God is Truth

God is Truth March 31, 2014

The above quote on Facebook seemed worth turning into a meme, and so I did so, with the author’s permission.

“In my view, Ham’s basic mistake is to separate God and Truth. Not only is all truth God’s truth, but God and Truth are indistinguishable. God is identical to his attributes. Inasmuch as Ham stands against reason, he stands against God. An atheist on his knees brushing sand from a fossil kneels in worship, whether he knows it or not. A six dayer who rejects the honest findings of our paleontologist rejects God, whether he knows it or not.” (Allan Smith)

"Above you said"What was scandalous was the idea that he raised -Jesus- specifically from the ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"The irony may be that Data always wanted to be human, but in his being-toward-death ..."

Gods of Star Trek: Picard
"Well ... what do you think? I have always loved Colossians 1:15-20 and I have ..."

Does Paul “Split the Shema”?
"I am responding to the story as you have written it, implying archaeology has unearthed ..."

Elephantine, Leontopolis, and Gnosticism

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • DKeane123

    God’s truth is that over 99% of the organisms that ever lived on this planet went extinct (usually horrible deaths) to produce us? That seems like a pretty horrific “truth”.

    • $41348855

      I think you mean that over 99% of species have become extinct. It is misleading to say that a species as a whole has died a horrible death. A species goes extinct when its last member dies. This death, like most deaths, may be horrible, but the life of every individual member of every species will end in death, whether or not the species goes extinct. Death is no more horrible if it represents the end of a species, tragic perhaps, but not horrible.

      • DKeane123

        Yes I did and edited my comment, thank you.

        While not to minimize – death today for humans is generally put off until old age and in first world countries, usually done under the administration of a doctor. It is much different to die from some horrible childhood illness (prior to vaccines) or at the hands of another human/animal. The Blue Footed Bobby that hatches first will often peck out the heads of it’s siblings to increase chances for survival during a food shortage – God either created this or lets it happen.

        • $41348855

          I think there are two questions of interest here: first, is the occurrence of suffering and death in general something that counts against God, and second, is a process that uses death in order to create new life – i.e. evolution – something that counts against God?

          Death is something with which we must all come to terms, including creationists. But from an evolutionary perspective, death has a particular signifance. Death is useful. Mutations occur on a regular basis. Many of these mutations will lower the fitness of the organisms that have them. The only way of eliminating the mutations is to kill their possessors before they can reproduce. And this is what nature generally does.

          • DKeane123

            With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility, does it not?

          • $41348855

            I think you can get an insight into this issue by asking yourself a question: what would you think if you discovered that you were the result of a genetic experiment? Not just any experiment, but a particularly elaborate experiment. Let’s say that a team of scientists had sat down and designed your entire genome down to the last nucleotide.

            I imagine that you would find this disturbing. Why? Presumably, it would be disturbing to know that every aspect of your existence was entirely the result of someone else’s choice. Imagine that your eye colour, your height, your intelligence, your personality etc. had been deliberately chosen by someone else.

            Perhaps this tells us something about the choice that God had in creating us. The choice was between creating a world in which natural processes could bring about our existence without divine intervention and taking complete charge of every detail of the creation. It seems that the only way in which we can be the creatures that we are is if God relinquishes his power.

          • James Walker

            why is the presumption that in order for there to be a concept of God, that concept of God must have the feature of omnipotence? and that, then, the ultimate argument against there being a God is that any omnipotent being who would allow death and suffering is clearly not worthy of the title: God?

          • DKeane123

            Because 99% of the version of Christianity have an omnipotent god? So the assumption is not exactly a straw man on my part. Regardless, if you want to suggest that the evidence doesn’t support on omnipotent god, then I think we are pretty much on same page.

          • James Walker

            Dr. McGrath has touched on this before, though. if the key argument against the existence of deity is a theological one, there’s a problem with the framing of the argument. it ends up boiling down to “I don’t accept THAT definition of God” and there is usually someone in the crowd of theists who will agree with you but will nevertheless remain a theist.

          • DKeane123

            I agree. I find the fact that everyone has a differing definition of their particular god to actually be one of the key arguments. Also note the key word in my previous comment was evidence – I really don’t care much for theological debate. Thanks for the conversation, I do appreciate it.