Do Atheists Have A Point?
Why God is so often indiscernible to man.
All
contents copyright © 2014 by M.L. Wilson. All rights reserved. No part of this
document or the related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by
any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
*
* *
Along
with approximately two million fellow world citizens, I too bought and read
Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” …
and in hardback no less. My reasoning
was simple enough: I wanted to know what it was he had to say about Christians
and their faith. I confess that I also appreciate Dawkins caustic and
aggressive writing style. I marvel at his attempts to intimidate his readers by
employing the most varied and obscure words to convey a point when a simpler,
pedestrian approach would be far more embracing. I can almost detect the dark
thrill of enjoyment he must feel in his choice of word, as though he’s reveling
in the chance to wield his choice more as a club to crush his audience rather than
to illuminate. There were certain passages I had to reread because I had found
myself laughing at his word choice and sentence structure. This isn’t
necessarily a criticism, just a personal observation. In my writing style, this
is most certainly my area of lack.
“The
God Delusion” was released just about a year before
another book also critical of Christianity and the faith called “God Is Not Great” by the late
Christopher Hitchens. I bought this one too, but only in paperback. (Budgetary
concerns, you know.) Hitchen’s style has always struck me as more open than Dawkins’.
Hitchen’s impressed me as someone, who while pretty much convinced of his
opinion respecting God, didn’t appear to carry with him the animus towards
Christians I detect in Dawkins’ work. Both held to the belief that the concept
of a supreme creator was a construct of man as a tool to control others, but
Hitchens seemed a bit more at ease with the notion. I will confess that without
anyone delving too deeply into history and scripture, such would certainly seem
to be a valid conclusion. Let me explain.
Dawkins starts off “The God Delusion” attacking basic
tenets of Christianity, however he does this from more of a Catholic
perspective than anything else. Raised in the Anglican Church in England, it
would make sense that his earliest influences would be anti-catholic. I regard
this more as a subconscious bias rather than one which is overt. Dawkins
regards himself as above any particular religious bias, seeing them all as
equally silly. Yet despite his assertions to the contrary, it is easy to see a
partiality towards his formative Anglican faith. Dawkins seems to take a
special delight in pointing out the errors of the Catholic Church above all
others. This was always a point of amusement for me because from a doctrinal and
liturgical standpoint, there is very little which separates the Anglican Church
from that of the Catholic Church. What’s
that you say? There’s little difference between the Protestants and the
Catholics? You’re a lunatic! Wars have been fought, people murdered in horrific
ways as a result of the differences! Yes, that is true, but the differences
were not so much rooted in perceptions of God as much as they were in seeking national
autonomy. In short, asserting sovereignty.
The Protestant
Reformation succeeded in dispensing with Papal authority, but when one examines
the liturgy and doctrine of both faiths, one will find very few actual differences
in how one is to view God. The God of the Old Testament remains a distant,
aloof God; Christ is the supreme sacrifice who became sin in our place and died
on the cross as a result. Confession of sins is necessary to be saved. Salvation
is not guaranteed and depending upon circumstances (usually disagreeing with
the established church, be it Protestant or Catholic), salvation can be
absolutely denied to an individual. Certain peoples about the earth are regarded
as little more than savages and do not possess a soul by which to save. I can
go on and on, but this is the formative “Christian” teachings to which both
Dawkins and Hitchens were exposed.
Regular readers of my
commentaries will already know that I regard the Protestant Reformation as more
a push for national autonomy than a “religious” reformation. Doing away with
Papal authority was a necessary component of the Reformation for it gave each
ruling monarch within the Holy Roman Empire control over their own lands and
people. The domino effect was very much in play here as we first watched
England (and parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland), then Germany, the
Netherlands, and pockets throughout France, Switzerland, Poland, Prussia and
Hungary resist the Pope and instead embrace Calvinism, Anglicanism or
Lutheranism. With each split, The Vatican lost more and more power and
influence while Europe gained its independence.
