Again, God, by establishing the laws of science and then creating life contrary to the laws of science declares that He exists.

I cannot know you unless you choose to reveal yourself to me. You cannot know me unless I choose to reveal myself to you. It is impossible to know another unless they choose by their own free will to reveal themselves. No one can know God unless God chooses to reveal Himself to mankind.

Every religion on the face of the earth is an attempt to know and please or appease God. Every religion on earth is man’s attempt to know God but every religion is destined to failure unless God chooses to reveal Himself to man. Every religion on earth is man attempting to reach up and know God. That is, every religion except one.

Christianity is exactly the opposite. Christianity, according to the Bible, is God revealing Himself to man. Consider this familiar verse:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]

Notice who did the loving – who did the giving. Christianity is not man attempting to reach God. Christianity is God reaching down to man and revealing Himself is the person of Jesus Christ.

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? [John 14:9]

It is pointless for me to “change my perspective”. It would be like an astronaut attempting to land on mars by just haphazardly changing his perspective and shooting his rocket in any direction. I cannot know God by haphazardly guessing. I can only know Him if He chooses to reveal Himself to me. Apart from God revealing Himself to mankind, mankind has no hope of understanding or knowing Him just as I could not know you unless you had chosen to reveal yourself to me.

i have re-read over and over again your comment but i do not understand what you’re arguing against (in relative to this particular post). The only significant point i can see is that i’m guilty of putting religion’s morality in a dark spot.

If you really understand the essence of my essay above, i’m not condemning religion’s view of morality. Not even close. Like you do, i’ve acknowledged before (several months ago, in one of my earlier essay) the role of religion in constructing the society throughout the history. I’m merely highlighting the contradictions of absolute morality which we could easily detect if we bother to think objectively and rationally for a few seconds.

Ultimately, I’m more bewildered on why we have conflicting emotions within our psyche when it comes to morality.

richardcorke,

I share a similar view with yours, somewhat…

Russ,

You asked me is it reasonable for me to believe in Evolution which can’t be perceived with my senses. But have you perceived God with your senses before?

You do not believe that anything can comes from nothing, but think about it – when you do not know how certain things happen, is it because you insist not to believe how it could happen or is it because you simply DO NOT KNOW how it happened.

If God creates science as what you have said, what makes you think God didn’t create Evolution?

It is incredible if you bother to just shift your perception a little, you will see a whole new picture, no?

However, is it reasonable to believe in evolution? Is it reasonable to believe that the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing? I do not believe that anything can come from nothing and there is nothing in science that would suggest otherwise.

The Bible teaches that God is outside of time. He is eternal. The Bible teaches that “time” was created as well as the physical universe. If such a Being exists, He would not be subject to the laws of science but He Himself would have established the laws of science – the very laws that clearly teach that “something” cannot come from “nothing”.

God, by establishing scientific laws that prohibit “something” coming from “nothing” and then creating a universe that defies science then clearly proclaims that He exists.

Death is the result of man’s rebellion against God according to the Bible. God is the source of life. When a person rebels against the source of life, the only result can be death just as when you unplug a light from the socket it quickly burns out. It may continue to glow dimly for a period of time after being disconnected from the socket but there is no doubt that it cannot continue to glow for long.

Such is man. Mankind has been separated from God by his sin. He may continue to glow for a short period of time, maybe 50 or 100 years, but the darkness of eternity awaits him.

Jesus did not come to condemn mankind. He came to rescue mankind from certain death. Jesus suffered on the cross to pay the price for our sin. He did not suffer the cross for His own sin – He had none. Instead, He willingly endured the cross to pay the price for our rebellion against God. He suffered to restore man’s relationship with God and to make peace between God and man. He suffered for you and me because He loves us and is not willing that anyone should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

II. If only God can define absolute morality, are we submitting to a power ethic? Just “might-makes-right” on a grand scale?
God obviously thinks it’s moral for hyenas to eat zebras alive and other brutal things like that. Why can’t I judge him for that? I think God’s decision to allow such things is immoral. Of course, I am being arrogant enough to insist on my own moral code; and I am arrogant enough to tell god that mine is more compassionate than his is.

