Often uttered by an unconscious or unarticulated materialist (that is, most people), sometimes to challenge the Gospel (even though they don't know that), other times as a true plea.
How to answer it?
Most Christians will attempt to defend their positon, but wrong. Attack their position.
"Let me ask you a question (Mr/Ms Atheist), why is it important to you that the meaningless random chance universe 'did' this? How come the meaningless random universe doesn't care that [bad thing] happen? What do you want the universe that you believe in to do? It only does the random things which includes meaningless death...but in as random meaningless univerese, everything is meaningless."
OR
"Evolution is about the death of the weak and the survival of the fittest, you're upset by the real world you belive in doing what evolution must do. If your world view falls apart for you, its not much of a world view, whereas I know why it happened, I know God's remedy and I know its full of meaning."
Either might start a conversation; but don't let the atheist think they ever have a position that's viable.
Another approach pops up when a person might think they believe in God (or 'god') and asserts that God/god is not doing his job...in different words, of course.
Here goes:
"Let's think about it. You turn your back on God every waking moment and then when your life strategy is shown to fail you want God-the-fairy-god-mother to bail you out. You've rejected him actively, and you life in the world that rejects him actively and wonder why it turns to dust. You are just like the bloke who only sees his girlfriend when he wants a (insert crudity of choice)."
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Keeping secrets
The church has all the answers, but it doesn't listen for the questions.
In the West, we are largely incipient materialists; some are even express materialists.
As a result we (Christians excluded, but sometimes deluded by the materialist conclusions) are rudderless, with the only 'truth' being that 'material is'. It's almost a re-working of the naturalistic fallacy: that one cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Hume and Moore) but this time it becomes: there are no 'oughts', only 'ises'.
This means that the person and their opinions, interpretations (but of what) are all that counts, there is no immaterial reality to embed them in or refute them, so that is all they have. And thus, post-modernism.
Genesis' creation account does away with this and gives the firm ontological basis for our immaterial reality: God joins this as being really real, but not exhuastively real in his Creation (Gen 1-2:4, etc.)
What is really real is not atoms and energy, but the loving relationship of the three persons of the trinity: love, community, wisdom, will...
The material is a result of loving will (marred by the fall) and can only be understood in those terms. Otherwise we are adrift...as is the West today.
In the West, we are largely incipient materialists; some are even express materialists.
As a result we (Christians excluded, but sometimes deluded by the materialist conclusions) are rudderless, with the only 'truth' being that 'material is'. It's almost a re-working of the naturalistic fallacy: that one cannot get an 'ought' from an 'is'. (Hume and Moore) but this time it becomes: there are no 'oughts', only 'ises'.
This means that the person and their opinions, interpretations (but of what) are all that counts, there is no immaterial reality to embed them in or refute them, so that is all they have. And thus, post-modernism.
Genesis' creation account does away with this and gives the firm ontological basis for our immaterial reality: God joins this as being really real, but not exhuastively real in his Creation (Gen 1-2:4, etc.)
What is really real is not atoms and energy, but the loving relationship of the three persons of the trinity: love, community, wisdom, will...
The material is a result of loving will (marred by the fall) and can only be understood in those terms. Otherwise we are adrift...as is the West today.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Stop it, stop it!
Why doesn't God stop evil? Why?
Zacharias and Piper both give answers to this question.
Neither is right!
Both miss the point that we live with backs turned to God, in rejection of him.
Its not about free will or determinism, its about spiritual adultery, our being out of relationship with our creator in wilful rejection of him.
They miss the fact of rejected relationship in Adam, and restored relationship in Christ.
The detractor wants to know why God doesn't come along like some soft of ontological waiter to serve us what we suddenly demand...that without seeking restored relationship we want God to repudiate our rejection of relationship with him; this he doesn't do, because its about relationship, not some sort of 'do me a favour but I don't want to relate to you' manipulation.
Out of relationship with God, we live in the consequences: evil: the operation of God's negation brought by Adam's 'go away God' moment...then demand that God comes back on our terms, while we want to contiue the adultery. But this only comes by Christ who restores relationship as we reject the adultery that separates us from God!
The detractor rejects God and wonders why she lives in this rejection, and wants it overturned on her grounds, without repentance. Its not going to happen.
What has happened is God has overturned it on his terms; new life, restored relationship and the promise of always being his.
Zacharias and Piper both give answers to this question.
Neither is right!
Both miss the point that we live with backs turned to God, in rejection of him.
Its not about free will or determinism, its about spiritual adultery, our being out of relationship with our creator in wilful rejection of him.
They miss the fact of rejected relationship in Adam, and restored relationship in Christ.
The detractor wants to know why God doesn't come along like some soft of ontological waiter to serve us what we suddenly demand...that without seeking restored relationship we want God to repudiate our rejection of relationship with him; this he doesn't do, because its about relationship, not some sort of 'do me a favour but I don't want to relate to you' manipulation.
Out of relationship with God, we live in the consequences: evil: the operation of God's negation brought by Adam's 'go away God' moment...then demand that God comes back on our terms, while we want to contiue the adultery. But this only comes by Christ who restores relationship as we reject the adultery that separates us from God!
The detractor rejects God and wonders why she lives in this rejection, and wants it overturned on her grounds, without repentance. Its not going to happen.
What has happened is God has overturned it on his terms; new life, restored relationship and the promise of always being his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)