One can debate the
wisdom of allowing such diverse religious thought throughout Europe, but it is
a fact of history. The Vatican fought back against this tide as much as
possible, but the reality of the “new normal” soon took hold. This left these
individual countries with their new religious doctrines which (as I had earlier
pointed out) were not too dissimilar from that of Catholicism.
From this base, both
Dawkins and Hitchens learned about the nature of God Almighty. Most people in
the Western world have also learned from this same flawed base. While I have
yet to write an in-depth commentary on Catholicism or the Protestant
Reformation, I did outline some of the problems associated with Calvinism.
(That commentary can be found here:
In this commentary, I
addressed some doctrinal points of view which are held by Hyper-Calvinists.
These are beliefs which have trickled down throughout many Protestant religions
to include the Southern Baptists, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity.
(Groups I was closely associated with while I was growing up.) Some more
“progressive” churches such as the Christian Missionary Alliance do not hold to
all of the doctrines of Calvinism, but the flavor is most assuredly retained
and is evident in a typical church service. As I pointed out already, these
“Reformed Faiths” transferred most everything they know over from Roman
Catholicism. Little except that which created a political impediment to
national autonomy, was thrown out.
Everyone who is
introduced to a faith movement, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism,
etc. has to make a decision as to whether to believe what they’re being told or
not. When we are children raised in a faith-centered household, much of the
early decisions are made for us; we follow our parents lead. This is a natural
part of growth as children are born as blank slates which need to be filled in.
Soon enough, however, certain people begin to consider the amassed information
and begin to make judgments. Is what they’ve been taught reasonable? Does what
they’ve been taught translate into the practicality of everyday life? With
kids, this isn’t limited to just matters of God, but to everything.
When we learn certain
things in school (Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, etc), there is an almost
immediate pay off which only reinforces what we have learned. We can suddenly read
books, write letters and add up all the money we’ve spent on video games. But
when it comes to religion, there is an almost immediate disconnect. Where is
the payoff for what we’ve learned about God? One can pray to Jesus, but it is
quite unlikely Jesus is going to reply in a manner easily understood. For some,
this is regarded as a challenge and they will seek a deeper meaning into this
enigmatic God. For others, there is a reaction almost akin to indifference;
they simply ignore the situation altogether and go on about their lives. They
neither think much about God, nor care to make Him a cause, good or bad. In my
experience, this is where most people wind up. Then there are those who are at
the opposite end from the first group. They believe that just as we learn about
math and can then add 1 + 1 and see without error that it will equal 2, a
prayerful petition to God Almighty or Jesus Christ should result in as clear a
reply as one human being talking to another. When this doesn’t manifest, a
feeling akin to betrayal occurs.
Reading “The God Delusion,” Dawkins struck me as
this type of person; one feeling betrayed by not only God, but the parents and
“adults” in his life who evidently had lied to him. When one is ruled by the
tangible, the intangible is going to seem terribly foreign. Science demands a
certain order; the evidence must be clear in order to make an assessment. When
dealing with matters of faith, this order falls apart. I see this conflict of
the tangible verses the intangible in Dawkins when I read such passages as
this:
“There
is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a
responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by
contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we
choose to make it.”
―
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Were Dawkins referring
only to people, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with his point of view. As
human beings, we are supposed to mature and make our own way in this life.
Baring any mental or physical impediments, there should be little to stand in
the way of that goal. Even in a marriage, you shouldn’t rely on your partner to
provide for your happiness, but join with you in it. But Dawkins isn’t talking
about one person to another here; he is talking about a person of faith
deriving their meaning from their God. His disdain is clear by labeling such as
“infantile.”
Jesus Christ was clear
in His assertion that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6) His
desire that we join with Him as part of this life is not an infantile act. An
infant has very basic needs and meaning and point are not among them. Where
then, does Dawkins arrive at the conclusion that such is infantile? This goes
back to his usage of language as a club. I won’t belabor his methodology here;
it evidently works for him as his books sales can attest.
