...Why Does God Need Me? - Part III

Now to the third point, "...why does God need me?"

Before tackling the question, it is well to bring a previous thought to the fore.  Since need indicates an inadequacy, insufficiency, or lack one might dismiss the question based upon the supposition that God is perfect in person and power and therefore, experiences none of these thing. 

Therefore, one might rephrase the question to be in terms of "want."  In doing so that "want" must be in light of the previous statement.  Why God "wants" us in large part is what the historic church has termed a "mystery."  Simply stated there are some things that about the infinite that the finite will never understand.

Examples are insufficient but try this one.  Imagine Albert Einstein trying to explain relativity to a toddler.  There is simply not enough capacity for conceptual understanding and therefore there is no effective explanation.   Now suppose that Einstein reduces it down to the toddler level.  In the process of that reduction certain elements would be lost.  Such does not mean those do not exist, only that they are "mysteries" to the toddler.

So it is as the infinite God seeks to make Himself available (accommodates Himself) to be understood by finite man.  Just because there are certain things not conceptually grasped by the finite does not mean that those mysteries do not exist and function. As previously noted, these are often referred to as "mystical" or "spiritual" elements of faith. 

As a part of the discussion of "mystical" and "spiritual," there is a principle that underpins one's insight into these things.  It has been expressed in various ways but reduced down it simply means that there are some things that must be believed to be seen.  Stated else wise, some things need to be believed to be understood.  More later.

In order to grasp the Judeo-Christian faith system on some level (Einstein level down to toddler level) there is a necessary supposition.  It is that "God is love."  Two considerations.  First, the expression of God's love, whatever that looks like, fits within "God is love" but never exhausts the truth that gave the statement. 

Second, Divine love falls into one of the previously discussed notion of the finite understanding of the infinite God.   From the finite view the expression of that love may appear as other than love.  So what is the point of God being love and God expressing that love?

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias develops the ramifications of Divine love in the following manner.*

- The greatest love leads to the possibility of the freedom of choice.

- Freedom of choice leads to the possibility of there being sin and evil.

- Sin and evil leads to the possibility of there being a savior

- A savior leads to the possibility of there being redemption.

These will be further developed and discussed in Part IV.

_____________________

*adapted from discussion available in the series titled, "Conversations with Chuck:  Abraham" (7-11 November) at: http://www.insight.org/broadcast

Why do I need God...? - Part II

The last post closed with,

"It all comes back to the initial thought that in order for one to need God there must be some recognized deficiency.  Interesting that religion is one of a very few areas where one can claim that they have no need.  Yet, history has proven otherwise."

To be sure history tells the story of excesses done in the name of religion.  The Christian Crusades (1095-1291) are often touted as such an excess.  It is estimated that some 200,000 to 1.2 million died to include crusaders and other Christians.*  

As well the Christian Crusades are nothing compared to the Muslim Jihad** (630-1094).  While the Christian Crusades sought to liberate, Islamic Jihad sought to conquer and did so north into southern Europe and into the East.  Actual numbers of those killed by Islamic Jihadists is not published. 

Against that backdrop as bad as the Crusades and Jihad were and are, they do not compare to the numbers of death by committed secularists.  Here are four of many that could be cited.  People's Republic of China: 73.2 million died; USSR: 58.6 million died; North Korea: 3.1 million died; and Cambodia: 2.6 million died.  In just those four Communist countries 137.5 million died--all this for a secular ideology.  Then too, remember that the Nazis under Hitler killed 20.9 million.

In the case of secular ideologies, the ideology becomes the authority.  While in the Crusades and Jihad there is external authority in secular ideology, there is no authority external to the individual and the state.  Said another way what the individual and the state choose to do has no consequence beyond the present. 

For those of faith such is not so.  In the case of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, as divergent as they are, they share one thing.  There is a standard and a consequence beyond the individual and this life. 

