I apologize for taking so long to finish up part two of this blog, my illness set me back from work and life so I have been playing catch up over the past week or two. So lets dive right into the next 3 points that Greta makes for her Top 10 Reasons why she doesn't believe in God.
#4: The Increasing Diminishment of God
Greta's fourth point talks about how God's influence has been reduce once science has found the solution to what we used God to explain. Before we knew of the Big Bang, it was thought that God created the universe. Before we knew what bacteria and viruses were, God was the one causing sickness and death. Before we knew why anything occurred, we used God to fill in the blanks. Her entire "reason" for this belief is that science has found the cause.
What she didn't talk or think about is the fact that increased knowledge doesn't make God non-existent. Before we had the knowledge on why things occurred, it was easier just to "blanket" the cause because of God, since most believers believe that God influences everything. Is this any different than what we do now? When someone does something bad to someone, and then something bad happens to that person we call it karma. So that bad thing that happened to the bad person is just pure coincidence and nothing else. It's funny that we pick and choose what we want to believe in today and that's okay?
As far as illness, I don't recall reading in the bible that only God can cause people to get sick. God can use bacteria and viruses to make people sick, so how can we say that now we know that bacteria causes illness God is removed from that? Greta mentioned that believers use God to fill in the gaps of their misunderstandings, and atheist call it "God of Gaps". I would imagine that Greta or any of her close friends have never been true believers. True believers, that have a relationship with God, understand the world works for them just like it works for everyone else. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we just say, "Well, God does that." Greta is using very old believer logic and hasn't updated her knowledge on how believers feel and behave today.
This is probably the biggest problem we face in the world, old world views are used to form opinions on something people generally know nothing about. If I were to do the same about atheist, I would say that atheist are people who struggle understanding who and what God is and don't believe because they don't want some higher being influencing what they should and shouldn't be doing. I know that's not right, but neither is their so called "logic" about non-believers.
#5: The fact that religion runs in families
Greta's fifth point was centered around the fact that people choose to be believers because of their families (social pressure, dogma, and that's all you know). I would agree with her to some extent, but why do we see believers become non-believers, and even better non-believers become believers from families that are the opposite? I believe this happens not because of our own doing, but God's! Believers don't choose to believe in God and be saved, God chooses you to be saved. If you aren't chosen you become a non-believer and vise versa. A families influence only provides the opportunity for the person to learn about God, it doesn't mean they will find salvation. But it doesn't matter if you don't want to be saved and God wants you to be saved, eventually you will become a believer.
You may think, well why doesn't God want everyone to be save? He does, but if everyone went to heaven what would be the point of living morally and Jesus? For those who believe, they will tell you that it wasn't their parents or family that helped them in searching for God, it was the random happening or their friends throughout life. Most parents, not speaking directly to my parents, do a horrible job of teaching their children about God. Because of their lack of knowledge about God, parents often times never build the foundation that is needed to help their children understand who God is and could be in their life. In some families they do a great job in teaching their children, but they force their beliefs on their children only to drive them away. In the long run you find out that the parents foundation of God was built on the wrong legalistic things and not Christ.
What I find interesting is that atheist push their children harder to be atheist than believers push their children to be believers, and the funny thing is that many of the atheist children come to God later in life. I read an article about this atheist column writer who showed her child Jesus Christ Superstar to explain to her child who Jesus was. My first thought is that the film is the worst explanation of Jesus. I'll explain why later. As the child was watching the film she began to ask questions, why are those people following Jesus? The mother's response: because they thought he was magical. The next question was, why is Jesus so important? The mother's response: because they thought he was a powerful king, but he was just another human. These answers the mother provided may have been her feeling, but let the child decide for herself. How would the mother feel if she later found God and became a believer, and her child didnt and went to hell? What I am about to say is not right, but worst case scenario, if God isn't real what do you lose when you die and find out there isn't life after this as a believer? Nothing!
