15 days to break
A lot has been happening here.
1) I was asked to dance again.
a. I have the same partner again which is cool because she is. I’m not sure when the production is but I know it isn’t until after January some time.
2) I received the lowest Philosophy exam grade to date: B. Pretty excited about that…
a. The last section we discussed was about religion versus cults and what is the distinction between them.
b. We also talked about Religion in general and the arguments for and against it. Also arguments for and against the proof of God.
c. Keep that in mind .
i. Disclaimer: This is my opinion as I wish to share it. Your comments are very welcome as well as your critiques and arguments. But do not state as a fact that I am wrong. An opinion cannot be wrong because it is based from the person who made it. If it’s true to them and they honesty believe it, it is true to their reality. And although I specify that I have chosen each word carefully, don’t quibble with me over grammar to the like. I would much rather hear what you have to say about the arguments opposed to its petty vocabulary mistakes.
1. If you argue with this statement then you’ve failed to read it.
ii. This crashed into my head today in Philosophy class. I see it as proof of God and that Christianity is not just “a cult that caught on”. When I speak of groups or such, I am being general and (I know it’s not right but) assumptional.
iii. I have done research into some cults and will base my arguments off of those that I have read into. Please understand it in impossible to get a total understand in a months time and to ever speak the intentions of God, should he exist. Even though there are differences I’m looking at the underlying similarities.
iv. As I said, this was one thought and the only changes I’ve made were for reasons of clarity and understanding (i.e. carrying proofs out and making statements definite). I have, however, chosen my word as carefully as I could to illustrate what my brain was doing and there are no errors. Every word is carefully chosen.
1. The first argument is disproving the existence of God.
2. The counter argument is proving the existence of God.
a. Both use the same instance in the Bible and just about the same logic line.
3. The third argument is what flew through my brain today. It uses, again, the same instance as the first two but instead illustrates how the Bible is more likely to be the word of God than a VERY elaborate hoax by man.
d. Argument: If God were perfect, then he would have never created the serpent in the Garden of Eden[i] and would not have created the tree of knowledge.[ii] Thus it would not give Eve the opportunity to by persuaded and in turn persuade Adam to sin.
i. Conclusion: Since Adam and Eve did sin and go against the word of God[iii] his word is not absolute. His word is fallible. So then God is fallible. If God is fallible then so is his existence and he therefore cannot exist.
1. Proof: God is NOT perfect because an imperfect human went against Him. Therefore His word is NOT absolute. In His words He is almighty and immortal. Since his words are NOT absolute then his immortality is NOT absolute. In His words He is eternal, He always has and always will exist. His words are NOT absolute and He there for is NOT eternal. So the opposite is true. God does NOT NOW and NEVER will exist.
e. Counter Argument: God is perfect. If God wanted total obedience, then he would not have given Adam and Eve a free will or the chance to disobey. He would have forbidden the Devil from entering the Garden of Eden and would have made Adam and Eve so they would not give into his temptation to sin.
i. Conclusion: God knew that Adam and Eve would sin. He planned on it and let the Devil into the Garden of Eden to test them. God wanted faithful obedience and trust from man that He is all-knowing. Such obedience cannot exist with out choice.
1. Proof: Humans do NOT know and CANNOT know for a fact the God is eternal. We must believe based on our own decisions. God asks for faithful servants. To be faithful one must have the opportunity to be unfaithful and the chance to prove ones self.[iv]
f. Final Argument: God wants a faithful servant. If there is no question to His power and knowledge, then the servant would have no reason for doubt. Without doubt there would be no opportunity for a test of His servants and their faithfulness to Him.
i. Conclusion: God knew that the only way for free will was the introduction of doubt. With such things like the end of paradise (Garden of Eden), or the introduction of temptation, God provides Humans with enough reason to deny Him if they so choose.
1. So What: Cults aim for total control and obedience of their members. If Christianity was so aimed to be a cult, and the Bible was written from a man’s mind, then there would be no doubt or temptation introduced. A cult leader would not want his (her) god to be able to be questioned. They would write that it is absolutely how it is written and there are to be no questions.
[i] Gen. (3:1-6) Zondervan NIV Study Bible
[ii] Gen. (2:16,17) (Ibid.)
[iii] Gen. (3:11,12) (Ibid.)
[iv] This is a basis of Eastern Philosophy. It is the belief that with out evil, this is no good and vice versa. In a symbolic form it is the ying-yang.