Each Sunday, I will be exploring the realities of what it truly means to be a follower of Jesue of Nazareth, the one Christians refer to as the “Anointed One” who will save humanity from the tragic situation it has gotten itself into. The series is meant to expand upon previous entries and so a running list will be updated each week on each post to assist the reader.
If you go to the Conservative Party’s website, you can still find a page detailing it’s now-historic founding principles, which start of like so:
The Conservative Party will be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy basis by the following principles:
* A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities;
* Build a national coalition of people who share these beliefs and who reflect the regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada;
* Develop this coalition, embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts;
* The Conservative Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive to its members;
…
These are, in terms of ten year-old boys, the club rules for CPC members. Political parties, notoriously open-ended in order to capture as many volunteers and recruits as possible, still realize the necessity of functioning within a certain boundary of parameters.
If I were to ask someone on the street what an environmentalist was, I would certainly hear about how it was a person who saw natural protection as a high priority both personally and for society at large. A more detailed explanation might go into how such a person spends their times and energies working to develop such things as sustainability, preservation and recycling.
Just as in the first example, it’d be fair to say that an NDP MPP would not be welcome into the club without first making some changes with regards to what they believed, and in the second example a person who regularly dumped tires in the local forest and had no outward concern for nature wouldn’t be much of an environmentalist, so too there are limitations on who can be a Christian. Contrary to popular belief, matters of the spiritual and faith are not so ambiguous that it just requires a person to say that they’re a follower and that’s it!
In a previous post that I wrote as a preamble for this series, I began to establish the grounds that proved God’s very real presence in our lives. I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is; anyone is welcome to disagree however I link to the March post, and its predecessor, to allow each reader to make their own call on that matter. Recognizing the reality of God’s existence though brings about a profound realization; we’ve had many religions invented over history, religions that recognize the presence of God in human history, therefore it’s a natural assumption to believe that God has indeed tried to reach out to us and play a role in our history.
This is an important tenant for Christians since the relationship between God and us is the foundational motive for everything that Christians believe. God isn’t a concept, or a jolly green giant up in the clouds, but has a real personality and desires a relationship as social and tangible as the one that two human friends would share. This realization is pointed out continually from Genesis to Revelation throughout the Bible which brings us to the next essential understanding of Christianity: its literary manifestation on Earth.
To say that the Bible is crucial to the Christian church is one of the biggest understatements ever. In the show Arrested Development, there was a point where the main character and his son are standing outside of a courthouse and the father states that life and faith would be so much easier if the guidelines were just written down for them and sent down to them from on high; the camera then pans up slightly to a giant monument of the Ten Commandments that are dangling above. The scene is perhaps the greatest tragedy in the series for me, not because of anything related to the show, but because the scene is played out in so many lives today, including in those who sign up to the Christian club on a trial basis. If Christianity is going to be about anything, it would stand to reason that the *something* came from somewhere, be it a person or instructions (in this case, it came from both!). The idea that you can make it up as you go along wouldn’t square things in the Conservative Party, Greenpeace, the CAW, or thousands of other organizations, so why is the church any different? Christianity is also not a Choose Your Adventure guide where you can take the massively popular ideas like all men being created equal, caring for the poor, sick, and jailed, or turning the other cheek but leave out the more out-of-fashion ideas on divorce, devotion to God or sanctity of life because it personally clashes with what you want to believe in.
That in turn, brings us to the most important aspect of Christianity that we of a spoiled society have the biggest trouble with: it’s not about us at the centre, it’s about God! Sure, we get a pretty sweet deal out of it when you consider the salvation from hell, inner peace and fellowship that we’ll share with other believers, but time and time again, the Christian life exemplifies how much God could’ve found other ways to bring praise to Himself without involving or, particularly, blessing us. This is the humility that everyone knows is intertwined in Christianity but few experience.
Since this is just a beginning for what will be a long series, I will point out that much of what was written today will be discussed in greater detail during the coming weeks (I plan to write a post each Sunday for this series). For now though, just the realization that to be a Christian means to be a certain kind of person with specific priorities and specific beliefs is the primary but essential place that things need to start at before anyone can take faith in Christ seriously — and that is why the word Christian is far too diluted today!
dalton wrote:
“I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is.”
Given that this is the statement that initiates your thesis, it’s worth spending a bit of time on.
In our last exchange on the issue of complexity, I offered to either summarize or link you to either of two plain language, non-technical essays (the best is Gould’s, but there are several others) illustrating the mathematics behind the complexity of evolution. You indicated that you would be addressing that topic at a later date.
