Google Now is pretty great. However, it has its downsides. I am often sucked into internet tabloid journalism from the suggested stories section. I know I am feeding the algorithm that delivers these links by visiting the sites, but sometimes the headlines grab my curiosity. That's what they are meant to do, after all. Inevitably, there are some articles mixed in about Christians this or the Bible that. Essentially Google likes to parse the religious side of my online profile. These articles are 100% wrong, yet I still check them out. Mental exercise perhaps?
My thinking is that I would enjoy sharing my thoughts on why their thoughts are wrong. Before I start doing so, however, I feel the need to distill these opposing viewpoints into two basic categories. To me, there are only two ways of thinking about any issue relating to God. Black and white. The first way is very neatly summarized in a playground taunt I recall from my youth which goes like this:
"If God can do anything, can He make a rock that He can't pick up?"
Quite a conundrum for a child. However, at its heart, this is a very basic and very human question. Essentially, what is being asked is:
"Is God really God?"
It seems like there's no escaping the logic of this trap. If God can't make such a rock, then he can't do anything. Therefore He is not omnipotent. Therefore He is not God. If He can make such a rock, then He can't pick it up and therefore He can't do anything. Therefore He is not omnipotent. Therefore He is not God. No escape, right?
Here's the thing, God already answered the question. Jesus. Plenty of rocks He couldn't pick up. Yet He could. But wait! That's cheating. God just arbitrarily says He is two (actually three) people and therefore the question doesn't apply. That's not fair. He's a cheater, therefore He isn't God.
The question is pure sacrilegious arrogance at its very heart. Its presupposition is that God has to fit inside the box of logic I can create and understand in my humanity. He is no greater than me or what my mind is capable of. Oh really? In a sense, I agree the question disproves god. Any god concept that we can assail via our logic is not God at all. Because if we can box it up and understand it fully, then it is no greater than we are. Guess what? That's just the original lie. That we are like God.
What a relief.
So, the first side of these arguments is the side which presumes to be capable of creating logical boundaries for God. The side I ascribe to has a different presupposition, and I've already revealed it. My presupposition is that God defies any capability I possess to define Him. If something doesn't make sense to me, then... YAY! It is something to ponder and explore. It is something to try to reconcile via my limited capabilities as a human creation. It is fun and interesting. It provides additional reassurance that God has an infinite amount of surprises left to share and eternity could never be boring. A boring eternity is among the more frightening thoughts available to mankind.
Ponder a boring and repetitive eternity for awhile and see how well you can sleep at night.