Me, pretending to be an atheist: I may have no proof to deny God’s existence, but why must God exist? I accept creation exists. It would seem absurd to do otherwise. Now, you have your Bible, and I can look at it, as a piece of literature. This character, Jesus, he claims; when asked, to be a king without a kingdom of this world. Did he kill his father to become heir of the throne? Or did his father die? If Jesus and his father are admitted to being one, then who is God; when Jesus is heir to the throne of a dead God? It may be: God once existed, but Jesus did away with his existence, in the New Testament. Granted: God is defined as infinite and therefore, Lutherans would say, we have a paradox, an apparent contradiction–two kings, and three, when the Holy Ghost is communicated as a matter of a person, to be believed. Lord knows without the Holy Ghost to have an account written about the other two, the whole story of God’s relations to creation, and creatures, it seems self-serving, and less credible among two instead of three witnesses.
The difficulty with evidence, concerning God’s existence-is this point of infinity. God is infinite; yet, Jesus is put forward to have been a man; he is regarded to having made a statement, that he is God–Jews regarded this to be criminal, and used Roman law, to have their “law” upheld and therefore, he was sentenced to death. God is again dead. This seems more feasible as Jesus is man; except, there is an empty tomb: if there was a body snatcher under the noses of Roman legion soldiers; there is not a story rooted in fact, about a theif being caught, but the body is seen–three days later with a man, an Apostle, sticking his fingers through a hole in one hand, an effect of a nail driven through it: evidence of crucifixion. This walking corpse ascends, bodily, into heaven some forty days after the third day of his crucifixion–again enters the Holy Ghost, and the birth of the Roman Rite. Peter was recognized in Jesus’ other, more earthly life, as a foundation, a rock, and a rather small one–given his lack of godhead; nonetheless, a fisherman faces the mother of Jesus, his fellow apostles, and a profound story has unfolded. It was popular to such an extent among Romans, that successive Roman Emperors declared themselves gods. It was humiliating enough to Jews, that they apparently, by-and-large, rid themselves of the whole story, about a coming messiah. Crucifixions continued within the Roman Empire. It has been a costly story. Crucifixions outside the Roman Empire occurred. In Japan, during the 1400’s, Japanese children adhering to Catholic belief–were crucified by the Japanese emperor. Crosses remain standing. The credility of this story, given Roman persecution of Jews, is believable if not in detail, then clearly in purpose, but for the reason: it corrupted the Roman Empire from within, while making it feasible some three or four hundred years later–to live out from under it.
The story seems to change. Somehow the Crucifixion of Jesus, takes on a different meaning: when you as Christians personalize the story–a man who healed; cast out demons, and submitted to his father’s will, that brought about the end of his life, as a consequence more of ignorance–if Jesus’ view is accepted–is accepted as something done for you, and God’s love toward you. You may say, God loves me as well. What evidence have you–except a story, either of literary, or historical value, and the story except for the plot, and the characters, might actually be rather poor as literature goes–this of course, might only be rooted in the point, the Bible seems written to a level of intelligence, appropriate to those who are in modern, US terms, eighth graders, and this among a nation populated by those only able to attend largely failed public educational institutions, and this must be the responsibility of a teacher’s union; one migh suspect. And it seems worthwhile to further as a point, the apparent intended intellectual level of literacy, for whom the Bible is written, is an age or grade, less than the maturity level of a twenty-five year old’s developed, matured, brain. Of course, I have to accept the counter arguement, that parents would teach this to their children, as mature adults, to their children not to exploit their immature development, but of love, and for healthy development of their children; nonetheless, such care is not always seen among those of society, those of religion, ownership of land, and political power–the educated by-and-large, to be concerned about families; except as a means to control labor, the production of their wealth.
It should be God is evidenced by justice, rather than by man’s attempt to foil it.
