Regarding God

Those philosophical concepts that surround the realms of theology and religions and the nature of deities, especially God, continue to be debated as they have been for thousands of years. Opinions proliferate here and there and in fact anywhere and everywhere where two or more humans are in close proximity. There’s the theist side; there’s the atheist side. There aren’t too many fence-sitters. I’m in the atheist camp as this helping of some of my religious thoughts regarding God demonstrate.

Regarding God’s Creation

*Fairy Tale #1: In The Beginning.

So if I get this right, God (Mr. Yahweh) created the Universe 13.8 billion years ago but eventually got tired and bored with it. Fast forward to some 4.5 billion years ago and He added to His real estate empire by creating The Earth (as well as the Sun and the rest of the solar system). Ultimately He got bored with this hunk of sterile rock and so some 4 billion years ago He created little microbes for His amusement, but ultimately after a few billion years He got bored with them too – they weren’t very good company or worshippers. So some 500 – 600 million years ago He upped the ante and created multi-cellular critters, and then other types of multi-cellular critters, etc., etc., etc, all of which also proved to be rather indifferent company and didn’t worship Him either. What a bummer! Then at long, long, long last comes His “Eureka” moment (several million years ago) and He created those primate ‘humans’ and ultimately evolved them into modern humans some 200,000 years ago. Bad mistake! To make a long temporal story even longer, He almost immediately thereafter regretted His creation of humans (and of multi-cellular critters too) and drowned nearly the whole lot of them. So much for His omniscience!

So it takes God a minimum of 13.8 billion years to get around to creating (and then nearly destroying) the alleged pinnacle of His creation (i.e. – us). How likely is that scenario? Damned unlikely for a real deity!

*Fairy Tale #2: Once Upon A Time.

So here we have anthropological / archaeological evidence of human religious and spiritual beliefs extending back at least 50,000 years as documented by evidence of actual grave goods buried along with humans suggestive of belief in an afterlife, among other lines of evidence. Fast forward now some 45,000 years later on down the track and all of a sudden Mr. Yahweh makes His grand entrance, albeit to a rather small and uneducated audience.

“So here I am folks, I’m Mr. Big” [at least in terms of ego]. “I’m your One True God and you will have no other gods before Me – or else!” Further, Mr. Yahweh only gives His big “I Exist” statement to a tiny band of rather primitive goat / sheep herders in just one tiny geographical part of the inhabited world instead of broadcasting His “I exist” to all peoples in all societies in all inhabited geographical areas (including the Americas, Australia and Asia). Of course at that time He made no mention of His soon to be sidekick and Right-Hand Man, Jesus. What utter pure bovine fertilizer derived nonsense! So come on, let’s get really real here – this is story-telling, just myths and fairy tales presented for humans by humans and at that time a very select group of humans at that.

Regarding God’s Variations On A Kalam Theme: Taking William Lane Craig To A Logical Conclusion!

Now according to William Lane Craig (oft featured in interviews and debates on YouTube) everything that has a beginning has a cause. The Universe had a beginning. Therefore the Universe had a cause. Therefore that cause was God! That’s the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Okay, let’s extend that series of premises and conclusions.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, pandemics, epidemics, blight, droughts, floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, shark attacks, locust plagues, algae blooms, hail, sleet, blizzards, landslides, avalanches, even ice ages and asteroid impacts each have a beginning. Therefore each of these events have a cause. Ultimately that cause has to be traced back to God.

P.S. And God loves you!

P.P.S. Thanks be to JT Eberhard for the inspiration behind this revelation.

Regarding God Is Love

A common statement is that “God is love”. But that is either reducing God to just an emotion or to a statement of morality. Anyone who adopts God’s version of morality would find themselves arrested and jailed (if not executed) in any country in the world! God sure didn’t show much love to humanity or to the animal kingdom by bringing on The Flood. God didn’t show much love to the residents of Sodom & Gomorrah. God didn’t show much love to the ancient Egyptians as related in Exodus. God didn’t show much love to all of those cultures / societies that stood between His Chosen People and the Promised Land. The very fact that God had a Chosen People itself showed that God did not love everyone equally. And God didn’t show much love for Abraham or Job, and if I recall correctly He even tried to kill Moses!

As just one of numerous examples in the Bible, do have a look at 1 Samuel 15: 3.

