This video by Nate really has me kind of disturbed as I was watching it—because it has so many holes in it that I don’t really know where to start. But, from a logical perspective, not even a purely Christian I’d like to take on at least 3 ideas to give you some discussion points and an idea of where to start when discussing this with Nate in the future. He really needs to look at this thing objectively, because it honestly leaves a lot to be desired.
1. I am the All and the universe exists to serve me – This statement really doesn’t make too much sense in the long run. I mean, if everything exists to serve me and make me who I am, then how come I can die or be hurt by something? A bolt of lightning sure won’t be serving me when it strikes me on the head and fries me all the way through, at least as far as I know. I honestly would prefer to survive. As well, he specifically mentioned atoms—and those can be mutated and multiply in their cellular form to cause cancer, and that wouldn’t be serving me either. Why can’t I control if I have cancer, if my atoms and cells exist to serve me? I don’t know why, but this idea just seems so self-centered.
2. But, my friend is also the All and all people, animals, and anything living are all neighboring “Alls” – I can’t agree with this either because it really contradicts itself. If the universe itself exists to serve me, how can it also exist to serve them? I don’t understand that—I thought the whole universe was just about me, according to Pantheism. That just doesn’t add up. Besides, it doesn’t really explain the ideas of altruism or human affection because it doesn’t benefit me specifically, and that’s all I’m supposed to do.
3. The All is infinite and never had a beginning or an end – But we have to have a history. If there was only infinity, where would the present be? It wouldn’t, honestly, because the present doesn’t really exist in a system like that. History needs to have a starting point or else we wouldn’t be here at all. So that, right there, is one of the huge problems with this theology, and one that I, personally, can’t get past.
4. The All can’t be understood – This is just a quick point in closing. This feels like a real cop-out because it means that he’s not responsible for accuracy or explaining what he believes. He just claims that nobody can understand the All so we don’t really know; we just have to believe with no evidence and just all by faith. Maybe try and ask him about evidence for what he believes? That could bring up some interesting answers.
Hope that helps. =)
No comments:
Post a Comment