Carlo (omnius) wrote in gods_warriors,


**EDIT: I am going to keep this post up, but I've decided that my ramblings about things like this are very disconnected and I'm not sure if they contain anything valuable... or even embody my full thought on the subject. I don't mean to be judgemental and I made assumptions. Oh well... just a heads up.**

I just got done listening to part of a debate between Bob Dutko and
Reginald (didn't get his last name).
It was the classic debate of who is right, Christians or Atheists.
Is there a God?
How do you explain the Universe?

I'm not going to say much about the actual debate yet... I just want to
say that people need to learn to communicate before they try to prove
their stance over anyone elses.
I've been guilty of this before, but it's just ridiculous when someone
is talking, to assume you know what they are saying 3 words into a
sentence just because you don't like those first 3 words. I've been
working on this really hard, but if you're going to go and debate on a
radio show with thousands of listeners not to mention the ones who will
download it later on (That's Reginald's site) you
should be able to listen and converse in an orderly manner. When you
don't, you sound desperate, immature, and unsound in what you're

The whole thing was maneuvered well by Bob. At least the portion I
heard. Reginald immediately when and slashed at Christians everywhere
saying that often times, to Christians, atheists seem to be the worst
kind of people, and seem to be in league with Satan. Bob was quick to
make his view (which is also mine) known. That there are only two types
of people: Saved and Unsaved. No one is valued higher than the other. In
that manner, it doesn't matter whether you are a saved Christian,
someone who calls themselves Christian for convenience, an atheist, a
Buddhist, a muslim, a witch, a new age believer, or anything else for
that matter. God loves us all equally, just there are those that see
this fact and accept it, and those who don't.

All this man seemed to lack was a faith in God (which makes sense
because he believes there is no God or other supernatural being(s)). He
said that he can't wrap his mind around a beginning, because you can't
make something from nothing. Therefore everything this is just was.
Always. Makes sense, because as far as this man is concerned, there
isn't enough tangible proof that God exists. If there was it would
probably make more sense to him, once he believed in God, that God could
create the Universe.

He said that you can't talk about God and have it be scientific. His
reasoning was because by adding God into a scientific theory or
equation, you add something that is not provable or able to be
explained. "You can't solve mysteries with more mysteries" he said.
I have nothing to say about that except that very
statement seems to be the exact opposite of what I've found Christianity
to be. Solving mysteries with more mysteries; diving deeper and deeper
into in infinite God's infinite Words.
Anyways, Bob brought up the idea of expanding past "Natural" science,
and thereby exploring the idea of a being that created the Universe,
able to create something from nothing because he could manipulate the
first law of thermodynamics (that law says that Matter and Energy cannot
be created or destroyed, it only changes form), and that this being
could do such things because if he created the universe, he in turn
created this law and had dominion over it.

It took Bob 10 minutes to get that out... only because Reginald
interrupted every five seconds with the fact that there's no proof that
God exists so therefore this argument is not scientific. Once Bob did
finally get this out and offer it as a possible THEORY to Reginald, he
basically skirted around even considering the possibility.

They call Christians closed-minded and conservative.

Reginald, in my opinion, couldn't even consider that theory because he
tried to look at it through the veil of Human Natural Law. I admit that
I can't blame him because it's all he knows... but why not see that you
can't know all there is to know? But I guess that if he could see that
he wouldn't be an atheist.

I suppose it's kind of frustrating to hear people like that call us
closed-minded. They do that because Christians in general are
restrictive on things that we know aren't Holy, that don't please God,
that we don't accept a grey area when it comes to Jesus. We are this way
not because we are afraid of "progress," or "cultural change," we are
this way because we know where certain things that are labeled as such
(allowing Gay/Lesbian marriages within the church, giving children so
much privacy that we are no longer able to teach them, allowing lust
etc. in media to enter our minds and the minds of those we look after
and care about) lead to. They lead away from God. We are OPEN to what
these things are and in light of that wisdom (imparted by God through
word, bible, experience etc) make the same choices on the right path.

True closed mindedness is not our burden.

(Now don't get me wrong... God hasn't given any of us all knowledge, and
there still are many Christians, including myself I'm sure, who are
closed minded on topics... but the key point I'm trying to get across is
that the very nature of Christianity is that no man can know so much
that they are able to close their minds to all input. Why not TRULY
listen to all sides and make the best decision possible?)
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.