caught somewhere between real life, simple faith, & raw emotion
Is Satan Real?
Last week I watched this video from Nightline Face-off and it was really good.
In this third installment,
philosopher Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson will face-off
against Pastor Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church and Annie Lobert,
founder of the Christian ministry “Hookers for Jesus” about the
existence of the Devil.
Both sides are interesting. Whether or not you believe, I found Deepak’s main point a little empty. His basic premise is that God is infinite, so we humans cannot understand Him. Furthermore, because God is infinite, we humans do him a disservice by trying to define him like religions do. Deepak’s approach is to seek enlightenment. And if you limit God by trying to understand Him in human terms, you are not working toward enlightenment. You are a primitive. You need only know that he can’t be known–and that he is love. Whatever love means in this ambiguous context.
So let me get this straight, the purpose of enlightenment is to discover that nothing can be known? Seeking truth only reveals there is no truth? Searching for knowledge only reveals nothing can be known? Yea, that makes sense…
If there is a God, and he is worth worshipping, than he better define his expectations a little. He better tell us what he likes and what he dislikes. Otherwise God is like an abusive father. The kind where the kids never know what to say or how to act. They just walk around the dad in fear afraid that the slightest thing will set him off, but they never really know what that is. What kind of relationship is that?
I think truth can be know. I guess I’m a primitive…
I highly recommend watching it. It’s a great debate.
So watch it when you get a chance: Does Satan Exist?
*Update: I just finally got to watch the last segment. Did anyone notice in the last frame (when all the panelists were saying goodbye to each other) that Deepak refused to shake Mark’s hand when he extended it? Wow! Not very enlightened…
3 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I found the debate painfully difficult to watch simply because the “wisdom” of this world is so incredibly foolish in light of the TRUTH! i pray for deepak and bishop pearson that the LORD would open (or should i say close? see acts 9:8-9) eyes and bring them to repentance that they too may “experience” the blessing of a Christ-centered life.
truly, with men like us (no offense), we know the Word is true when it says “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”
I see your finite answer was infinitely thought out.
Well, the primary problem for Chopra’s philosophy is the person of Jesus Christ, who claims to be God come to earth.
For those who do not believe in Jesus, then no such difficulty exists in Chopra’s philosophy.
However, for those who choose to believe, Chopra’s philosophy simply doesn’t hold true. God indeed is infinite, but He took on the finite in the person of Jesus Christ, in order that we might know Him, and in order that He might restore our right relationship with Him.
God gave us a finite glimpse of His infinite being, imparted us with His word (the infinite revealed through divine inspiration of the finite), and left us His seal (His infinite Spirit within us who believe, a deposit and guarantee of that which is to come).
No, we do not do a disservice to God merely be trying to define Him. We would be doing a disservice to God not to accept the general and special revelations of Himself that He has given us so that we might know and understand Him.
By the way, why does Chopra mandate that *we* not try to define the infinite, yet at the same time he himself does just that, by defining God as “love”? That’s called a double standard. (Most crackpot philosophies cannot stand without such double standards.)