One may understand to the fullest possible comprehension every scientific logic and purpose when it comes to trees, but I imagine none of that will probably mean much of anything at all to anyone who has not actually experienced the majesty and wonders of a forest.
Explanation is no substitute for experience.
I suppose I could stop there and feel I had made my point. Honestly, that was my intention, but I'm afraid the larger point would be missed for doing so. No disrespect.
So then, you may be asking, why am I saying this?
I'll break it down like this...
If one believes that there is in fact a singular creator as the point of origin for all of creation, then it seems logical that the nature of that creator should be seen (to anyone who is looking) in some way or another through the observation of that very creation. Also then, as I believe, that creator by design is the very definition of existence, the truth if you will. Consequently, that truth then is not limited to the text of ancient manuscripts, but to be found everywhere that anyone who cares to see it might look. In ordinary everyday experiences.
I would suggest for example that man, regardless of the conclusions he may or may not have come to in regard to faith in a God, exemplifies an inherent and universal sense of right and wrong (a moral compass) as evidence of a singular shared point of origin.
God.
Thus all truth, having God as that singular point of origin, is God's truth and is not limited to some holy text as the sole source of its evidence.
That said then, I have to wonder why so many people feel bound to use the text of holy manuscripts, not mutually agreed upon by their audience, as their only authority and resource to exemplify the truth that is embodied and exemplified throughout creation and shown to us (and through us) by our own history and the world around us.
My point being then, that if all truth is God's truth, and the evidence of that truth is found all around us and in us, then why do we feel compelled to use arguments and examples that others will find irrelevant, when all we simply need to do is show people the very world around them and apply those examples accordingly?
Simply quoting some text or complex theology won't make any sense, or hold authority worthy of consideration and why would it? We might as well quote Garfield comics, they might be just as relevant and perhaps even more so depending on our audience.
To simplify the point even more, why aren't we first letting people simply experience trees instead of simply hoping to explain trees to them in some strange foreign terminology as though they should understand?
It seems to me that once they are afforded the experience and wonder of trees, explanations about their nature and purpose might then become relevant, and perhaps even welcomed as they begin to actually understand and experience trees.
But until we can afford them that experience of trees, (the beauty, the importance, the vital function and purpose of trees within the whole order of things) until we can do that much, simply explaining trees, and showing people pictures of trees from long ago, will means nothing.
And why would it?
It's not at all the same.
It means nothing...
d(-_-)b
P.S. In case you missed it, I'm not at all discrediting the Bible, what I'm saying is that you can (with some thought) use almost everything except the Bible (including and especially your own life) until you can actually use the Bible.
But if the only evidence of trees you can present is the mere paper your Bible is printed on, then what do you honestly hope that should mean to people who do not see the application of Biblical principals lived through you? What difference will that paper and ink actually make?
Think about it, like something very big depended on it.
Because it does.
peace
Explanation is no substitute for experience.
I suppose I could stop there and feel I had made my point. Honestly, that was my intention, but I'm afraid the larger point would be missed for doing so. No disrespect.
So then, you may be asking, why am I saying this?
I'll break it down like this...
If one believes that there is in fact a singular creator as the point of origin for all of creation, then it seems logical that the nature of that creator should be seen (to anyone who is looking) in some way or another through the observation of that very creation. Also then, as I believe, that creator by design is the very definition of existence, the truth if you will. Consequently, that truth then is not limited to the text of ancient manuscripts, but to be found everywhere that anyone who cares to see it might look. In ordinary everyday experiences.
I would suggest for example that man, regardless of the conclusions he may or may not have come to in regard to faith in a God, exemplifies an inherent and universal sense of right and wrong (a moral compass) as evidence of a singular shared point of origin.
God.
Thus all truth, having God as that singular point of origin, is God's truth and is not limited to some holy text as the sole source of its evidence.
That said then, I have to wonder why so many people feel bound to use the text of holy manuscripts, not mutually agreed upon by their audience, as their only authority and resource to exemplify the truth that is embodied and exemplified throughout creation and shown to us (and through us) by our own history and the world around us.
My point being then, that if all truth is God's truth, and the evidence of that truth is found all around us and in us, then why do we feel compelled to use arguments and examples that others will find irrelevant, when all we simply need to do is show people the very world around them and apply those examples accordingly?
Simply quoting some text or complex theology won't make any sense, or hold authority worthy of consideration and why would it? We might as well quote Garfield comics, they might be just as relevant and perhaps even more so depending on our audience.
To simplify the point even more, why aren't we first letting people simply experience trees instead of simply hoping to explain trees to them in some strange foreign terminology as though they should understand?
It seems to me that once they are afforded the experience and wonder of trees, explanations about their nature and purpose might then become relevant, and perhaps even welcomed as they begin to actually understand and experience trees.
But until we can afford them that experience of trees, (the beauty, the importance, the vital function and purpose of trees within the whole order of things) until we can do that much, simply explaining trees, and showing people pictures of trees from long ago, will means nothing.
And why would it?
It's not at all the same.
It means nothing...
d(-_-)b
P.S. In case you missed it, I'm not at all discrediting the Bible, what I'm saying is that you can (with some thought) use almost everything except the Bible (including and especially your own life) until you can actually use the Bible.
But if the only evidence of trees you can present is the mere paper your Bible is printed on, then what do you honestly hope that should mean to people who do not see the application of Biblical principals lived through you? What difference will that paper and ink actually make?
Think about it, like something very big depended on it.
Because it does.
peace
Can you imagine if everyone (like me) professing to be Christian lived their lives like a living example of Christ ALL THE TIME? (Regrettably, I fail at this often) I think you are right there would hardly be a need for any ancient manuscripts. Very interesting point!
ReplyDeleteI love the revelation God gives of Himself through creation (Psalm 19:1-4, Rom. 1:19-20, and many others).
ReplyDeleteThere is also the revelation of God within human nature: Rom. 2:12-15 and many others.
God's power, personality, and requirements are known to every human being who is alive by the glory of His creation and by the knowledge of right and wrong.
Yet it is insufficient to bring people to Christ by these means, good though they are. Hence, Heb. 1:1-3, Rom.10:5-13. The scriptures are revelation from God about Himself, which we could never understand or come to by our own investigation.
People all the time reject the words of God. We still need to share those words because they are life and truth beyond what can be learned by seeing nature outside or inside. We would have no context for who this Jesus is, unless we saw Him in the history and stories of the Bible. We would have no understanding of what salvation is or means without the words of Paul and the other apostles.
So, use the glory of what God created both in the universe and in man, because those things touch the heart and soul of man; and also use the words of Scripture because through them the Holy Spirit does the work only He can do. And don't be surprised (although I am all the time) when people reject it. I need to remember that there are others who are eager to receive it.
Ron, I totally hear what you're saying. Thanks for your thoughtful insight. db
Delete