Still it is of interest
to note that without God, Dawkins would be an obscure scientific author and
enjoy none of the popularity his later works excoriating God Almighty have
given him. Despite his obvious scorn towards God, Dawkins has much to thank
this unseen, figurative entity for. He has become a “rock star” of a sort for
trotting about the Western World explaining how abysmally stupid anyone who
believes in God truly is. To his fans, this is as manna from heaven. Many of
them might hold vague, discordant feelings towards God for a host of reasons,
but they don’t possess the sharpened, erudite tongue of Dawkins by which to
express these feelings. Thus just as a Roman gladiator would enter the Coliseum
arena in full armor with weapons at the ready to cut down his unarmed “opponent,”
Dawkins’ fans will cheer him as he sets upon a hapless victim nowhere near as verbally
skilled in the arena of blazing lights and high definition television cameras
in yet another studio. This is high theater at its finest and Clinton Richard
Dawkins knows it and knows how to exploit it.
But of what use is any
of these theatrics? Is Richard Dawkins convincing any people of faith that God
is some sort of a cosmic joke at best and non-existent at worst? According to
statistics, that would not seem to be the case. While the disenchantment over organized
religion has grown in the United States, such disenchantment has not seen a
like growth in the ranks of Atheists. Those calling themselves atheist or
Agnostic (those who don’t know) are growing in numbers, but not at as fast a
rate as in the 1990s and certainly not apace of “defections” from organized
religion.
Findings for these
statistics can be found through American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS
2008) here:
Dawkins and Hitchens
both may have given people pause, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Hopefully
if I am writing my commentaries correctly, I am giving people pause as well. We
should all endeavor to challenge ourselves and learn more. Stagnation is not a
good thing. Retreat isn’t a good thing either and this is what I find Richard
Dawkins really doing.
We all have hurdles in
life which we face. These hurdles are sometimes so huge and insurmountable, we
don’t even recognize them; we don’t know they exist. Consider that our United
States Declaration of Independence asserts that:
“We hold
these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal
& independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent
& inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty,
& the pursuit of happiness;”
Following this ideal,
citizens of the United States have an opportunity to do or become just about
anything which is possible. However because people are varied in both talent
and physicality, some goals are going to be far out of reach for some rather
than others. This isn’t a situation which presents inequality; it is a
situation which points out our diversity. Were we all able to do the exact same
things, where would the variety and diversity come from? To be an NBA player,
it is thought one must have height as well as skill. Several stars in the NBA
overcame the height requirement and surmounted the obstacle before them to
become stars of the NBA.
Tyrone Curtis “Muggsy”
Bogues stands just five feet, three inches tall. Yet he played Professional
Basketball with the Charlotte Hornets, the Washington Bullets, the Golden State
Warriors and the Toronto Raptors. He also served as head coach for the
now-defunct WNBA team Charlotte Sting. How many men standing just five feet,
three inches would ever imagine they could surmount the obvious obstacle of
height to play with the NBA? What it took for Bogues was the ability to look
beyond that which was visible or apparent. Bogues was able to do this
successfully enough to enter a career which utilizing all logic and reason,
should have been closed to him.
How does Richard
Dawkins’ wrestling match with God compare with the story of Tyrone Bogues? It
is simple. Richard Dawkins was unable to surmount the unthinkable and so he
merely explained how it couldn’t be done. Since the natural human reaction to
seemingly insurmountable obstacles is to beg off, Dawkins became a vanguard; a
voice for those suffering the same dearth of ability. It is for this reason he
enjoys the accolades from his fans while drawing the ire of (some) of his
critics. The irony here is that many people of faith Dawkins has targeted suffer
from the exact same struggles with faith as does he. However, these are people
who despite appearances, have chosen to remain faithful and trust God rather
than shake an angry fist at Him. Faith is a difficult prospect and one which is
NOT for the faint-hearted. There is a reason for this which will be utterly
lost on the Richard Dawkins of the world … for now.
Faith is a component
not quantifiable by science. Science is the study of our present, temporal
realm. Science must have the tangible to study and view. If it cannot be
observed and measured, it does not exist. While I completely appreciate this
perspective, it remains an indisputable fact that there is much within our
world which cannot be measured or seen, yet we acknowledge its existence.
Without delving into
the theoretical and quantum world of physics (which still have many of their
basis in tangible scientific fact.), I’ll start with something which is rather
obvious. It is the concept of love. What exactly is love? Many experts in the
field of neurology insist love is nothing more than a biochemical response to
certain stimuli. Chemicals such as testosterone, oestrogen, pheromones,
dopamine, norepinehrine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin are released which
will have an effect on brain chemistry resulting in attraction. We are further
told that this is an evolutionary result of the bodies need to procreate. Ergo,
science has distilled love down to chemical reactions based upon a need to bond
in order to protect and propagate the species.
I am not going to go
into the reasons I disagree with this in any great detail as such is not
germane to this commentary, but I will state that to be equal under
evolutionary tenets, other animals should experience the same roiling emotions
as do humans when love is a factor. Anyone who has been in love understands
exactly what I am talking about. There are amorous feelings—lust, for example,
and then there is love which transcends a need for procreation. I rarely see
this evidence in the animal kingdom and not at all to the degree seen between
humans.
Within the homosexual
community today is a component of love which would tend to belie the notion
that love is an evolutionary response to protect and propagate the species. The
obvious is that as a purely biological fact, same sexes cannot procreate. Love
has absolutely nothing to do with that biological function. Thus it would seem
that as a point of evolutionary assertion, homosexuality would be an
abnormality which should have self corrected within the human organism by now.
Love is difficult to
quantify, it is difficult to pin down. Love has built and destroyed empires;
love has resulted in the most beautiful works of art and literature in the
world and has led to some of the most horrific acts imaginable. Love exists,
but no one is agreed upon as to just what it truly is; mere biological
responses due to stimuli, or something deeper which transcends the flesh?
Christ talked much
about love. Central to Christ’s ministry was to point out the difference
between the rule under God Almighty and the rule which existed under his
spiritual Ambassadors. The latter ruled through the letter of the Law; they
implemented in terms of on or off, yes or no, binary ones or zeros. Christ
introduced shades of gray into the equation. Thus under Christ, love was able
to burst forth and breathe. Mankind was no longer limited to the strictures of
the Law, but was free to truly love. However this biochemical freedom required
self-restraint as one matured in Christ.
Paul illustrates this
point to the Corinthian Church:
“Everything
is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible,
but not everything is constructive.”
-
1st Corinthians 10:23
When
the strictures of the Law was removed, there was no longer anything which stood
between man, his actions and God. But man’s actions could still have a
deleterious effect upon their lives while they remained in the body, and blunt
their effectiveness as the face of God to others. Love allowed Christ to extend
this level of freedom and intimacy to all, whereas the Law prohibited such
behavior, punishing transgressors with death. Consider how the spiritual
Ambassadors of the Most High God administrated over humans beings:
“If
a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his
neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
“If
a man sleeps with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man
and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
“If
a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What
they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.”
“If
a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is
detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
“If
a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must
be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.”
-
Leviticus 20:10-14
Contrast the above with
how Christ dealt with a similar situation:
"...but
Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the
temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman
who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him,
“Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone
such women. So what do you say?” This
they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up
and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a
stone at her.” And once more he bent
down and wrote on the ground. But when
they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and
Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where
are they? Has no one condemned you?” She
said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from
now on sin no more.”
- John 8: 1- 10
Jesus approached the
situation entirely different from that of the Angelic Administrators of the Law
because the Law was absent love. A concept and emotion which few today can
adequately explain, which cannot be measured or seen, yet it has the power to
change lives and worlds.