"Why do I need God...?" is answered in the observation that in and among people of faith (and there are exceptions) there is a standard by which one is religiously sufficient or insufficient and that standard is external to the individual.  That religious sufficiency (not that a person attains perfection) provides a certain sense of eternal connection and eternal identity missing in secularism.

But...there is more.  Consider the following quote by relational philosopher and psychologist, Kenneth Gergen. 

"With the spread of postmodern consciousness, we see the demise of personal definition, reason, authority....  All intrinsic properties of the human being along with moral worth and personal commitment are lost from view."***

What Kenneth Gergen points out is that when all notions of truth/reality are removed there is a consequence.  This consequence is that some very important factors in one being an "adult" are lost.  Included are...

An intrinsic sense of identity, from within the individual.

An inner notion of one's unique person-hood.

A security born of there being a unfailing external authority/reality.

A sense of moral worth born of living by ethical values.

A confidence from living out personal commitment and duty.  

A connection with something greater that then gives a sense of purpose/mission.

Closing thought:  If for no other reason than a person's sense of well being and purpose, there is a need for a truth/reality which is external to the individual.  Such truth/reality in it most genuine form is linked inextricably to the eternal and the only genuine eternal that has stood the test of man cynic, critic, and time is God.

This is by no means exhaustive but sufficient for one to ponder as to "Why do I need God...?"

__________________________

*Those who project the 1.2 million number may be a bit ambitious as the total earth population at the time was 500 million (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm#population-growth-chart). ALSO for a more balanced historical approach to the Crusades see "The Real History of the Crusades" by Thoma F Madden, PhD, available at http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-real-history-of-the-crusades

**Since Crusade comes from Cross, Jihad will be used as it pertains to Islam.

***Gergen, Kenneth, The Saturated Self (New York:  Basic Books, 1991) pp. 228-29.

Why do I need God...? - Part I

The question posed:  "Why do I need God and why does God need me?"

Contain in the above are two questions.  The following treats to the first of the two.  Later attention will be devoted the second.  Again, it is important to examine the question then look to logical implications and outcomes.

In the last post it was argued that God's existence is outside of the time-matter-energy-space continuum.*  Further that the various aspects of God made available to man are but a small glimpse of the whole.  Said more accurately the qualities of God may be understood to some degree but not exhaustively so.

At this point introduce into the discussion one's presuppositions.  Regarding God any number are available.  For example, there can be the supposition that God is like man and suffers under the same limitations.  Inherent in such is the danger that all that God is and does must fit through the lens  of man's understanding.    More in just a moment.

So then before digging any further into the question may we agree that there is a point at which a person may not fully understand some matter of truth and that is the place at which faith comes into play?  As well may we understand that playing the faith card too early in any argument is not a fair treatment of any question under study?  By the same token, in any discussion, to dismiss faith is to make assumptions which tempt a serious and potentially catastrophic result!

So if we can agree upon those things, then focus upon the first part of the question, "Why do I need God...?"   Interesting the words, "Why do...?"  Those words suggest that there is a quest for reasons.  "What are the reasons?" would be another way of asking. 

Then notice what comes next, "...I need...!" Consider it this way.  What is the basis for any "need?"  Is such not based in a recognized inadequacy, insufficiency, and lack? 

So here is the divide.  If you can picture a fork in a road and at that fork a decision is made.  On one road travels the person who decides and declares, "I have no need of any sort of a god, I am totally adequate and sufficient in matters of religion and life."   On the other travels the person who recognizes his inadequacy and thus has a need for something outside of himself-some sort of a god. 

Then for the person who acknowledges a need for a god as he travels along he comes another divide in the road and thus another decision.  Following one pathway is the person who creates a god he wants.  This god must fit in and be seen through the aforementioned lens of man's understanding.  Of course such a god if morally superior to the person who creates him then it is not by much.

On the other pathway is the person who seeks to know and follow the God who is and who said, "I AM that I AM."  The meaning of those words is, "the self existent One."  The traveler on this road seeks to conform his life to God and thus is willing to acknowledge some things.

