No One Sees God

Hi there! You have made quite a few interesting statements here. I will give this book a look and get back to you once I am more informed. Looking forward to discussion.- Raph

Alright. So I have not read the whole book, nor even a majority of it, but I did look into it quite extensively and read up on Michael Novak.I am, of course, in no position to judge you. But I find much what you say here to be quite interesting. It sounds, looking at your overall theme, you have failed to understand the purpose of this book.From my reading, I get the impression that Novak approaches this entire topic with a tone of humility and non-bias, going so far as to write in the preface that those who laugh at his beliefs may in fact be "right at the end of all things." This area of writing, at least from the Christian perspective, is often plagued with polemic and defensiveness and yet Novak writes in a completely contrary manner.On page xxiiii Novak makes his thesis clear: "nonbelievers and believers alike need to learn a new habit of reasoned and mutually respectable conversation."Throughout the book, it appears that Novak is trying to exhort both sides of the equation by finding commonality between the two, mainly human suffering.You wrote: Here you have clearly demonstrated that you are unwilling to work towards commonality and mutual respect between different sides of this debate simply because of an assumption made on your part. While this may be true, you have not proven it thus, therefore your reasoning for rejecting Novak's proposal for community and respect is faulty. If you had proven that Christianity was created out of other peoples myths historically before making your assumption, it would be a conclusion instead of an assumption.I say none of this because I specifically disagree with you, although I basically do I just hope that in everything surrounding this dialogue both sides of the ID debate can approach one another with respect and to knock a respected writer's appeal for commonality simply because of an assumption you had previously made doesn't really seem fair. Just some thoughts Regards!- Raph

In everything you have written, I have appreciated your quest to appeal to both sides of this debate and the respect by which you have done so.It is super refreshing to see somebody who does not see things as black and white, and asking questions that are difficult for both sides to answer. All too often we get so caught up in the debate we forget there are certain things we can agree about not understanding. I respect your fair treatment of both sides. So thank you But I stil do have a problem with some assumptions. When I say assumption, I mean statements like these Statements like these are assumptions, based on presuppositions. These presuppositions may prove to be true, and you may be able to do that here, but to state them as truth doesn't really make sense, you know?I cannot speak from the atheistic perspective, since that has not been my journey, but I will attempt to speak from the Theist one.I'm sure you have done legitimate research to back up your positions, and feel confidant that what you have assumed to be true about Creationists is true, but I can confidently state that I believe none of the things you have pegged on to Creationism and I am a Creationist in the traditional, literal interpretation sense.Further, all your assumptions are common misconceptions and I would not be so quick to peg them as assumptions if they were not so common. Let's take the third one listed^ above. Again, I am a traditional Theist. I believe in a personal God, ONE who created the earth in 6 literal days, answers prayers, and reveals himself in the world today. I am a part of a church community and am in my last undergraduate year studying to be a minister within the organization of the church. And I would never make such an assumption. In fact, Organized Religion is, often, the worst misrepresentation of Jesus on this earth. The church today is nothing like its beginnings. But sadly, humanity is self-centered and the church has become the same way. So, in short, if you reject Organized Religion, personally, I would side with you in favor of healing the sick, clothing the naked, and setting the oppressed free. That's what Jesus taught and if I'm a "Christian" that's what it means; to follow the way of Christ.Personally, I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misconception about the other side's position. Take this one, for example: This is an intricate one, almost a double misconception. The first one is from the atheistic side, assuming the position of Scripture is that the human has an immortal soul. It may be the position of traditional evangelical christianity, but it is not the position of scripture. I may be begging my own question, but for the sake of the argument let's say that it's true. The second, is, when you come to the atheistic position that they reject the "ghost in the machine," you see them as unreasonable, when that is a misconception on the atheistic side of things.So all I'm saying is a better tactic for us to be able to dialogue would be to properly understand the position of the other side.Let's take this last one here: This one is the most abrasive for me. It is abrasive because, in spite of your unique "middle ground" approach, it is altogether a common argument. I do not disagree that religion, for the most part, is completely man made with the political purpose of enslaving mankind. Religion is good at that. Christianity however, is the complete opposite. Or at least was in its inception. While many (not all) religions are based on how humanity can get to God/gods Christianity tells the story of how God came to humanity. Now while many different religious groups have stories of gods/god who comes to earth, the fundamental difference is that they still end up in a state of having to do specific things to unlock and interact with the supernatural. The biggest difference that I see, is that Christianity, in its truest sense, was a group dedicated to the way of their martyr, who began a wholeistic, sharing, socialistic society in response to witnessing that martyrs resurrection. It was not a created system endorsed politically but actually just kind of a Way that grew, as Christ's followers did all they could do further the cause they had been given. That's where I'm not quite understanding you I guess.So there are some of my views. I would like to affirm you though, I really appreciated this: I appreciate this because it is exactly what the problem is with the Creationist side of the ID issue. Creationism, at its core, is the belief in a great "other," some supernatural element, referred to by most theists as "God," who created the universe. The trouble is when Creationists try to use science to prove Biblical Creation. Science, by it's nature, cannot observe something that is outside the natural realm. It simply cannot speak on anything outside of what is observable and testable. Not that it should, it just doesn't need to. Therefore, God (the creator for most Christian theists) really does not need us to prove him with science. There are other ways to prove his existence, but science cannot be one of them. That's just working on the non-believer's terms. I find it interesting that so many creationists (many on this forum) attempt to try and prove Creationism with science only to be totally shut down by opponents and turn to frustration, insults, and behaviour altogether unfortunate for believers in the Way of Christ.All in all, thanks for being so open minded and I look forward to more discussion as you read more of the book! - Raph

Hi there! This is an incredibly complicated topic and I fear I cannot do it justice in a single post here. But in short, all the texts you quoted are illustrations in scripture on the destructible nature of the soul, not it's immortality. This may be an...odd thing to say given the mainstream nature of the belief in an inherently immortal soul.But take Jesus' words in Matthew: Jesus speaking to the apostles, encouraging them in the fact that this world is not our home. They had no need to fear those who can kill the body, because only God can destroy both body and soul.Ezekiel Throughout the Old Testament particularly, the language used on the soul is so very wholistic in its nature. Here we have an example of the writer referring to a human as a soul, I. E. "the soul the sinneth, it shall die." This type of thing, referring to a person as a living soul is very common throughout; we can even see it in verses like Genesis 2:7, Leviticus 21:1, Number 9:6, Lam. 3:25, and others. The point is not that there is no soul/spirit in humanity, but rather that the soul is from God, breathed into Adam at creation. So it makes perfect sense for God to say things like "all souls are mine" because they literally are. Nowhere in scripture does the soul have an existence independant from the body. New Testament texts like this are a little more complicated, taking into account the views of the writer and popular beliefs of the time, but those things aside, this text is in harmony with the view that the soul is not inherently immortal. If the soul/spirit can be lost, then it is not inherently immortal, because it would have to go on existing somewhere somehow.I hope this explains my views! Perhaps one of these days I will have time to start a thread on this topic, but I'm swamped with homework these days! Haha. Regards!- Raph