The fact that religion runs in families is a minor catalyst to whether or not someone becomes a believer or not. The same goes for values and morals, just because your family values certain things doesn't necessarily make you value you the same things. In my opinion, it's all about the total environment, not just the family environment. If you grow up in a place where church is common, you may become a believer. If you grow up in a place where church is a lost word, you probably won't become a believer. But again, it's not about what you want and your salvation, if you are elected then there's nothing you can do to fight it.
#6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.
Greta's sixth point deals with the lack of scientific evidence of a soul in humans. To me, this point is absurd since her only conclusion is that consciousness may explain the soul, once science better understands the brain and consciousness. The reason that it's absurd, is because how do we not know that consciousness is proof of a soul from this side of the physical universe? Consciousness is the state of being aware of something within one's self, so it doesn't necessarily mean that our soul is our consciousness but is doesn't mean it's not either. The fact that she doesn't hint at that possibility shows you how one-sided she is in this belief.
#4: The Increasing Diminishment of God
Greta's fourth point talks about how God's influence has been reduce once science has found the solution to what we used God to explain. Before we knew of the Big Bang, it was thought that God created the universe. Before we knew what bacteria and viruses were, God was the one causing sickness and death. Before we knew why anything occurred, we used God to fill in the blanks. Her entire "reason" for this belief is that science has found the cause.
What she didn't talk or think about is the fact that increased knowledge doesn't make God non-existent. Before we had the knowledge on why things occurred, it was easier just to "blanket" the cause because of God, since most believers believe that God influences everything. Is this any different than what we do now? When someone does something bad to someone, and then something bad happens to that person we call it karma. So that bad thing that happened to the bad person is just pure coincidence and nothing else. It's funny that we pick and choose what we want to believe in today and that's okay?
As far as illness, I don't recall reading in the bible that only God can cause people to get sick. God can use bacteria and viruses to make people sick, so how can we say that now we know that bacteria causes illness God is removed from that? Greta mentioned that believers use God to fill in the gaps of their misunderstandings, and atheist call it "God of Gaps". I would imagine that Greta or any of her close friends have never been true believers. True believers, that have a relationship with God, understand the world works for them just like it works for everyone else. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we just say, "Well, God does that." Greta is using very old believer logic and hasn't updated her knowledge on how believers feel and behave today.
This is probably the biggest problem we face in the world, old world views are used to form opinions on something people generally know nothing about. If I were to do the same about atheist, I would say that atheist are people who struggle understanding who and what God is and don't believe because they don't want some higher being influencing what they should and shouldn't be doing. I know that's not right, but neither is their so called "logic" about non-believers.
#5: The fact that religion runs in families
Greta's fifth point was centered around the fact that people choose to be believers because of their families (social pressure, dogma, and that's all you know). I would agree with her to some extent, but why do we see believers become non-believers, and even better non-believers become believers from families that are the opposite? I believe this happens not because of our own doing, but God's! Believers don't choose to believe in God and be saved, God chooses you to be saved. If you aren't chosen you become a non-believer and vise versa. A families influence only provides the opportunity for the person to learn about God, it doesn't mean they will find salvation. But it doesn't matter if you don't want to be saved and God wants you to be saved, eventually you will become a believer.
You may think, well why doesn't God want everyone to be save? He does, but if everyone went to heaven what would be the point of living morally and Jesus? For those who believe, they will tell you that it wasn't their parents or family that helped them in searching for God, it was the random happening or their friends throughout life. Most parents, not speaking directly to my parents, do a horrible job of teaching their children about God. Because of their lack of knowledge about God, parents often times never build the foundation that is needed to help their children understand who God is and could be in their life. In some families they do a great job in teaching their children, but they force their beliefs on their children only to drive them away. In the long run you find out that the parents foundation of God was built on the wrong legalistic things and not Christ.
What I find interesting is that atheist push their children harder to be atheist than believers push their children to be believers, and the funny thing is that many of the atheist children come to God later in life. I read an article about this atheist column writer who showed her child Jesus Christ Superstar to explain to her child who Jesus was. My first thought is that the film is the worst explanation of Jesus. I'll explain why later. As the child was watching the film she began to ask questions, why are those people following Jesus? The mother's response: because they thought he was magical. The next question was, why is Jesus so important? The mother's response: because they thought he was a powerful king, but he was just another human. These answers the mother provided may have been her feeling, but let the child decide for herself. How would the mother feel if she later found God and became a believer, and her child didnt and went to hell? What I am about to say is not right, but worst case scenario, if God isn't real what do you lose when you die and find out there isn't life after this as a believer? Nothing!
The fact that religion runs in families is a minor catalyst to whether or not someone becomes a believer or not. The same goes for values and morals, just because your family values certain things doesn't necessarily make you value you the same things. In my opinion, it's all about the total environment, not just the family environment. If you grow up in a place where church is common, you may become a believer. If you grow up in a place where church is a lost word, you probably won't become a believer. But again, it's not about what you want and your salvation, if you are elected then there's nothing you can do to fight it.
#6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.
Greta's sixth point deals with the lack of scientific evidence of a soul in humans. To me, this point is absurd since her only conclusion is that consciousness may explain the soul, once science better understands the brain and consciousness. The reason that it's absurd, is because how do we not know that consciousness is proof of a soul from this side of the physical universe? Consciousness is the state of being aware of something within one's self, so it doesn't necessarily mean that our soul is our consciousness but is doesn't mean it's not either. The fact that she doesn't hint at that possibility shows you how one-sided she is in this belief.
For decades now, M-theory (Membrane Theory) and string theory have suggested there are multiple dimensions within our own three dimensions. If this is true, their data also concludes that we will never be able to see, travel, or detect these extra dimensions. The reason they assume these extra dimensions exist is all based on gravity and it's lack of power compared to the other 3 fundamental forces. We won't get into the specifics, but because gravity is so weak compared to the other 3 forces, it was thought that there had to be more dimensions that gravity was spread through to make it the force we see today. The point is that just because we can't see it, go there, or measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The same goes for the soul, if it's part of another dimension but embodied in us while in we are alive, it can still exist if we can't measure it.
Not many people believe in ghost and most of the data on ghost can be explained by natural phenomena, but there are instances where they can't be explained. When normal people, not these television shows, capture ghosts responding to specific questions and requests, it can't be explained. To me, that is strong evidence that there is a soul that lives within us and after we pass away. Why they are captured within our dimension I don't know, but the evidence is overwhelming and shown not to be made up or fictional.
Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world. He could have said of this land, empire, or even earth, but He said of this world. To me, this suggests that Jesus wasn't talking of this realm/dimension. Now the bible was written thousands of years before the thought of extra dimensions and science had a grasp on a multi-verse. For the writers of the bible to be that forward thinking could have only been a coincidence or luck. I am going to go with neither, since people at that time still thought the earth was the center of the universe and the only planet in existence.
In conclusion, this blog doesn't exist to bash atheists and tell them they are wrong. It exists to show people the other side of the story from Christians who are not extremist and the furthest from God. If you were to take the Muslim extremist and assume that the Muslim faith was just that, you'd be wrong...just like Greta. When you only look at sensationalist claims from false prophets, pastors trying to make a name for themselves not Jesus, and uneducated believers you will find that the reasoning behind Greta's Top 10 reasons is only skin deep. The lack of substance behind her argument shows that she isn't sure herself and has no desire to find the answers because what she might find may surprise her. And the fact she has put that much reliance on science, tells me that she wants others to tell her what to think. I thought atheist and this whole age of reason thing was to show they are a free thinkers? Sound likes they just found another source to tell them what and how to think? As for the Jesus Christ Superstar movie, when has a musical ever been a great example of anything?
No comments:
Post a Comment