Regarding the Hidden God Problem

It would seem that God, assuming a God of course, went to a lot of time and trouble, effort and energy, to establish His existence to a rather tiny band of quasi-illiterate goat / sheep herders in a rather restricted geographical region of the world thousands of years ago. Alas, there’s no evidence that survives all of His revelations regarding His existence. So, if God wants to obtain the faith of the multitudes in this more modern, global, and scientific age, He really needs to update His public relations and advertise His brand in such a way that there is no doubt as to His existence. Surely it is not logical to expect the multitudes thousands of years after-the-fact to have the same True Faith and Belief systems in place as did those semi-illiterate goat and sheep herders, based on evidence available to them then but which has evaporated in the fullness of time and is no longer available. So, if God exists, then yes, I’d expect Him to provide an update as to what He’s been up to for the last 3000+ years and thus instantly convert over seven billion people into accepting Him as the One True God. It shouldn’t be difficult. That God remains hidden speaks volumes IMHO.

Regarding the God of Economic Necessity

If the entire world immediately stopped believing in God there would be major economic consequences following on from that.

Probably the most central reason for the collective belief in God is a purely economic one. The entire concept of God has been and is today a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

Consider the value in buildings and in the land holdings held by religious institutions. What’s the value of the Vatican? What worth can be ascribed to all of the major cathedrals scattered around the world? Add to the value of those real estate collections the value of thousands of religious artworks of all kinds – paintings, sculptures, stained-glass windows, etc. It’s all a major and ever ongoing industry. The value of religious-themed an associated artefacts – gold, silver and jewels would have to amount to many millions of dollars too.

Religious publishing is a major division of the worldwide publishing industry considering all of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pro-Christian books, pamphlets and articles collectively published in the past, today, and no doubt continuing well into the foreseeable future. There are also many Christian publishing houses publishing nothing but godly works and words.

Then there’s all of the other mass media outlets for expressing purely religious messages. Many are owned and operated by religious institutions like those Christian Internet sites as well as radio and TV stations broadcasting God’s message 24/7/52. The production of videos and independent films are a major part of this propaganda machine. Not to be left out of the picture, Hollywood (and similar other studios) has often jumped on the religious-themed bandwagon.

And how many millions of people worldwide are in the employment of religious institutions including all of the teachers employed by all of those religious-oriented schools and universities? Yes, millions of people depend on the belief in the existence of God for their paychecks.

Finally there are all of the armaments required by warring religious factions that’s got to be bought and paid for. Over the past several thousand years how many billions of dollars worth of weapons have been manufactured so that one infidel could kill another infidel? Lots of people get to be employed for that reason along.

So if one eliminates God (and company) from the world scene, you’d put a rather large dent in the economic engine that drives the world. So vested interests rule, and so rule that God stays relevant – for purely economic reasons.

Regarding The Mantra “Therefore God Exists”

Everyone already knows in their hearts that God exists, therefore God exists.

You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, therefore God exists.

I assume that God exists, therefore God exists.

There is something rather than nothing, therefore God exists.

The rainbow was created by God (Genesis 9: 11-16) as God’s covenant that He wouldn’t drown the lot of humanity ever again. The rainbow obviously exists so therefore God exists.

Humans consider so highly of themselves that obviously an all-omni deity must have created us because we’re so super-special. Since we are the measure of all things and the apple of God’s eye, therefore God must exist. But then too we do have a talent for deceiving ourselves!

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, therefore God exists.

Regarding God’s Nonexistence

Presumably True Believers don’t believe in the actual existence of Achilles, Aphrodite, Apollo, Asgard, Astrology, Bigfoot (Sasquatch), Calvin & Hobbs, Centaurs, Cerberus, Chimera, Cinderella, Dick Tracy, Doctor Watson, Doctor Who, Dragons, the Easter Bunny, El Dorado, Elves, Fairies (at the bottom of the garden), Felix the Cat, Godzilla, Hades, Hansel & Gretel, Hel, Helen (of Troy), Hercules, Horus, King Kong, Leprechauns, the Loch Ness Monster, Loki, Mickey Mouse, the Minotaur, Moriarty, Mothman, Paladin, Paul Bunyan, Pegasus, Pinocchio, Professor Challenger, the Rainbow Serpent, Santa Claus, Shangri-La, Siegfried, Sleeping Beauty, Snoopy, Snow White, Spiderman, Superman, Thor, the Tooth Fairy, Turandot, Unicorns, Valhalla, Wizards, and Wonder Woman (among thousands of possibilities). Why don’t True Believers believe in the actual existence of these entities and geographies? The answer would appear to be fairly obvious. Reason dictates that these entities and geographies are non-existent; they have no independent really real reality. Now True Believers should apply that same reasoning to God & Satan, to other major Biblical players like say Adam & Eve, and to say places like Heaven & Hell. What then should True Believers conclude?

