The Onto-Who?!

It is said that “I am not what you think I am; You are what you think I am”, and given this aphorism must be even more applicable to an incomprehensible God than to comprehensible human beings, then the question of God is very telling.

What kind of person would say of God that he requires blood, belief, and baptism in order to right the cosmic wrong He allowed in His creation?

If I am willing to risk the eternal damnation of such a God because it literally is a deplorable view of God and humanity I do not except and vehemently reject, what does that say of me?

If it turns out that God is in fact exactly as those have imagined, then holding the idea that ontological arguments for God are meaningful … such thinking has no value at all for I scarcely doubt we’ve ever created such a horrific monster as this God; and all aims of ontological arguments are the extention of our own characteristics in a perfected sense. And so, either this God exists and is so beneath any sense of perfection we have and we literally can and do conceive of something greater than God, or, this notion of God cannot stand under scrutiny of any ontological argument for the existence of God at all.

Advertisements
Tagged ,

One thought on “The Onto-Who?!

  1. campeador says:

    Steven:

    Nearly all “notion(s) of God cannot stand … scrutiny”, for these are born of human anthropomorphizing. One can say, with great validity, that rather than God creating man in His own image, man creates ‘god’ in man’s own image (which constantly evolves). Thus, ‘god’ likewise ‘evolves’, e.g., from a bloodthirsty warlord to a loving, forgiving redeemer.

    It is a great irony, that even as the Christian canon ‘documents’ that change, it nevertheless retains, nay, glorifies some brutal aspects of previous god-worship: Human sacrifice (Christ’s) and ritualistic cannibalism (“Eat this [my body]…drink this [my blood]”)

    A case can be made for the use of such language and imagery. Two thousand years ago, people may have needed the “shock and awe” in order to ‘absorb’ the message of redemption. But what about today, when the literal meaning of “Body and Blood of Christ” is abhorrent to modern sensibilities, and the figurative meaning itself is an anachronistic distraction to many? And, what Is the danger of metaphor devolving to superstition, where ‘things’ are taken literally? Unfortunately, man is prone to superstition. It makes things ‘easier to explain’.

    As to man’s relationship to God, I’ll leave you with Francis Bacon’s take on the matter: “It were better for a man to have no opinion of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy of [H]im. For the one is unbelief, the other is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity.”

    Jus’ saying.

    Rod Solórzano

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: