The Bible is full of word-pictures. These pictures often tell us much about God - Father, son, and Holy Spirit - man, sin, family relationships, political relationships, and so on. They also often tell us something about God's covenant relationship to his people - a relationship which is itself often the model for these other relationships. Particularly, we are informed in dramatic fashion about Christ's relationship to those whom the Father has given him, i.e. the church.
Four very specific instances of the above occur throughout the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation, but perhaps most clearly and specifically in the writings of the Apostle John. We are told repeatedly that Christ is a shepherd and we are the sheep. The sheep hear their master's voice and those who belong to that master know his voice. Likewise, we are like the branches on a vine. "I am the vine, you are the branches." Third, we find that Christ is the Head, and we, the church, are the body. Finally we find that Christ is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are the bride. This last is related to the previous, for we are informed that in our earthly covenant relationships of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is his body. The wife is to submit to the husband, for he is the head. The church is to likewise submit to the authority of its head, namely Christ. The husband loves the wife, for she is his own body. The husband should be willing to lay down his life for his bride as Christ did for His. When husband and wife are united in marriage, the two become one. In like manner, Christ and His Church are so united as to become one. We are united to Christ in His life, His obedience, and even His death. Our earthly covenant relationship of marriage at its best is a scale model of Christ's relationship to His church - His body. Our other relationships and those of nature are also scale models. We are His branches, His flock, and so on.
These word pictures can and should inform us greatly as to the nature of our relationship to Christ. But what do they tell us? What can we learn from this? A cursory look at these pictures should provide us with some very edifying thoughts - thoughts which should color our prayer life, our individual and corporate worship and relationship to the Triune God. In a paper so brief, we can only hint at the depth and breadth of this whole matter. However, even being so shallow and narrow here, these thoughts can and should add significantly to the potential depth and breadth of our relationship.
Individual and Corporate
One of the first things that strike us is that hidden within these word pictures are the concepts of both of the individual and the corporate. We are individually sheep. I can not pass the muster for you, nor you for I. We are individually branches. If you or I are counterproductive in the yielding of fruit, we can and should be cut off and destroyed. Yet Christ has one bride, not many. One flock, not many. One body, not many. And Christ is one vine. Many branches yes, but all on one vine.
This is at once liberating and fear-inducing. It is liberating to know that perhaps if I err, as a sickly member of Christ's body, I will be healed by that Great physician - the Head, the Master, the Vine, the Groom. Not only this, but I have the other members of this same body working with and for me to bring this healing. If I am unfruitful, I have the pruning nature of God's discipline to spur on more fruit production, as well as the other branches of this same vine working in concert with me. If I stray like a lost sheep, I have a patient, caring, and loving Master who will leave the ninety and nine and seek after me and bring me home. I hear not only His voice, but also the voices of the others calling me back into the fold. If I am unfaithful to Him, I have the faithful Bridegroom always ready to forgive and forget.
However, this can be fearful, for if I refuse the medicine and ignore the rest of the body, I may, like the wayward eye or hand spoken of by our Lord in Matthew, be cut off and thrown into the fire. If I refuse to produce fruit, I can be cut off (more than a mere pruning) and be thrown to the fire. If I stray and ignore his voice, I can be finally given up for lost, and may never hear that kind voice again. If I am unfaithful with no repentance, I may be served divorce papers.
Therefore, it is I who must work out my own salvation. My mother can't do it for me, nor my father, nor my wife, nor my children. Yet Christ is kind to me, and is forgiving, and faithful. As an individual member of this vine, flock, body, and bride, I must individually seek Him, pray, worship, serve, and (ah this is hard sometimes) produce fruit. Yet, if all this totally depended on me individually, I would suffer endlessly, never getting where I need to go. If I seem to be grappling for words here there is a reason. I am! The depth and breadth of this is too wonderful for me to know!
But, enter here the corporate side. Corporately I pray and worship together with the rest of the flock, vine, body, and bride. Together we renew covenant weekly (not weakly!) in the breaking of bread - again a picture of the body of Christ. This act strengthens, renews, refreshes, and cheers me. In addition, I can meet with the body, or some small part of it on any other kind of basis as well - for prayer, study, and singing. The edifying power of Christ's institutional body is grand indeed.
