The comments from the last post have reminded me of someone that I have missed talking to since the end of this semester. I worked with this guy last fall and we would argue all the time. I loved arguing with him so much that I made a point of meeting him every Wednesday last semester. Majority of the time we were discussing religion. He, like my father, was an atheist of sorts...
A discussion that went on for the majority of the semester started in the office between us and one other that we worked with. This friend asked both of us to describe God. The other guy in the office started off. He had trouble with this one. He stated that God was something that was omnipotent and indescribable. That was not good enough for my friend. He did not think that you could cop-out with stating that God was indescribable. I let them go on for awhile. I usually like listening to others argue. Then the other left.
My friend asked me to describe God. Whenever I think of God, I think of the holy trinity. The three persons. So, he stated, you think that God as the same as the Church? I honestly did not see what was wrong with that. God is over us and yes, he is omnipotent, but there is also the holy spirit which is with us. It is the part in which we relate to. I asked him what he thought God was.
The reason that I put him as an atheist is because he described God as a group. He put God as an idea that exists exclusively from the beliefs of different groups. He pointed to a group that walked by and stated, look, there is God. I was confused for a little while. I thought that he said that God did not exist, but he disagreed with me on that. He stated that it is fairly obvious that God does exist. Why else would there be war and worship and whatever else is done for the reasons of faith? But he did not put God as an entity that existed away from the group. It was the group that gave God definition. Would there be God if there was no group?
This makes me think of the question: Does a falling tree make a sound if there is no one there to hear it? Obviously there is a sound. And why? Because the tree is not something that is part of our imagination. God is not something of our imagination either. There is a separate entity that exists and that is why there is such an effect on human race. God is not an idea.
Well, you can imagine how the argument went on and on. It still isn't over. Maybe I can pick it up again next semester. Which reminds me, I should be doing work right now...
2 comments:
Actually your friend sounds like an agnostic. Agnostics question the existance of God as a all powerful diety. They usually profess an uncertainty about God as an institution and explore other explanations to define God.
This one left me wondering how I might describe the Holy Father if asked to do so. I was at a loss for a bit. Then it crossed my mind about the existence of Jesus Himself. One may argue that His existence centered on the coming necessity of His death, but I have a hard time with that. If being crucified was His only purpose for existing, Herod would have been able, or enabled, to kill Jesus as a child.
Jesus is the personification of the Lord God; He has to be. "If you have seen Me, then you have seen the Father."
Jesus portrays the Father as a giver (the loaves and the fishes), a protector (cleansing the Temple of money changers), and nurturer ("O Jerusalem, how I've longed for you ... as a mother hen protects her chicks ..."). These are but a few.
I think Jesus existed so that man might get just a glimpse of Him in every bit of His glory in calling all of mankind into fellowship with Him. Sadly, however, the condition of man's heart necessitated the Passion (a pastor friend's perspective).
I think we tend to make His image more incomprehensible because we are overwhelmed at the thought of Him and, so, we make Him unapproachable.
Overly simplistic, I know, but it helped me to describe Him!
Post a Comment