Just saying that God exists rolls off of the tongue very easily – now prove it! If I ask True Believers to prove to me that the Moon goes around the Earth; that salt water is a mixture; that beheading results in death; that cows eat grass; that Paris (France) is an actual geographical place; that Cleopatra was the Queen of the Nile; and that George Washington was the first president of the USA, True Believers wouldn’t be overly challenged. But True Believers can’t prove the existence of God (or any other deity).

So there’s no point in True Believers talking about God and God’s nature and traits and what God wants or doesn’t want or what He did or didn’t do UNLESS True Believers can first and foremost PROVE that their God actually exists – otherwise they are pontificating about a fictional / literary character. In other words, it’s like telling us all about Alice in Wonderland or about Zeus or about Santa Claus or about Superman*. And while it is perfectly A-OK for True Believers to express their belief or their faith in God, it is NOT A-OK to express God as an actual fact since there is no way for True Believers to know that ‘actual fact’. And by “know that” I mean True Believers cannot actually provide any independently verifiable observation or experimental evidence like having Him appear to an audience in person performing all sorts of hocus-pocus wand-waving supernatural magic. Even a photograph would be something, albeit not much in this modern era of CGI and photo-shop. Nor could True Believers even hand off the issue to someone else who can, since nobody else can either, unlike for example knowledge that an electron exists or that a distant galaxy exists because True Believers can have someone else – an expert in these things – demonstrate them to you. But not even The Pope can actually demonstrate the actual existence of God’s existence to you as an actual fact.

Can anyone prove that God doesn’t exist? Probably not on the grounds that you can’t prove a negative. BUT, you can prove the virtual improbability of God. The basic ways and means is to point out all of the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent when addressing the concept of God and His holy text, The Bible. Proving something is knowing something and for example, you know that there can’t be a round square or that two plus two doesn’t equal five (Big Brother notwithstanding) or that the future doesn’t precede the past. So one can gain knowledge through the application of logical contradictions. So, applying that sort of logic to God, it’s pretty obvious that God can’t be both omniscient AND possesses free will. It’s also obvious that either the Old Testament is incorrect / inaccurate OR God is really immoral. God cannot both exist outside of time and space AND yet also have a direct influence over time and space. The creation of something from nothing is a logical contradiction SO therefore God cannot have created a Cosmos out of pure nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Apparently between Biblical scholars and avid readers of the Bible, say the King James Version, have found over 800 contradictions and inconsistencies therein (and there’s apparently a website which lists or outlines the lot of them). For example, both accounts of the creation in Genesis cannot both be true (though both could be false); ditto the two different renderings of what the human lifespan will be; ditto dozens of other examples as for example exactly how many animals of each species would be brought onto the Ark. There are also lots of inconsistencies with established science. For example, either chemistry is true and therefore a human body cannot be turned into a pillar of salt, or else chemistry isn’t a valid science.

*It’s pretty meaningless to talk about the various traits and characteristics and superpowers that Superman has in the context of really real reality since Superman is just a fictional character. If you could somehow prove that Superman had a really real existence then it would be logical to talk about his mannerisms and superpowers and how they in turn can affect us.

Regarding God’s Christianity

I found the following definition of Christianity given by Dr. Richard Carrier on one of his many YouTube lectures so irresistible that I’m sure Dr. Carrier wouldn’t mind my sharing his wisdom with you. So here’s Dr. Carrier’s definition of Christianity:

“Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.”

Regarding God’s Inconsistencies

Say there are three churches in your community. There’s the Church of Santa Claus; the Church of the Easter Bunny; and the Church of the Tooth Fairy. Now presumably you could worship in True Faith and Belief at all three of these theological institutions since there are no discrepancies, inconsistencies or contradictions between the trinity.

Now say there are three other churches in your community. There’s a Jewish Synagogue*; a Muslim Mosque*; and a Christian House of Worship*. You cannot now in True Faith and Belief worship in all three because you know there are major discrepancies, inconsistencies or contradictions between this trinity. Now throw in multi-dozens more religious doctrines live Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Church of Scientology, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Hare Krishna sect, Satanism, Zoroastrianism, and even those Jedi Knights. There’s probably at least one house of worship dedicated to the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

*Each of which has at least a couple if not hundreds of denominational variations, often major, on their central theme.

Liberation Theology, What is it and How Does it Impact Christendom?

Liberation Theology Is a post-Enlightenment theologi­cal movement that seeks to unite theological and social con­cerns on an equal footing. Liberation Theology owes its genesis to the epistemological philosophies of Kant, Hegel and Marx. It has been greatly influenced by the European Political Theology movement and by the radical North American the­ologians J.B. Metz, Jügen Moltmann and Harvey Cox. These men have not really been criticizing Orthodox Christianity. It is not clear if they know what it is or if they care. Their dis­pute has been with Protestant liberal theology or the histori­cal and individ­ualistic nature of existential theology. According to them an emphasis must arise that shifts away from the individualism which is the whole focus of existentialism, and to the needy masses. The causes espoused by liberation theology are across the whole spectrum of modern move­ments: children are to be liberated from parents, women from men and particu­larly husbands, homosexuals from the bondage of normal hetero­sexual behavior, Christians from religion and the Bible, and the underprivileged of this world from ethical and ma­terial bondage.

To liberation theology, truth must alter itself to ad­dress the social needs of its time and culture as seen situational–not by any fixed set of moral and spiritual criteria. Liberation theologians feed their ego by building a noble repu­tation of being for the underdog, whoever and whatever he might be, with no thought given to the morality of his position or whether the unsolicited efforts of the liberation theologian are helping or hurting the underdog in the long run. It is often questioned whether the liberation theologian is for the underdog at all, or if he is merely playing the game to make personal merchandise out of his dilemma. His disadvantaged position makes it all right for the liberation theologian to take charge of his life and begin to help him, whether he wants it or not.

Praxis
The theological device of Liberation Theology is Praxis. This term, which literally means practice rather than theory, refers to the discovery and formation of a theology that is a truth born of the situation through personal participa­tion. It might be called Enlightenment, anthropological, epis­temologi­cal, socially relevant, experiential truth. Liberation theology is basically a theology of autonomy, as per the En­lightenment perspectives of Immanuel Kant and his “autonomy of reason.” This theology is not worked out by any disclosure from God or the Bible. It comes from “outside” revelation born out of individual intercourse with history. And then Liberation Theology involves the political philosophy of Karl Marx. This argument is that man as a complete being can only emerge when he is able to throw off the impersonal and hos­tile economic establishment of society. While some the­ologians argue that Marxism and Liberation Theology are indis­tinguish­able, others say that this is not quite accurate.

Marxism and Liberation Theology
Liberation theologians have drawn upon Marx’s infa­mous declaration: “Hitherto philosophers have explained the world; our task is to change it” (Mario Savio rephrased Marx at Cal-Berkeley, in the 1960’s, when he said: “I am tired of read­ing about history; I want to go out and make it”). They profess to truly believe that theology is not meant to be doctrinal but practically involved in the struggle to bring about social justice, with autonomy and anarchy as the guiding benchmarks as to how and when the struggle is won. In order to do this, Liberation Theology makes no secret of wanting to use Marx’s class analysis that divides between the oppressed and the op­pressor and brands the authorities as the oppressor. Inevitably this means that morality lies on the side of the rebel, irrespec­tive of any artificial biblical standards of right and wrong.

Marxism and Liberation Theology openly condemn Christianity for tolerating the status quo and for justifying the oppressor by defending the patriarchal system of authority. In Liberation Theology, the authority and the oppressor are one. Marxists and liberation theologians claim that they are not de­parting from ancient and original Christianity. They claim that Jesus was a revolutionary and a social activist and that He drew up a new theology that was born of the class struggle of His day where He opposed the religious and political authorities, who were inevitably the oppressors, and led an assault on them. That is why the radical 60s movement was infested with Messiah-types with long hair, flowing robes, and sandals. The Student revolutionh of the 60s was and is a Jesus People movement.

Communication with God in Libration Theology
In terms of communication with God, He is totally other. The only communication with God that we can have will come about when “the poor man, who is the ‘other,’ reveals the to­tally other to us.” All communication with God is defendant upon taking the side of the exploited classes, identifying with their plight, and sharing their fate. We can only understand God in terms of the history that we learn by be­coming involved in the social struggle with oppressed human beings. God is not revealed in nature, he is not known by faith; but dialectically in the creature’s suffering and despair. In other words, this is the religious side of Existentialism and Nihilism, only there everything is “You’ve got to be you,” but here it’s “You’ve got to be you by being him.” But the abstract religious non-reality does not change.

There is no order, no plan, and no future hope. As Karl Barth taught, there is no God that can be known apart from his actions. There is no analogy of being (analogia entis: Church Dogmatics II, Vol. I, p. 270), there is only the analogy of deeds and behavior (analogia at­tributionis: Church Dogmatics II, Vol. I, p. 269). These are not practical lessons, but statements of abstract the­ology and philosophy. There is nothing to man and his being, or to God for that matter, except our experiences that cannot be defined, other than an identity with the oppressed. It is only in this that we have “analogy with God,” which is one and the same with “re­lationship to Him.” This relationship is not real, in a physical resurrection in the future somewhere, any more than God is real and physical. It is the abstract, metaphysical unreal reality behind these symbol words in the Bible. In this struggle, somewhere, though we will not and need not know where, we will have our authenticating experiences that will give meaning to our being. It is a meaning that will not last, for we are evolutionary accidents that must become extinct like all evolutionary things. But it is what there is, and it is all there is. Who are we to complain? Without it, we would be nothing now, even as we were in the past and as we shall be in the fu­ture. After all there is no intelligence or plan that brought us here and there is no utopia for us to go to. This is why Karl Barth taught that man is born to become extinct. Death is part of the good creation of God (Church Dogmatics III, Vol. II, p. 777). By this we go back into the cosmic order that exists in the midst of the chaos. The meaning to it all is that we have changed something while we have been here. In this way we have changed God and truth. By allowing this, God has changed Himself and His truth, which He felt the need to do. This is God or man or whatever, and this is salvation or north­ingness–or what would you like to call it?

The Contributions of Liberation Theology
If one looked for anything at all that is of service in Liberation Theology, he might say that it has helped to focus at­tention on oppression and the underprivileged in the world. But when placed alongside the monstrosities of its humanistic and dialectic destruction of the Christian message and founda­tion, this service is a lonely, isolated flower that is surrounded by a quagmire of dialectical materialism, religious and secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism, abstract theology, autonomy and anarchy.

Liberation Theology, What is it and How Does it Impact Christendom?

Liberation Theology Is a post-Enlightenment theologi­cal movement that seeks to unite theological and social con­cerns on an equal footing. Liberation Theology owes its genesis to the epistemological philosophies of Kant, Hegel and Marx. It has been greatly influenced by the European Political Theology movement and by the radical North American the­ologians J.B. Metz, Jügen Moltmann and Harvey Cox. These men have not really been criticizing Orthodox Christianity. It is not clear if they know what it is or if they care. Their dis­pute has been with Protestant liberal theology or the histori­cal and individ­ualistic nature of existential theology. According to them an emphasis must arise that shifts away from the individualism which is the whole focus of existentialism, and to the needy masses. The causes espoused by liberation theology are across the whole spectrum of modern move­ments: children are to be liberated from parents, women from men and particu­larly husbands, homosexuals from the bondage of normal hetero­sexual behavior, Christians from religion and the Bible, and the underprivileged of this world from ethical and ma­terial bondage.

To liberation theology, truth must alter itself to ad­dress the social needs of its time and culture as seen situational–not by any fixed set of moral and spiritual criteria. Liberation theologians feed their ego by building a noble repu­tation of being for the underdog, whoever and whatever he might be, with no thought given to the morality of his position or whether the unsolicited efforts of the liberation theologian are helping or hurting the underdog in the long run. It is often questioned whether the liberation theologian is for the underdog at all, or if he is merely playing the game to make personal merchandise out of his dilemma. His disadvantaged position makes it all right for the liberation theologian to take charge of his life and begin to help him, whether he wants it or not.

Praxis
The theological device of Liberation Theology is Praxis. This term, which literally means practice rather than theory, refers to the discovery and formation of a theology that is a truth born of the situation through personal participa­tion. It might be called Enlightenment, anthropological, epis­temologi­cal, socially relevant, experiential truth. Liberation theology is basically a theology of autonomy, as per the En­lightenment perspectives of Immanuel Kant and his “autonomy of reason.” This theology is not worked out by any disclosure from God or the Bible. It comes from “outside” revelation born out of individual intercourse with history. And then Liberation Theology involves the political philosophy of Karl Marx. This argument is that man as a complete being can only emerge when he is able to throw off the impersonal and hos­tile economic establishment of society. While some the­ologians argue that Marxism and Liberation Theology are indis­tinguish­able, others say that this is not quite accurate.

Marxism and Liberation Theology
Liberation theologians have drawn upon Marx’s infa­mous declaration: “Hitherto philosophers have explained the world; our task is to change it” (Mario Savio rephrased Marx at Cal-Berkeley, in the 1960’s, when he said: “I am tired of read­ing about history; I want to go out and make it”). They profess to truly believe that theology is not meant to be doctrinal but practically involved in the struggle to bring about social justice, with autonomy and anarchy as the guiding benchmarks as to how and when the struggle is won. In order to do this, Liberation Theology makes no secret of wanting to use Marx’s class analysis that divides between the oppressed and the op­pressor and brands the authorities as the oppressor. Inevitably this means that morality lies on the side of the rebel, irrespec­tive of any artificial biblical standards of right and wrong.

Marxism and Liberation Theology openly condemn Christianity for tolerating the status quo and for justifying the oppressor by defending the patriarchal system of authority. In Liberation Theology, the authority and the oppressor are one. Marxists and liberation theologians claim that they are not de­parting from ancient and original Christianity. They claim that Jesus was a revolutionary and a social activist and that He drew up a new theology that was born of the class struggle of His day where He opposed the religious and political authorities, who were inevitably the oppressors, and led an assault on them. That is why the radical 60s movement was infested with Messiah-types with long hair, flowing robes, and sandals. The Student revolutionh of the 60s was and is a Jesus People movement.

Communication with God in Libration Theology
In terms of communication with God, He is totally other. The only communication with God that we can have will come about when “the poor man, who is the ‘other,’ reveals the to­tally other to us.” All communication with God is defendant upon taking the side of the exploited classes, identifying with their plight, and sharing their fate. We can only understand God in terms of the history that we learn by be­coming involved in the social struggle with oppressed human beings. God is not revealed in nature, he is not known by faith; but dialectically in the creature’s suffering and despair. In other words, this is the religious side of Existentialism and Nihilism, only there everything is “You’ve got to be you,” but here it’s “You’ve got to be you by being him.” But the abstract religious non-reality does not change.

There is no order, no plan, and no future hope. As Karl Barth taught, there is no God that can be known apart from his actions. There is no analogy of being (analogia entis: Church Dogmatics II, Vol. I, p. 270), there is only the analogy of deeds and behavior (analogia at­tributionis: Church Dogmatics II, Vol. I, p. 269). These are not practical lessons, but statements of abstract the­ology and philosophy. There is nothing to man and his being, or to God for that matter, except our experiences that cannot be defined, other than an identity with the oppressed. It is only in this that we have “analogy with God,” which is one and the same with “re­lationship to Him.” This relationship is not real, in a physical resurrection in the future somewhere, any more than God is real and physical. It is the abstract, metaphysical unreal reality behind these symbol words in the Bible. In this struggle, somewhere, though we will not and need not know where, we will have our authenticating experiences that will give meaning to our being. It is a meaning that will not last, for we are evolutionary accidents that must become extinct like all evolutionary things. But it is what there is, and it is all there is. Who are we to complain? Without it, we would be nothing now, even as we were in the past and as we shall be in the fu­ture. After all there is no intelligence or plan that brought us here and there is no utopia for us to go to. This is why Karl Barth taught that man is born to become extinct. Death is part of the good creation of God (Church Dogmatics III, Vol. II, p. 777). By this we go back into the cosmic order that exists in the midst of the chaos. The meaning to it all is that we have changed something while we have been here. In this way we have changed God and truth. By allowing this, God has changed Himself and His truth, which He felt the need to do. This is God or man or whatever, and this is salvation or north­ingness–or what would you like to call it?

The Contributions of Liberation Theology
If one looked for anything at all that is of service in Liberation Theology, he might say that it has helped to focus at­tention on oppression and the underprivileged in the world. But when placed alongside the monstrosities of its humanistic and dialectic destruction of the Christian message and founda­tion, this service is a lonely, isolated flower that is surrounded by a quagmire of dialectical materialism, religious and secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism, abstract theology, autonomy and anarchy.