The Titanic Clash ?

 

 The Titanic Clash or Crash

 

 

 

If we asked a young university student what do you think about the possibility of God existing?

 

They might reply, I am only a human being. Every person elsewhere is a human being like me because human beings are only sophisticated animals. So we're all animals with a bigger brain, opposable thumbs, complex languages and drive to group and succeed together. Some classic thinkers state that everybody and everything exists in God's measure. That God is in everything, not alone but everywhere.

 

 I am somebody of everybody that exists. So I am that God. Therefore, everything has to go according to my standards and preferences. So essentially, I am that God and so are other sophisticated animals with whom we negotiate our lives. I know two beautiful girls; they are in love with me and I am in love with them. One is enthusiastic about moving in with me to my house. She is attractive, willing, and able to do everything with me.

 

The other is attractive and is not willing and able to move into my house. Why? Because she believes in waiting for Mr Right and has strange ethics and morals.

 

Now I am a God in my reality and if there is no real God out there, I will take over that role. The first willing and able girl who enthusiastically believes what I believe has negotiated her position with me. There is no God, so I will do whatever I want and am only accountable to me and her; even that position is debatable. 

 

This kind of thinking goes on in more people's minds than you or I might believe. This kind of thinking begins with the denial or affirmation of the existence of God. It conditions basic fundamental views of anthropocentric and theocentric ethical behaviour.

 

If man is the ultimate measure of worth and there is no God and therefore no objective right or wrong, then murder, rape and stealing are personal choices. There is no ultimate right or wrong. Everything is determined by individual choice. If enough people think and act the same way, then a group of them can be a society unto themselves and then they can enact and enforce laws accordingly.

 

God and no God are the ultimate two poles of societal division. A theistic or a-theistic worldview is the ultimate division of humanity. Two views exist with a vast gulf, more expansive than the North and South poles. The world is between clashes and inevitably pushes up against each pole. No theist can be a consistently believing person all the time because we are human beings with bias and prejudice built and developed in ourselves. We pick up bits and pieces of insight, syncretically adopt principles, fuse them into a whole worldview, and apply these odds and ends characteristically without real thought to life. So, too, the atheist, who cannot live out the ideals of the atheistic world- view consistently for the same reason.

 

Here is the fundamental dilemma of humankind.

 

It's not either, but something in the gulf between which exists and plays out in real life. Why? Because there are many variations in this scope of the gulf. So, there is much individual mutation or scope of principles within.  It is still basically only a clash of two world views. Every sub world -view is a spectrum of variation between the two most significant perspectives. Within a-theistic beliefs, this can lead to pessimism, leads to misery, which brings meaninglessness into the heart and life of the atheist.

 

We all decide which philosophy or system of thought we will follow, even when we don't call ourselves philosophers. 

 

God helps Christians live and reach people everywhere with the Gospel or Good News of life. Similarly, the new atheist, with human help, evangelises the world just as we do.

 

I appreciate your patience.  Any thoughts or comments you would like to make? Agree or disagree?