There is no doubt some
will take issue with my analogies, but I regard them as rather apt: love is
unseen, unquantifiable and lacks a logical explanation as to its existence. It
is also an undeniable truth of the human condition. It is not attached to
physical needs of the species nor is it a component of mere sexual release; it
is deeper, it is unique.
Of all the things which
Christ said we CAN’T take with us from this earth upon the death of our flesh,
love is not among them. Love is what He earnestly encourages us to cultivate.
It is the ONE thing we are supposed to build and nurture. What we build in love
will be waiting for us upon our transition to the spirit. Can I scientifically
prove this? No … no more than science can prove to me or anyone else exactly what
love truly is.
Faith falls into this
same category because it is a component of love. When we exercise faith, we are
placing our trust and our belief in Christ unreservedly. In much the way a child will completely trust
their parents, Christ desires us to trust Him. This bond of trust between the
parent and child is a component from birth and is broken only by the parent,
not the child. A child will follow the parent because the parent is their sole
focus in the new world. Only a betrayal which results in pain to the child
threatens to break the bond. Even at that, it takes quite a bit to completely
sever this bond between parent and child. Any who have witnessed the pain of an
elderly parent or friend over an aloof or cruel parent knows that this is a
heartbreak which lasts a lifetime.
The reactions I have
seen from some of my friends who claim to be atheists has been almost the same
reaction I have seen from friends who have suffered through bad relationships
or even outright rejection by their parents; it is a deep hurt—a feeling of
betrayal. This is perfectly understandable and I do not wish to diminish or
marginalize those feelings here; they are very much real. Something which
cannot be measured or quantified can burn like an acid in the consciousness of
anyone.
When we do not
understand God, we feel as a child who is rejected by our parents. When
circumstances in our lives create pain, we feel as a child being treated
cruelly by our parents. When we find ourselves sinking in confusion and our
lives are swirling out of control; when we cry out to God to help us and give
us guidance, but he is silent to our understanding, we feel as a child who has
been ignored and pushed aside by our parents. We do not feel loved and that
void must be filled.
I have had these
conversations with these so-called atheists too many times to count. The
stories are all essentially the same with the embrace of atheism being
something of a protective response to the seeming neglect they’ve suffered. No
one likes to feel worthless to the one who is supposed to love them. Thus when
one believes they’ve been slighted but cannot confront the object of their hurt
due to limitations, one simply removes them from their lives. Atheism is more a
reaction to the inability to see and understand God than a logical conclusion
to the (lack of) tangible evidence of God.
Love is powerful, yet
it is a mystery. Faith is powerful and remains elusive to most. A Christian is
told that both are necessary to really understand God. It is interesting that
neither was a necessary component to be Godly during the time of the Law;
obedience was all which was required. Love is a mature emotion necessitating a
mature response. Obedience via threats requires no thought at all. Obedience as
a component of love requires faith. Putting both together—love and faith, we
find powerful forces which cannot be measured, quantified or even fully
explained. However, it remains without a doubt that our society has been built
upon these mysterious invisible forces.
Consider:
“Love
is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no
record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It
always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never
fails.”
-1st
Corinthians 13:4-8
“Love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your
strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.”
-
Mark 12:29-31
“We
love because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet he hates his
brother, he is a liar.”
-
1st John 4:19
“Being
deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives
you courage.”
-
Lao Tzu
“Where
there is love, there is life.”
-
Mahatma Gandhi
“A
loving heart is the beginning of all knowledge.”
-
Thomas Carlyle
“Now
faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” - Hebrews 11:1
“Faith
is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”
-
Martin Luther King Jr.
“That
deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which
is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
-
Albert Einstein
“Faith
consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.”
-
Voltaire
“Faith
is not something to grasp, it is a state to grow into.”
-
Mahatma Gandhi
Human beings are more
than the sum total of their corporeal parts. This may seem axiomatic to some,
but too many are being inculcated with the notion that they are little more
than a combination of complex proteins and amino acids which have coalesced into
our present biological form. Our minds—our consciousness is just the combination
of inherited traits passed down through DNA coupled with learned experiences. When
we die, all of this is lost forever; we return to the nothingness we cannot
remember before we were born. To a hurting people this may seem like adequate succor,
but it is an unfortunate retreat—a surrender.
