraph
The response I have to this thought is: what happens if you're unable to fulfill your self-made purpose? If you are infirm and cannot care for others or those around you or the planet? Or if you're blind and deaf and unable to admire beauty? Ultimately every self-fashioned purpose will fail, if nothing else it will in death. So what then, was/is your life meaningless and a waste? It is only in God who identifies himself to us as a Heavenly Father that we find a purpose that cannot fade or decay.
No comments:
Post a Comment