Sunday, December 03, 2006

Green v. AG - Round IV [part iii]: Rebuttal

From: Green
To: American Guy
Date: May 25, 2003
Subject: Fw: Fw: finally, My response (complete)

AG:

This is my complete message. The one you received first was sent accidentally, before I was finished typing, while trying to change font size. Please disregard the first message.


Your opening statement disappoints me. I could say the same thing to you, that I can no longer debate you on this topic because you've obviously made up your mind and aren't interested in any other view but your own. But I won't say this because we obviously do have different viewpoints, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If everyone who had a different viewpoint than everyone else refused to discuss them, then where would we (humanity as a whole) be? {Sort of sounds like most sessions of congress these days ;>) }


In your prior email you asked me a question (copied below, for reference):

"Let me ask you a question - How can you be so sure (beyond simply your faith) that there IS an afterlife and that the soul continues to exist?"

And my primary goal in the response I sent to you was to try to illustrate that my belief in a soul and an afterlife is inextricably linked to my faith. I also tried to illustrate why I am so sure about my faith and that there is an afterlife in which the soul does continue to exist after death, by giving you some of the reasons why I believe the way I do. If I'm to be painted as a religious fanatic for trying to explain my beliefs, then so be it (get a wide brush there, my friend!) Seriously though, I hope you'd know me well enough after all these years as one who doesn't do or believe anything rash or with out considering all the angles. I've never thought of myself in the fanatic category, though. Actually, it's taken me years to feel personally comfortable with my faith and beliefs for myself, let alone discuss and share them in any type of format, whether I initiated it or not. And certainly, I won't let you down, because I will continue to defend and argue for my beliefs when given the forum to do so. Street preacher? I've met some good ones and some bad ones in my life. I'll take your comment in the good way, however it may have been intended...;>)

1. So whether it's "evolution" or the "theory of evolution" is really a moot point, in my view. I reject it because logically I just can't rationalize the idea that the universe and life on earth got to be so diverse and that it runs with such mathematical precision simply by chance or random accident. Personally I think the scientific community dropped the theory part of it because, despite their best efforts, they know that evolution can not and will never be definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they are trying to make it sound as if it has been proven, but that's just my opinion. That being said, however doesn't mean I reject science entirely just because I don't understand most of it. I think science is a wonderful thing, when used properly. And the benefits of scientific knowledge are simply too great to ignore. Look, I don't understand the specifics and intricate details of how gravity works (I'm sure you could explain it to me) and I certainly can't physically see, hear, smell, feel or taste gravity, yet I know it's there whether I believe in it or not. I have faith that it will keep me from floating off of the planet, and it does. Religion, specifically, Christianity (in my case) is similar. I can't physically see, smell, feel, hear or taste God, but deep down inside I know there is a God, whether I actively profess a belief in Him or not.

I say good for the Mississippi state school system having to teach both viewpoints, evolutionism and creationism. This in no way makes a mockery out of science and education, but just gives kids a more rounded viewpoint from which to draw their own conclusions. Same goes with the scientific community, being allowed to foist its world view on all others. (How dare they???)

2. I cited the dictionary definitions for the most part for my benefit, so that I was sure I wasn't taking words out of context. I quoted the source of the eye argument to acknowledge the fact that I wouldn't have thought of that, without help, since the anatomy of the eye isn't something that flows through my everyday thought processes. Of course it's a one-sided argument... I didn't think there were any other kinds of arguments but one-sided ones? Did you expect them to then argue against the point they just made? Still, it is a valid point made, which you have not countered. I'd definitely be interested in your viewpoint on that. You also conveniently gloss over the two paragraphs that follow the eye argument without comment, and I welcome your viewpoint on these as well. Regarding use of CAPITAL LETTERS, I only used them for EMPHASIS and certainly NOT out of DESPERATION.