Is this statement - an assertion that no “challenger” rebutted your previous unfounded assertion - your rebuttal?
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 5:26 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Dalton,
First I have to point out that I’m going to be far busier with my life from now on so I won’t be on here regularly to debate (although you’re quite welcome to offer your comments still). I will be getting to evolution, but evolution’s existence does not disprove God’s existence, but would only suggest that God lied (of course, I don’t believe this after and will get to it during a future week). As it stands though, no one was able to disprove God’s existence; the only arguments that I saw were yours and KC’s which is that *God might’ve existed, but He died* which is something equally as speculative and also did not address my A* issue.
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 5:55 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Okay. Just noting that:
- you left the last argument on evolution by promising to return and address the issue of complexity.
- you’re beginning this discussion by claiming that your opponents failed to rebut your last arguments.
It’s impossible to rebut an argument when the presenter defers his response, then returns weeks later and claims victory, wouldn’t you agree?
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 6:25 am | Permalink
C wrote:
Do we really need the bible to know God though? Those professing to believe in God are sometimes asked why seemingly unjust evens occur on earth, and not just those events caused by humans, but also those caused by nature, such as earthquakes or tidal waves, and that given God’s omnipotence this world would seem to represent a severe form of under achievement on the part of God. This question is usually answered with the same reply given by leibniz, that this is the best of all possible worlds. Given that God exists and that this is the best of all possible worlds, there is no longer an “underachiever” problem so much as a “what is God’s intent” problem. If God has created a reality to show the maximization of something which God has decided is “best”, we could examine those clearly unmaximised values and eliminate them as being against the will of God, leaving only those which are the will of God. This would seem to be a more reliable way of discovering God’s will than reading the bible as it would eliminate any faults in translation or transcription which may have accumulated over the years. Given all this, what could be God’s will for the world? Why is this world “best”?
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 6:31 am | Permalink
C wrote:
The whole point about providing a proof is that it doesn’t allow any other possibilities. It’s not a proof if you say it proves A as long as you forget about B, C, or D. “God might’ve existed, but He died” may well be speculative, but it’s something that your “proof” allows for. If that’s the case, then it can’t be a true proof of the existence of God because it allows for other solutions. If you want to try and argue for the continuing existence of God, you want the ontological argument, where you just go ahead and define God into existence, but then I’ll start talking about ideal islands, and it’ll just get b-o-r-i-n-g. That’s the thing. These arguments: they’ve all been had before. The arguments and counter arguments and counter-counter arguments are all well rehearsed. And in the end, it’s only going to boil down to having to believe or not believe in God based on faith alone. The rest is just wasting everyone’s time. We may as well be copying a script. Now start defining those entry requirements for Christianity. I want a new argument.
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 7:17 am | Permalink
CC wrote:
A bit of unsolicited advice, Matthew — anyone who doesn’t know the difference between an “important tenet” and an “important tenant” really shouldn’t be waxing philosophical about Christian apologetics. Trust me on this one.
P.S. You know what would really improve things around here, Matthew? A preview button.
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 10:34 am | Permalink
C wrote:
“I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is”
As you’ve said yourself, God could be dead. The fact that this is speculative in no way precludes the possibility of God being dead. It’s an explanation of how God COULD not exist.
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
The Clerkenwell Kid wrote:
Did someone say Matt was putting in a preview button? I’m so there!
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Dalton, not at all. Please remember that you brought evolution into the last discussion and I was kind enough to address it even though it was not the topic of that post. As I noted, this is a series and I have a sequence of topics that I want to cover in a particular order. You’ll have your time for evolution (remember that Expelled is out this month, and I hope to have the time to do something then too!).
Posted on 07-Apr-08 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
I certainly look forward to the series.
However, in the interest of strict accuracy, I must note that you chose to make complexity an issue in your introductory remarks as a proof of God’s existence, as well as a suggestion that your prior remarks on complexity had not been rebutted. They were not rebutted because you deferred discussion of them.
I accept your assurance that “my day will come.” ;)
Posted on 08-Apr-08 at 4:23 am | Permalink
ThePolitic.com » Politics and Religion: Why Are We Talking Religion? wrote:
[…] have wondered why a site called The Politic winds up talking about religion so much. There are very good reasons for this. Firstly, religion drives some of the most […]
Posted on 09-Apr-08 at 1:16 pm | Permalink