Calling God

Jesus is often a theist preference when the older part of the bible is questioned. A model citizen of upright character worked as a humble carpenter. He taught peace, love, and moral values. He overcame the temptation of Satan. A feat even his father could not achieve.

Practically flawless, Jesus is revered worldwide today. Jesus, was, above all – an exemplary human being beckoned from the relics of human history. However, people are also taught that he is a god. He walked on water, made festive drink, and commanded the sky to rain fish. Oh, and his resurrection seals the claim. There were many witnesses – none of whom can testify today. Equally, the authors of the text cannot be questioned.

And, of course, the text commands that it is not to be questioned. Interesting reading. If you were to question any alteration of the text, the text will also inform you that this god commanded that it not be changed. How convenient.

Ironically, the god of the bible lifted weights far beyond his capability. He changed the properties of water, violated the laws of thermodynamics, and a Christian favorite – made something come from nothing. Actually, he made a lot come from nothing. Including himself.

This is the very logic that draws many people to belief in a god or gods. The idea that something cannot possibly come from nothing. However, this claim is purely of theist origin. There is not one scientific theory that proposes the something from nothing idea. However, this is common logic that Christians use to assert ‘nothing’ is core fiber of scientific theories. Coincidentally, this nothing is also the origin of Jesus’ second life, summoned fish, father, and the fracturing of his own universal structure. Yet, when theists are accused of hiring the same logic, we are told that our feeble intellects cannot grasp such miracles. The origin, mind, presence, morality, ways of God are held from tangible reach. It seems that this being has abandoned the universe. Yet, unbreakable scientific laws are broken to account for his existence. The god concept is the ultimate catch all.

Welcome to the conundrum where you must either choose to deny what can be known about the universe or deny what you cannot know about the universe. The latter option being the dismissal of a god. Or – a particular god, rather. Upon accepting the god concept, you are invited into a vortex to explain something incomprehensible with, well, the incomprehensible itself.

Conclusion – this option leads nowhere logical, yet appeals to logic. I honestly hear it every time I discuss my lack of belief in a personal god with a person that believes in him – despite its apparent and ominous contradiction. Since when did explaining something in terms that cannot be explained – or, defined, become a reasonable answer? In mathematics, variables are used for hypothetical circumstances. Until defined, they hold no value. God offers no answers. No value. The concept has always been intellectually bankrupt. It is simply an anthropomorphized placeholder for the faithful. A human like universe. A variable that is scientifically untenable. In contrast, scientific discovery does not contradict itself – making such a human invention like a god both dismissible and unnecessary. Scientific discovery is derived from observation – not feelings.

Perhaps, the intellectual Christian may suggest that their god is everything at work that is not yet understood, or defined rather, in scientific understanding to date. Coincidentally, this same unknown body of knowledge is the very pursuit of modern scientific thought. This undefined body of information is revered by atheists alike. Some scientists even call it “god.” Yet, no laws were broken, and consistency is prevalent.

It seems that the ever growing body of science is quickly consumed by the faithful as evidence for their squandering, yet only accepted because it is undeniable. As our knowledge grows, illuminating the dark places, gods are forced into the shadows – claimed as metaphysical, unseen, and unknowable. Just as if they had never existed at all. Yet, universal workings are beautiful whether they have a face or not. Philosopher, priest, atheist, and scientist alike, all gracefully bow in humility before the universe – for the light shines from the dark unknown.

Truth is an ongoing journey that the past has merely hinted of, our imaginations only glimpsed, and our sciences have gently touched.

In the words of Einstein:

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” (Albert Einstein,The Merging of Spirit and Science)



Filed under Religion and Modern Politics

4 responses to “Calling God

  1. Hey, great post. But faith. Belief in God is a simple, personal, projection onto that God, of a faith we exercise, everytime we optimistically, face the future, don’t you think?

    • Thank you. And, yes –

      “But faith. Belief in God is a simple, personal, projection onto that God, of a faith we exercise, everytime we optimistically, face the future, don’t you think?”

      I agree. However, a more important question is brought to light here – what is “god” exactly?

      What is a god more than a mental construct of sorts?

  2. ///If you were to question any alteration of the text, the text will also inform you that this god commanded that it not be changed. How convenient.///

    Cat, I found this while reading on your new blog and wish to add a correction. First, where this idea came from and second, how it is and was misapplied amongst evangelicals.
    Revelation of John, Chapter 22:16-21 [New American Standard]
    “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am, the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

    The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
    I testify to everyone who hears the WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; (1)
    and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.(2)

    He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

    The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen*.
    *[‘amen’ from Hebrew ‘aman’ – in current context ‘truly’ or ‘so be it’ or ‘it/this is a truthful thing to which I am in agreement with’]
    “THIS BOOK” refers to the book of the Revelation/Apocalypse of John (or to John) and was intended for the churches in Asia Minor containing both judgments of the churches in Asia Minor:

    Revelation/Apocolypse of John Chapter 1: 11 [N.A.S. see above]
    “…”Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to *EPHESUS and to *SMYRNA and to *PERGAMUM and to *THYATIRA and to *SARDIS and to *PHILADELPHIA and to *LAODICEA.”

    *to {the church at}

    The island of Patmos was just off the coast of Asia Minor and within the prophet John’s access.

    Within the past 200 years of the rise of Dispensationalism and the influence of Calvinism (Calvinism – to which Jefferson and other founding fathers contended with from the beginning of our federation), the notion of the statement you made came to consider “THIS BOOK” as to include ALL of what we call the Bible – either the Protestant or Catholic versions.

    This, however, is not the correct meaning of what was stated in (1) or (2). “Adding to” or “taking away from” regarding a “best effort” translation was/is also not implied in these scriptures.

    Again, I see how one can see how futile it would be to approach the compilation of the Old Covenant writings and the New Covenant writings, can be with this sort of HORRIBLE doctrine being claimed by mainstream evangelicalism and/or Protestant-Catholic pedagogy. What a mess we have made of ourselves.

    Just wanted to shed little light on the subject in an effort to help you not propagate a mistake into your book…but this is something you must judge for yourself! :)


    • It will probably be easier to stray from such accusations. Thank you for pointing out that there is a dispute. I find it more effective if I focus on universally accepted attributes rather than struggle with the he said – she said controversy.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s