You're right. My saying that Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true, however after making this point I give you some of my reasons for saying so. When I make reference to historical facts, they are not just part of my beliefs system and as such, allow that you could research on your own to verify. I also use a bit of personal experience, citing reference to my vacation to Israel and Egypt in 1996. More on this when I get to your point #4 (bet you can't wait!)

3. Okay, I'm telling you that heaven is real (conversely, hell is also equally as real), and no, there are no Hindus, Buddhists, Islamists there, or anyone else for that matter that for the last 2,000 years or so hasn't believed in Jesus, who is God in human form. Before Jesus, you ask? Sure, there are Jews there, if they believed in the one true God (who later would be known as the God of the Hebrews, and who is also the God Christians believe in), also there are people there who were living before the Jewish race came into existence. People like Enoch, and Noah and his family and others too who had faith in God. Fortunately for me, I'm not responsible for the heavenly roll call. I'll know who's there when I get there myself, someday. Your joke about all these groups of people in heaven is a good one, which I've heard before. Sammy Davis Jr.? Must have missed that one. But no, he's not there if he didn't believe in Jesus. No exceptions. None. (I don't make the rules, just try to live by them best I can.)

4. I've got a few books about different world religions and, while I won't quote from them, my research indicates that Buddha (563-483 BC) didn't bodily enter Nirvana. Rather, after many days of meditation, he reached a stage of enlightenment called Nirvana. After reaching this state, he became known as Buddha and preached his message for about 45 years or so before his death. As for other non-Christian religions, my research indicates that if they speak of their founder ascending into an afterlife after death, it is a spiritual ascension, not a physical one. If you find a religion out there that says it's founder was bodily raised from the dead before ascending into heaven, let me know and I'll research it more thoroughly for you.

One of the points I was attempting to make about Jesus and the lack of an occupied tomb is this: Before His death, He predicted He would die (because he was a prophet in the usual sense) and that after three days would bodily come back to life, which He did, physically. Then I make the point afterwards that Christianity is based on this fact, and if it were not true, then Christianity as it was then and is now would be based on a lie. Then it would be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated by man. Now, secular history will tell you that Jesus died publicly and that His tomb was located in Jerusalem, which is not really that large of a city, even today. There are only be a few places that His tomb could be and I've personally been to both of those places, and there is no body in either place. Now if Jesus were still dead, and if there were an actual body and an occupied tomb, we would know where it is. It would be one of the most heavily guarded places on earth, then and now, between the pilgrims visiting in reverence or would be plunderers trying to desecrate it, throughout the centuries. So, let me assure you that you can feel confident that there is no hidden tomb out there with Jesus bones still in it. If there were, the Christian religion would be drastically different than what we have today. The other point is this: Science can not explain it, and archaeology has not been able to refute it. I'm curious to know how you can say that this is factually wrong? What facts do you have that I am missing?

5. I did not say the Jewish people originated in Egypt. I started with them in Egypt as slaves because after they left Egypt (the Exodus), they considered themselves to be the beginning of the Jewish nation known as Israel. For the record, their origin is actually with Abraham, and he came from Ur of the Chaldees (somewhere in modern Iraq), who, at the prompting of God, moved to and settled in the land of Canaan. (If you're of a mind, read the Biblical book of Genesis (chapters 12-50) which covers the history of the Jewish people up to the Exodus.) Was it right for the ancient Jewish people to kill the canaanites? Yes, because they did it with God's blessing, which was given because the Canaanites and all other people living in that land at that time were idol worshipers and were considered heathen by God. Is it okay for modern Israelites to kill Palestinian children? Certainly not. Is it right for Palestinians to blow up Jewish people in retaliation? No. Do the Jewish people have a right to that land in it's entirety? Yes, they do because it's their inheritance which God promised to Abraham and his descendants thru Isaac, from whom all Jews are descended (not Ishmael, who, was a son of Abraham, but not the favored child). Again, this is all better and more thoroughly explained in the biblical book of Genesis.

6. The Bible. I'm impressed that you have read any part of it. But why is it such an important book, when it started out as only the basis for the Jewish religion? (Jews only consider the Old Testament as their Bible, because they do not acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah, and therefore don't consider the New Testament as part of their Bible.) If the Jewish people were not God's chosen people, then why would the holy book of a small, otherwise insignificant country in the Middle East be so important? What about the holy books of other religions? Why aren't they as prominent? No serious Christian theological scholar debates it as allegory. I'll agree that the accuracy of the history it contains is debated. But it has never been proven to be inaccurate when it has been verified. I point out its multiple authors and composition and languages over about 1,500 years to make the point that it is remarkable that such a book with such an unusual method of compilation does not ever contradict itself, and that it has been preserved remarkably well regarding translation. For example, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1940's, a scroll containing the entire book of Isaiah was found, which was identical, except for a few grammatical errors, to the text of Isaiah that has been in use by the Jewish people for more than 2,500 years.

Through the years, the Bible has been translated many times, as you say. Reputable translations were done so using the texts in their original languages. I have a book in my library called a concordance. It uses the King James Version of the Bible as it's base and lists every word in alphabetical order, showing how many times that word was used and verse reference to where it can be found in each instance. It also assigns a number to each word in each Testament which directs you to corresponding Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek dictionaries so you can see for yourself the definition of the words in the original languages. I also have a Bible that has four of the most popular English translations in the same volume, laid out side by side by side by side so that you can compare the translations to see how they are translated and see if the context of each passage is the same. So I feel confident that what I'm reading is pretty accurate.
Some Christian sects do use their own translations, which are contradictory to the widely accepted accurate translations and leads one to question the source of the translation. If a sect is secretive about the translation of their Bible than you can be sure that their hiding something. Now interpretation of the meaning of the actual texts comes into question all the time, and is responsible for all the schisms and such that have split the church apart to it's present factions, including Catholicism, Protestantism and its branches and even the Orthodox churches. Still though the Bible is the most translated and debated and written about book in the history of man, and I don't think even you can logically deny that.

7. I used the quote from the scientist because I thought it was relevant to the present discussion, not because you said that you didn't think that there were some scientists who were religious. Albert Einstein was Jewish, and he is not in heaven if he did not believe in Jesus, no matter how religious he was. For myself, I don't need to try and prove the existence of God, because I'm confident there is one. I'm trying to "prove" the existence of God for your benefit (because you stated you did not believe in the existence of God) by attempting to show you evidence of the existence of God, namely the order, precision and harmony of the universe, along with the extreme diversity of life on Earth, neither of which happened by blind chance, and also, to a lesser degree (in this email anyway) by the fact that of all the creatures on earth, humans alone have consciences or souls which are not physical and could not have come about in the manner that evolution would have us believe.

Do I know all the answers regarding my faith? No. Do I have all the answers regarding my faith? Yes, and they're all in the Bible (properly translated). I learn something new every time I read my Bible, which is truly an amazing book... Do I turn my back on science? For the most part, I do not. But when science tries to tell me something that just doesn't make sense in the most basic way, you bet I do. Do I understand all science has to offer? Certainly not.

As I've tried to counter, there is a way to know about life after death, because someone has died who is now not dead, and all that I know can be found in the Bible. When we die, I don't want to say "I told you so", because that would be boasting and that's not right.

What I'm trying to get at in all of this is that you discount as impossible anything that you can't define by science or measure in a lab or qualify in any other physical way, and that there are some things that science can't rationalize into neat little theories, principles or packages.

What I am also trying to do is to invite you to take an objective look at this religion thing and attempting to show you a good place to start looking, which is Christianity. For a beginning, I suggest you read the Biblical book of John, which is in the New Testament.

All kidding aside, the most important question you'll ever need to answer is this: Who is Jesus?

Look forward to your response.

Stay well,

Green

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]