Good for Me - thank you- But Why not You Again?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 27, 2012 at 12:19

One need not be impressed with the 'thought' that I have employed in engaging in this exchange; except that if I had not nearly fifty years to contemplate such things, it might not have had the reaction you have bestowed. But you hit upon something else that I had not thought of for some time – of the mental iterations that could be expended before a conclusion is drawn, not necessarily whether to believe or not, but where does one begin and end?

Logically, I have never been much on logic, which from my perspective was an extension of being mathematically inclined, such as the discipline necessary for the theory of music. As for the logic of calculus, while I will agree that its everyday function is invisible to many if not most, many everyday functions are measured in calculus solution from second to second as an underlying mechanism of the physics of our reality. I need not try to calculate all of the ones that affect my personal interaction with my surrounding; I just expect them to do so to keep my physical existence in balance.

Now, I will agree that religion is a man made expression of trying to get at the supernatural in a way that is, in some respects, a defiance of a logic of the universe. For example, I can see Jupiter in the sky, have seen it close up in photographs and have a certain amount of scientific conjecture of its existence that should be enough to prove it is there; but that is an application of faith in science , isn't it? Unless I can set my spacecraft down, maybe be killed in the process for the theories of its gravitational density, I can never know of the truth of its existence, now can I? In the meantime, it is an expression (nearly religious for some) of faith in science that says Jupiter exists in a way scientists have explained.

Now, it is not my task, nor my duty, nor my intention to force an experiential acknowledgment from you requiring you to believe as I do. Quite frankly, it is actually not required of a Christian to compel by force or by a logical argument of the reality of the person of Jesus Christ upon another. Each is required to approach and make that acknowledgement by faith individually (I could actually say that – you are on your own).

But, in the love that was expended on me for my own action by Jesus Christ, the evidence of which love is marked physically in Jerusalem and not Jupiter, which by that love I am compelled to share to those who would receive it; and if determined by faith to be necessary to deal with our innate ungodliness, receive Jesus Christ in our hearts for salvation. Which of the other belief systems are prepared for that – they cannot, for they are religions and Jesus Christ did not die on the cross and resurrect Himself for religious magic.

Now I do respect your thoughts to remain as you see fit, for such does not make me angry. It is a free choice you have made, just as I have made mine. I can only apprise you of the consequences as I have seen them explained; but I would venture others more passionate than I have already made their case to you, thus your reluctance to entertain any such change of heart.

Now you have alleged mental gymnastics, and I'll close with that. To be sure, in the beginning of my search for meaning, my mental gymnastic were of the Olympic sort, wondering why for all of the religious trappings I was raised in that I did not understand God. I had family members go through the same and came out atheistic for a time. In simple terms, they did not get it done. My faithlessness was exposed by one who was not religious, but had searched until the truth was proven beyond question and the reality of faith made as real as the ground I walk upon.

The point of it is this: I cannot prove it to you – you must ask Almighty God through Jesus Christ prove it to yourself or die never knowing. Otherwise, this was an interesting exchange.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".