The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. [Psalm 19:1-3]

The Bible insists that the evidence for God existence is clearly displayed and declared by the creation to all men. It does not matter if you are Chinese or Russian or Indian, all men of every language experience and observe the same heavens, the same creation. The heavens and the creation not only declare that God exists, but they also declare His attributes. They declare what He is like – That He is all powerful, knowing, eternal and wonderful. God insists that the evidence for His existence is clear. He has clearly shown who He is through the witness of the creation. He has made His existence obvious to all men.

And, the Bible insists that when men deny the obvious, that the are without excuse,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. [Rom 1:20-23]

It is interesting that your post has much to do with a bug (that is, if you actually read the above verse.)

“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.”

“Something” never came from “nothing”. To reason that the heavens and the universe spontaneously created itself from nothing is unreasonable. It is not scientific. It is foolishness.

The definition of what is “good” or “nice” and what is “bad” or ” ugly” has always been defined by the individuals and cultures. Double standards always applies because good and bad are subjective. Religion introduces many types of morality in it’s many different variation. Having “faith” is as subjective as having a “feeling” of what is right or wrong, just that one is defined by God, and some by men. And for atheists, both are by men.

My point is that the negative terms you have put religion under is not entirely deserved. Religion DOES impose morality onto many people. And if you think being moral is good, religion does do good. Even if their claim to be the source of morality may not be true.

Contradiction and hypocritical acts are common place, because the human thought process causes us to classify things into categories. Thereby setting multiple standards for different things. It is no different from putting an Ace above a King all the way down to a deuce, when they are essentially still cards, and they can all be easily redefined the other way round.

you have just echoed my words really well, and that’s the message i would like to spread to people – there’s no absolute morality.

thanks.

There are many examples that can be drawn. Cannibalism is taboo to many cultures, but there are also cultures that use to practise it. Which is moral? In India, they have a monkey god, Hanuman. While in China, monkey brains are boiled with hot water, while they are still alive. Again, which is moral? There are uncountable more examples that known or unknown, shows that different cultures have different definition of morality.

When you see the baby bird on the floor, there was pity, and you somehow wanted to help it. You saw that as the right thing to do. An immigrant from another country with different culture would probably pick up the bird, bring it home, and thank his god for providing a meal for the day.

The common reason to cause the difference in morality between human beings, is as oft repeated on the passages above, culture. It is in the upbringing, how your mother pointed out that “the bird is so cute”, or that “play with the cat”, or even what kind of food she puts on the table that causes you to feel the way you feel. Religion is part of your upbringing, and therefore also impacts on your morality.

The need for morality, rather than the definition of morality, is common place everywhere, or so it is thought, or assumed. This, however is again according to upbringing and experiences again, rather then innate abilities. The drug lord, the serial killer, “criminals” as a whole are DNA wise also human. But to most, morality wise they are far from human. Perhaps it is that when we grow up, the sense of family, the sense of helping others will profit yourself, that is what leads us to be as moral as we can.

From my viewpoint, the upbringing is the cause of morality, not innate ability, and religion, is a part of the upbringing.

Consider the holy war between Christian and Islam. So who is ‘Right Side’ in the ‘Defending’ or who is in the ‘Wrong Side’ in ‘Harming’? Tell me about it.

richardcorke, if you read my post properly my ultimate message in my essay is about the moral contradiction in human psyche, not morality on a whole – for instance, Why do we feel the emotion of sympathy when we see a dying bird or a drowning bug but yet, we do not feel any remorse or guilt when eating chicken meat or beef? Clearly, such morality turmoil is not something learned from God or the holy book. It must be some innate abilities, something that we are inborn with, that creates such contradictions and turmoils.