Atheists struggle to bridge
the gap between the temporal and the spiritual in as much as those who claim to
hold to the spiritual do not fully recognize the import of the temporal. From a
Christian perspective, this temporal life has specific purpose no matter how blind
we may personally be to that purpose. When academia arrogantly eschews any idea
of there being a world beyond that which they can see, touch, hear, smell or
taste, they have already limited themselves and their ability to learn. In the
most honest definition of the term “academic,” these people must beg off; they
are no longer interested in learning, nor are they interested in teaching. They
have now relegated themselves to the role of indoctrinator.
To eschew the spiritual
because it is beyond one’s comprehension is as arrogant and small-minded a
position to take as those who eschew the temporal world because it is of Satan.
Neither position holds the truth for it works only to puff up a false sense of
righteousness which is simply not helpful. Consider for one moment as an Atheist
that you are more than the sum total of your corporeal parts and that when you
pass from your body, that consciousness you so easily dismiss will continue on
elsewhere, perfectly aware and perfectly sentient.
As a Christian,
consider that you are more than the sum total of the spirit. That God placed us
on this earth to learn certain lessons in humility and empathy which can be
gleaned nowhere else. What makes up the whole human being is an amalgam of the
two. God had to become man to interface with us and redeem us back to Himself.
It took His Spirit and His flesh to accomplish the job. Christians do
themselves a tremendous disservice and pass that disservice onto others when
they denigrate the human condition to the extent they do. Atheists do
themselves a disservice and pass that disservice on to others when they denigrate
the spiritual to the extent they do. My point is thus made to the best of my
ability. Just because one does not understand an idea or concept, does not necessarily
mean it is not true. Endeavor to learn to what you do not understand, not kill
it.
Christopher Hitchens
died after a valiant battle with cancer in December, 2011. I was saddened by
his passing as I enjoyed reading his work on a regular basis and felt the world
was made just a bit more dim with his light no longer in it. I didn’t agree with his political ideology
and suffice to say I didn’t agree with his view of God. Hitchens struggled with
Christ’s teaching because he couldn’t understand a man speaking and teaching as
Christ did unless He was God … which
Hitchens soundly rejected. Still Hitchens did not dissuade Christians from
praying for him as he lay dying. Mick Brown writing for the April 9, 2011
edition of The Sydney Morning Herald said, “Hitchens's
attitude to people praying for him could be described as a mixture of polite
gratitude for their consideration and a determined refusal to let it sway his
opinions.”
Hitchens knows the
truth about this temporal realm now. He doesn’t know everything, of course as
he is not God, but he knows enough. I do not hold to the belief that
Christopher Hitchens is roasting in Hell and I imagine that when he opened his
eyes in eternity, he had a hearty good laugh over being proved so wrong.
Richard Dawkins will
also experience that same sudden awareness someday—as will we all. None of us
will long survive in the flesh; some will live many years, while others will be
here only fleetingly. Our duration on this earth is not the point; what we do
with the opportunity is. Circumstances in this realm are such that a good
number of people conceived, are taken before they ever have the opportunity to take
a breath. That their existence is so very brief is not evidence that God is an
ogre, rather their lives provide those of us blessed with a time of substance
here the opportunity to be of service to others; to be the face of our unseen
Creator.
The flesh will never
understand the spirit because they are two dissimilar constructs. That the
tangible cannot take a measure of the intangible does not invalidate either. That
seemingly insurmountable hurdles face us all does not mean we are not to make
the attempt. This is how we grow and it is the gift which God has given to us
all. One may never truly understand this concept in the temporal, but one will
most assuredly come to believe upon stepping over.
After Hitchens hearty
laugh, I imagine him being filled with tremendous gratitude that God turned out
not to be the monster he’d imagined for so long after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment