There are some people who are content to just trust God, who have decided that testimony is a trustworthy account of the kindness and wisdom of God. As a result of their faith in what seems to them to be common sense and reasonable, they believe. Just because they cannot express or verbalize what they know, in a language form respected by unbelievers, does not signify that they do not dwell in absolute reality. There is a greater reality which they're plugged into. Entrenched sceptics could take a lesson there.
There are brave ones out there who want to know more, who see those who have had experiences of God and want this for themselves. They push past the boundaries of the material world to get past the how to get to the why. They want to understand. They are driven to meaning, knowing that satisfaction will only come from the Infinite. Anything less would be hell. They take the risk of obedience to a higher standard, and then the Infinity responds.
A christian who desires to be more intimate with God has access to the special revelation of relationship with Him. It includes reciprocal interaction. God's visible responses satisfy the hungry heart. The surpassing pleasure of God's love becomes the All Important, the servant's total world, while the physical world fades into a passing accessory to the Real. He who is satisfied with God need compete with no one, for he is made complete.
Unbelievers do not share the same insight and experience as the believer, of what is real. There is no more, for them, than what is right in front of them. The morality of those who's ethics are dependent on the physical means they do not have a transcendent, absolute standard. Their morality does not come from beyond themselves. Each of them are their own world. They are in competition with all others, on all fronts.This very competition which drives to be and have more, means that (in order to achieve their goal) they must violate the boundaries of others. They would be, in effect, only accountable to themselves. The feelings of others are ephemeral concepts, outside of their own experience, therefore existence, itself, is a war for them.
On the stage which is the world, the matrix which gives context to meaning, the actions which demonstrate our intent are displayed for all to see. Are we competing to put ourselves first, or is what we want God, Himself? Will we assert ourselves so as to destroy the world of and for others, or will we trust God to satisfy us with Himself? It's only the ones who think that they can judge what's right for themselves, who will be the ones who will destroy the world.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
The Devil's Theology
There is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence which reads "Our creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This sentence also reveals an essential order of increasing dependence, with each successive noun resting it's full philosophical weight on the one before. Those who do not believe in God are content to enjoy the full benefits of the last of these rights listed, choosing not to realize that if you remove the creator from this verbal equation, all of the rest of the rights listed are unsupportable. Without God there can be no rights. Without the objectivity of the One above us, there can be no demarcated boundaries between us. What are rights but the entitlement to ethical treatment by others? Without God there can be no morals. Even the constitution's secular authors recognized what the foundations of morals rested upon.
It seems pretty obvious that there are widely varying ideas between individuals on what constitutes right and wrong. Even morals imposed collectively by societal groups called governments have sometimes proven to be in gross error, witnessed by the execution of vast segments of their population. That we can even decide that these actions are wrong is because we live in a theistically based society. It is better, for individuals and society at large, if morals originate from a source which is fastidious and particularly specific in it's application of standards for thoughts and behavior. Put another way, we want someone to be the judge who is absolute in their justice and all encompassing in their mercy, yet who gives us the freedom to choose. Without choice, it would be rape. Only an all powerful God can give us all the above in one package.
Let's examine atheism for morals by philosophical dissection of it's allegedly "scientific" prop of evolution. Behavioral fruit doesn't fall far from the philosophical parent tree. We can actually tell what people really believe by the way that they act, not so much by what they say. Saying you have morals doesn't make it so.
The theory of evolution is founded upon the mechanism of natural selection. Other ways of phrasing it are survival of the fittest, and that all life is in a competition to pass on genes. Aside from the fact that success in propagation does not account for emotion or intellect (and therefore meaning, which is what you get when you put together mind and emotion), there is still another problem here. Objective morals cannot be derived from an environment of "kill or be killed." Evolution is selfishness in action. It is working toward a goal, where morals would just be in the way of survival , the concept of "might makes right." The response of "I don't want to get hurt, so I don't hurt others" just opens up this thinker for the receipt of the Darwin award (extinction/death). Kindness is not an evolvable trait. Group cooperation to ensure survival is what war is.
Now, let's look at the results of social experiments in atheism and what comes from applying the precepts of Darwinism. Some benefits might be a motivation to excel, but each individual cannot exceed the limits of the material that they have to work with. Regimes that were officially atheist, as in founded on the principle, have killed a staggering number of their own citizens. It could be said that they were applying the logical actions necessary to achieve clearly expressed goals. Those actions might be expedient, but they are not ethical.
Those who have experienced deprecations at the behest of this brutal philosophy are best qualified to judge it's usefulness to society, and how "moral" is the application of it's dogmas. There are many autobiographies that illustrate how thoroughly life does not function well under this authoritarian system. The authors' suffering and disatisfaction are very compelling.
A personal examination of what is right in front of us, honestly evaluated, could be done of the communications, of any claiming to be atheists, in a place where they are debating those with other points of view. Proof of morality can be seen by the way others are treated who might disagree with them. Loyalty to a particular way of thinking does not have to muddy the waters of truth when coalescing information into a viable conclusion. The groups represented could be considered as control groups in a scientific experiment. How do persons of a each philosophical persuasion treat those who are weaker than them?
The devil was the first anti-theist. His temptation was, in essence, "What do you need God for if you know good from evil?" Evolutionary philosophy also eliminates any need for God. Those who put their faith in evolution must do a lot of futile mental gymnastics to build a logical framework for morals. The only reason anyone can be held to a standard of morals is because we live in a theistic society. (Character is what you do when no one is watching.) If you remove or marginalize the faith portion of society, the rest of the population's true value system will reassert itself. Machiavelli said "The first sign of the degrading of society is contempt for the sacred."
Morals, in order to be valid or credible, must be absolutes. Contrary to the devil's theology, Jesus requires all christians to be ready and willing to give up their lives for Him, the Absolute. Jesus said, "He that seeks to save his life shall lose it, but he that gives up his life for my sake shall find it." He also said "He that does not take up his cross (execution method) and follow me, is not worthy of me." Willingness to surrender your life to follow God's standard of right and wrong is the true test of morals. This is the exact opposite of the whole point of evolution.
Therefore, right here is the evidence for God: The atheist. Even a child can see and understand the moral contrast between what is of God (self sacrifice) and what is not of God(it's all about me). Only in the godly moral of self sacrifice is there enough power to change the world. A Love that would glady die for you should make you cry every time.
It seems pretty obvious that there are widely varying ideas between individuals on what constitutes right and wrong. Even morals imposed collectively by societal groups called governments have sometimes proven to be in gross error, witnessed by the execution of vast segments of their population. That we can even decide that these actions are wrong is because we live in a theistically based society. It is better, for individuals and society at large, if morals originate from a source which is fastidious and particularly specific in it's application of standards for thoughts and behavior. Put another way, we want someone to be the judge who is absolute in their justice and all encompassing in their mercy, yet who gives us the freedom to choose. Without choice, it would be rape. Only an all powerful God can give us all the above in one package.
Let's examine atheism for morals by philosophical dissection of it's allegedly "scientific" prop of evolution. Behavioral fruit doesn't fall far from the philosophical parent tree. We can actually tell what people really believe by the way that they act, not so much by what they say. Saying you have morals doesn't make it so.
The theory of evolution is founded upon the mechanism of natural selection. Other ways of phrasing it are survival of the fittest, and that all life is in a competition to pass on genes. Aside from the fact that success in propagation does not account for emotion or intellect (and therefore meaning, which is what you get when you put together mind and emotion), there is still another problem here. Objective morals cannot be derived from an environment of "kill or be killed." Evolution is selfishness in action. It is working toward a goal, where morals would just be in the way of survival , the concept of "might makes right." The response of "I don't want to get hurt, so I don't hurt others" just opens up this thinker for the receipt of the Darwin award (extinction/death). Kindness is not an evolvable trait. Group cooperation to ensure survival is what war is.
Now, let's look at the results of social experiments in atheism and what comes from applying the precepts of Darwinism. Some benefits might be a motivation to excel, but each individual cannot exceed the limits of the material that they have to work with. Regimes that were officially atheist, as in founded on the principle, have killed a staggering number of their own citizens. It could be said that they were applying the logical actions necessary to achieve clearly expressed goals. Those actions might be expedient, but they are not ethical.
Those who have experienced deprecations at the behest of this brutal philosophy are best qualified to judge it's usefulness to society, and how "moral" is the application of it's dogmas. There are many autobiographies that illustrate how thoroughly life does not function well under this authoritarian system. The authors' suffering and disatisfaction are very compelling.
A personal examination of what is right in front of us, honestly evaluated, could be done of the communications, of any claiming to be atheists, in a place where they are debating those with other points of view. Proof of morality can be seen by the way others are treated who might disagree with them. Loyalty to a particular way of thinking does not have to muddy the waters of truth when coalescing information into a viable conclusion. The groups represented could be considered as control groups in a scientific experiment. How do persons of a each philosophical persuasion treat those who are weaker than them?
The devil was the first anti-theist. His temptation was, in essence, "What do you need God for if you know good from evil?" Evolutionary philosophy also eliminates any need for God. Those who put their faith in evolution must do a lot of futile mental gymnastics to build a logical framework for morals. The only reason anyone can be held to a standard of morals is because we live in a theistic society. (Character is what you do when no one is watching.) If you remove or marginalize the faith portion of society, the rest of the population's true value system will reassert itself. Machiavelli said "The first sign of the degrading of society is contempt for the sacred."
Morals, in order to be valid or credible, must be absolutes. Contrary to the devil's theology, Jesus requires all christians to be ready and willing to give up their lives for Him, the Absolute. Jesus said, "He that seeks to save his life shall lose it, but he that gives up his life for my sake shall find it." He also said "He that does not take up his cross (execution method) and follow me, is not worthy of me." Willingness to surrender your life to follow God's standard of right and wrong is the true test of morals. This is the exact opposite of the whole point of evolution.
Therefore, right here is the evidence for God: The atheist. Even a child can see and understand the moral contrast between what is of God (self sacrifice) and what is not of God(it's all about me). Only in the godly moral of self sacrifice is there enough power to change the world. A Love that would glady die for you should make you cry every time.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Thank God for Atheists!
I want to verbally express my gratitude to God for His awful wisdom in giving us the freedom to chose. Intrinsic to choice is change. We must change in order to learn, so as to become more like God, to acquire more of His character and motivation. Love must be learned. It cannot be bestowed by fiat.
I am convinced that the vast majority of humanity is content to cower in passivity. Those who shelter themselves in activist inactivity are functional unbelievers, because they lack the convictions of conscience which would drive them to change the world. People tend to assume that a position of neutrality on their part will make them immune to the deprecations of evil. Then there are the few among us who are just like the child who is considered the black sheep of the family, who are intelligent enough to recognize this unspoken hypocrisy, and take up the negative position like a mantra and take it to the limits of it's darkest implications.
Atheists tell us there is no God. Atheists realize, that if the sovereign who rules a people of love and peace disappears, then those same people are defenseless. Atheists cannot help but see vulnerability as tacit permission to assert the full burden of their dark theology, expecting their victims to assume the reins of blackest despair. This view's most vigorous proselytizers have lost all hope, so they feel no one else is entitled to any, either. The last vestiges of the intimate knowledge of God, in the form of believers, must be eradicated, so as to secure their own position as the wicked gods of the universe. In their minds, once the christians are gone, they will be vindicated. (Sounds like hell to me!)
Where is the good in that dark scenario? Where is God when christians die at the hands of atheists? What lessons are there worth thanking God for from the godless? How can we answer the hopeless who desire us to feel the same?
We can learn a lot from atheists. First of all, we are woken up to motivation. We have hope, but do we even know or understand why? How can we be driven by a love we do not know by experience?Atheists provide us with opportunity to suffer with those who suffer, as God has done for us in an evil world. Fanatical atheists are a lesson in themselves, with an in-your-face attitude exemplifying the poisonous character traits which are the culmination of godlessness. Atheists teach us that when we blame God for evil, we are, in reality, attempting to justify our own. Atheists make it obvious that the truth requires a commitment to it's defense, and that Good should have a mind and voice so that He can live among us.
The most important lesson that atheists can teach us is that we can stare into the gibbering face of hell................and laugh. God is so much more powerful than this. For those with the courage to claim His promises, your inheritance is waiting for you.
I am convinced that the vast majority of humanity is content to cower in passivity. Those who shelter themselves in activist inactivity are functional unbelievers, because they lack the convictions of conscience which would drive them to change the world. People tend to assume that a position of neutrality on their part will make them immune to the deprecations of evil. Then there are the few among us who are just like the child who is considered the black sheep of the family, who are intelligent enough to recognize this unspoken hypocrisy, and take up the negative position like a mantra and take it to the limits of it's darkest implications.
Atheists tell us there is no God. Atheists realize, that if the sovereign who rules a people of love and peace disappears, then those same people are defenseless. Atheists cannot help but see vulnerability as tacit permission to assert the full burden of their dark theology, expecting their victims to assume the reins of blackest despair. This view's most vigorous proselytizers have lost all hope, so they feel no one else is entitled to any, either. The last vestiges of the intimate knowledge of God, in the form of believers, must be eradicated, so as to secure their own position as the wicked gods of the universe. In their minds, once the christians are gone, they will be vindicated. (Sounds like hell to me!)
Where is the good in that dark scenario? Where is God when christians die at the hands of atheists? What lessons are there worth thanking God for from the godless? How can we answer the hopeless who desire us to feel the same?
We can learn a lot from atheists. First of all, we are woken up to motivation. We have hope, but do we even know or understand why? How can we be driven by a love we do not know by experience?Atheists provide us with opportunity to suffer with those who suffer, as God has done for us in an evil world. Fanatical atheists are a lesson in themselves, with an in-your-face attitude exemplifying the poisonous character traits which are the culmination of godlessness. Atheists teach us that when we blame God for evil, we are, in reality, attempting to justify our own. Atheists make it obvious that the truth requires a commitment to it's defense, and that Good should have a mind and voice so that He can live among us.
The most important lesson that atheists can teach us is that we can stare into the gibbering face of hell................and laugh. God is so much more powerful than this. For those with the courage to claim His promises, your inheritance is waiting for you.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Why Did God Let Man Fall?
When I was pondering this question, it occurred to me that God intended the fall of man to happen. The enemy would not have been able to seduce the original man if God had not already planned to make use of this situation. By allowing man to chose in favor of "the knowledge of good and evil", God was placing man under the tutelage of the one who knew the most about the subject, satan himself. The Lord wanted His children to have the benefit of all the devil's "wisdom", of a system based on force and violence, of the "appeal" of the worldview which separates itself from God, seeks to supplant God, seeks to eschew everything God is, and then by default, declares itself to be as good as God. This system, the "knowledge of good and evil" is nothing more than death, itself. It is nothing more glamorous than that. God is life, love, and all good things. Anything apart from Him has none of these things. Evil seeks to be like Him, but without Him. What satan wanted was absolute power without responsibility.
God's children are those who have rejected satan's way, the way of dominating. They have taken up the mantra of service and self sacrifice, which is the embodiment of Godly authority. To be like God is to be the servant of all. The children of God will have what satan so coveted, the rulership and dominion. This is being of Him, that we should conquer all through sacrifice. This is being of the same mind as Christ, that we should give everything (of ourselves) to inherit everything. Death has become a mere tool in the hands of God, to be used in this process. ("Be ye faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.") By sacrifice, we gain more of God, His nature, and His motivation. The fallen state is the moulding process whereby we can implement His true choices of courage and solidarity, so in the end, God will raise us far higher than He could have raised mere innocence. We will judge angels because we have suffered, and they have not. In the end, we will have the best of all possible worlds.
God's children are those who have rejected satan's way, the way of dominating. They have taken up the mantra of service and self sacrifice, which is the embodiment of Godly authority. To be like God is to be the servant of all. The children of God will have what satan so coveted, the rulership and dominion. This is being of Him, that we should conquer all through sacrifice. This is being of the same mind as Christ, that we should give everything (of ourselves) to inherit everything. Death has become a mere tool in the hands of God, to be used in this process. ("Be ye faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.") By sacrifice, we gain more of God, His nature, and His motivation. The fallen state is the moulding process whereby we can implement His true choices of courage and solidarity, so in the end, God will raise us far higher than He could have raised mere innocence. We will judge angels because we have suffered, and they have not. In the end, we will have the best of all possible worlds.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Rules for Debating With Atheists
Here are some fun rules for those wishing to debate online with atheists....
Gentlemen, I noticed that I was accused of not being familiar with the rules of argument. Therefore, I have drawn up a list of rules, inspired by the atheist suggestions on this thread. This will ensure that the atheists have only docile, compliant, and gullible christians to interact with. This will protect their egos from further bruising by the facts:
Gentlemen, I noticed that I was accused of not being familiar with the rules of argument. Therefore, I have drawn up a list of rules, inspired by the atheist suggestions on this thread. This will ensure that the atheists have only docile, compliant, and gullible christians to interact with. This will protect their egos from further bruising by the facts:
Rules of Engagement:
1. If an atheist doesn't understand the christians's argument, then the christian's argument is wrong.
2.The intensity of the anger with which an atheist presents his argument is directly proportional to the truth of the atheist's argument (Proof by anger).
3.Christians are not allowed to be patronizing, condescending, arrogant, contemptuous, angry, insulting, egotistical, or sarcastic. Only atheists are allowed to speak or act this way, thereby maintaining the irresistible appeal of the atheist worldview as sole and separate property of same.
4.Christians are not allowed to claim truth, because there is no such thing, unless, of course, you are an atheist.
5.Atheists don't have to answer questions because they are here to interrogate christians so as to intimidate them into giving up their worldview. (Hey, it's a calling.)
6.A christian's personal experience, common sense, and logical conclusions from personal research are not admissible as evidence, because these are what persuaded the christian in the first place.
7.Christians must not make claims of having either intelligence or morals, because by definition, christians have neither.
8.None of the christian's questions can be directly answered, but must be redirected into a personal attack against the christian.
There you go, guys. I hope that I have clarified that I do indeed understand that there are rules for debating with atheists. I am posting these rules so all the christians here will understand how to act so that they will be lovable and acceptable to atheists, just like the village idiot. Thanks, guys! You are SO inspiring!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)