First, this person is willing to acknowledge that he is not always adequate for the task at hand, possesses insufficient resources, and is possessed of lack in this and other areas.  Second, this is the person who is willing to seek a God external to his own finiteness.  Third, this is the person who is willing to make the changes necessary to be in relationship with the God who is.

It all comes back to the initial thought that in order for one to need God there must be some recognized deficiency.  Interesting that religion is one of a very few areas where one can claim that they have no need.  Yet, history has proven otherwise.

John Donne (1572-1631) wrote as part of a meditation, "No man is an island."  His writing observes that no one is sufficient enough to not be alone.**   More to follow

---

 * In thinking over the time-matter-space continuum, it occurred to me that I left one out.  It should be time-matter-energy-space continuum.  A change has been entered in the previous blog, "How was God Created?"
**http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/no-man-is-an-island.html

"How was God Created?"

Recently a young man posed that question.  As I pondered the question it seemed that it deserved more than a dismissive answer.  As well, easy answers serve little purpose and thus are not forthcoming in this posting.

The first thing to note is the four basic assumption contained in the question.  They are as follows.  First, the existence of a "how."  Then the existence of a time element in the word "was." Third there is the existence of "God."  Then finally the existence of a creator external to that which was "created."    

The following will deal with the time element for such is integral to the discussion (others will following in subsequent postings).  Time is basic to the existence of physical reality.  It is so ingrained in the fabric of western culture we give it scant thought.  How old is your little girl? How long have you lived here?  All of these questions and others come due to one's ingrained sense of time.  It is as the Ecclesiastes 3:11 states, "...He has also set eternity in their heart...." 

All questions having to do with time, (with the possible exception of theoretical questions) make assumptions that limit.  Among them are assumption having to do with beginnings and endings.  Thus, everything within the time-matter-energy-space continuum is time and matter bracketed.  That is to say, that given enough time, all that is will eventually change states to a lesser more chaotic form (see below).

Not agreeing with these thoughts is the skeptic, Astronomer and Astrophysicist Carl Sagan and his opening words in "Cosmos."  He speculated that, 

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

Elsewhere he labeled the physical laws as "god" and asked why should he pray to the law of gravity? What Dr. Sagan is asking of the viewer is to believe that the physical Cosmos is the exception to the previously mentioned time and matter bracketing.  This of course is one of the basic assumptions necessary not just for Dr. Sagan's but anyone that assumes a "closed system" model of reality.

What do you suppose Dr. Sagan's responses would be if asked about the existence of timelessness and perfection?  Suggesting that the Cosmos is timelessness is only possible absent imperfection which then leads to a terminus point.  For there to be a terminus, the "...ever will be..." is moved into the category of temporal or subject to time.  The opposite of course is a start point which can again place time into the discussion of existence.

Now consider that perfection is important to the discussion in that with the least amount, even micro-imperfection given enough time a terminus point results.  Of course the Sagan statement is a little hard to accept when one's is asked the simple question, "Is there one example of perfection in the physical world?" 

The answer is "no."  Eventually everything that exists in the physical has an end point.  All things physical left to their own ends will be  depleted of energy (entropy), descend into chaos (of course the evolutionist argues that it is the exception).

Now return to the original question.  If there is a created being then that means that such a being has a beginning.  Since examples of perfection are lacking then such being is subject to such imperfections in time and matter then he or it too must have a terminus point.  Well, then if a temporal god is not possible, then for there to be an eternal God then He must be beyond or outside of the closed time-energy-space continuum.  Most certainly this is difficult to grasp with one's finite intellect. 

Thus if God is beyond the time-energy-space continuum, then He must exist in a state that has no beginning or ending.  Further, if one accepts the imperfection of matter, then for God to exist He must be external to matter.  

Scripture puts it this way, "God is a spirit and those who worship him must do so in spirit and truth." (John 4:24).

 The conclusion of the matter is this...God cannot be a created being.