After watching this with Nathan, and recovering from my initial shock and nausea, I would proceed to counter the philosophy of the All with three points made about it by Mr. Seralius in the video. Then again, it was probably useless of me just now to identify who made the video, seeing that whoever it was is just part of the All anyway. The first portion of the video introduces the All by explaining how the physical earth (gravity, gases, water, etc.) all work together as part of the All to sustain my body. However, the video also states that these factors keep me alive outside of my actual body with its "required" and "obvious" components, such as a brain, a heart, and a digestive system. However, the fact that the All is shown to not have provided me with my own body and its parts essentially cuts this theory's feet out from under it. Logically speaking, one cannot simply go on to explain the nature of the universe without beginning on a smaller level, such as the human body. It is like trying to build a boat without its bottom. In this case, then, the origin of the body and its parts must be attributed to something such as a Creator God before explaining the properties of the universe. I would then introduce Psalm 139:14, the "I am fearfully and wonderfully made by God" verse, to Nathan, showing him that Biblical Christianity can provide a chronological basis for the body before proceeding to discuss topics as large as the universe.
This brings me to my next point: only a living God can create people with unique souls so completely thought out and carefully created, that they must be able to be fully understood by Him, the Planner, in every detail. However, Seralius has asserted that our existence is essentially that of the All, which is trying "to perceive itself, understand itself, and know itself". If the All can supposedly keep the universe functioning, how is it possible that it cannot even comprehend the creatures under its control, or even use creatures inferior to it to try and understand itself? This would be like a forty-year-old man setting up an ant farm, breeding the ants' larvae, and then trying to use them to understand his own philosophies.
Finally, Seralius declares that each person is "forever unique" because of his or her individual perspective on the All (because of course, the All is too complex to be fully understood). However, he follows this statement by saying that deep down (especially emotionally) we are really all the same, in the All's overarching existence. If this is so, then the most genuine philanthropist is really the same as Adolf Hitler. If this is especially true at an emotional level, the situation becomes even worse. However, I would respond to this idea by pointing out that each person's individual personality (which is still acknowledged by the pantheist in this video) decides how he or she will handle his or her own emotions, no matter how common those emotions are. For example, will I allow my emotions to control the way I live, or does my personality grant me sufficient self-control to keep my composure, even in the presence of emotion? Obviously, living solely by emotion will ultimately place a person into a painfully unpredictable life without stability. I would then take this opportunity to show Nathan Bible verses such as Ephesians 4:26-27, in which God tells us to not let the sun go down on our anger, lest we sin. There is a right way and a wrong way to handle our emotions, no matter how common they are to all people. I would argue that the way Christians handle their emotions presents a calm, rational picture of the God we serve, and that conforming to the "All" by handling our feelings just like everybody else would lead to chaos--an endless circle of uncertain sentiment. If the ways we handled our emotions were really all part of one All, then the All must be comparable to a bipolar person whose conflicting feelings and personalities (in the people through which it is manifested) will cause its downfall. In conclusion, the All is not some accumulation of endless, logical principles as stated by the video. Rather, it provides an excuse for people with no backbone to feel better about themselves, without putting in the effort to form their own person by telling them that such work is pointless.
No comments:
Post a Comment