The Sacraments
In addition to the above brief and inadequate description, these word pictures I believe, help express something very important in relation to Christ's sacramental provisions for His body/flock/branches/bride. With both sacraments, there is much misinformation within our world of Protestant Christianity. It is a major point of faith among many that the sacrament of baptism is only for those who have reached some subjective level of saving faith. It is even a wider belief that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for such as these. In relation to this, let us first consider what these word pictures tell us when approached literally.
When a man owns a flock of animals, he owns not only the flock, but also their offspring. When one animal is born to his flock, he does not discard it. To do so would dwindle his flock in short order! He does not send the animal away and disown it, then hope and pray that it comes back to him at a later time in its life. Sure, he may buy other animals, and if he is interested in growing his little 'kingdom' exponentially he does. But, in good times and bad, he can be sure to keep those he has, and to keep their offspring. And let us not neglect to understand that often to indicate ownership, the man will place some form of identifying mark on those that are his. A brand or a tag on the ear or some other similar mark shows ownership.
Likewise, when a child is born to those who already belong to God in Christ, does He discard that child? Surely not! To do so would not make sense. While it is true that God 'owns' everything and everyone, He 'owns' His flock in a special sense. When one is born to His flock, they are His as well.
Naturally, if that little sheep grows up to be unfaithful to Him and unproductive for Him, he may discard of it then. However, if the rest of the flock (that's us!) does its job, this really should not be a problem. Also, clearly, our Lord is adding to his flock from those outside of what He currently owns. There is nothing unusual in that, for He is growing his kingdom through various means. (Also, when He does purchase a new sheep from outside the fold, he then owns their offspring as well.) But he most certainly does not say to a new arrival, "You're not mine! Go away and come back another day when you have a clearer understanding of my love for you, and when you can convince the rest of he sheep that you belong with them. I want you to submit to me first, through your own initiative and then I will claim ownership of you (if it is alright with the rest of the sheep)." Does a shepherd treat the offspring of his own sheep in such manner?
Now, does Christ have a brand or a tag that he places on his sheep? Certainly! It is baptism. Christian baptism for covenant infants and small children should be the norm, rather than the exception that it is fast becoming.
In similar manner, when a new twig sprouts on a vine, does the vine dresser immediately clip it off and hope it will grow outside the vine? Then, if it miraculously does so, does he graft it back in? Or does he dress the entire vine, and "cut off" only those branches that work against his primary goal, the production of fruit? Sure, he may prune the vine to spur it on to greater production, but he does not clip each and every new branch that sprouts.
Does a husband love parts of his bride, but not the whole? Does the band on the finger mean that part of the bride belongs to the husband, or does it mean that the whole of the bride does? Does a man cut off parts of his own body without reason? Or does he only cut off a part that is so diseased as to cause damage to the whole?
The whole flock, all of the branches, the whole bride, the whole body belong to the Shepherd, Vine, Groom, and Head. It is a unified whole - far more than the sum of its parts - and woefully incomplete without all of its parts. As concerns baptism, the picture of the flock is the most useful. Again, the shepherd does not discard the newborns of his flock. He places his mark of ownership on them, and treats them as his own.
In addition to owning them is the fact that he cares for them as well. He does not feed the full-grown sheep only, but feeds the little lambs as well. Sure, in the early stages of their life, the littlest lambs are fed indirectly, as the shepherd provides nourishment for the mother, who in turn provides it to her babe. However, as soon as this babe is able to feed on its own, the shepherd provides the needed nourishment to this little lamb. In the beginning, the lamb likely does not understand that it is the shepherd that is providing for it. But, over time, this feeding process certainly builds the understanding in the lamb that it is the shepherd who is his provider. Through this caregiving, the lamb comes to know to whom he belongs and who is providing all of his needs. He then becomes committed to the shepherd, hears his voice and obeys his commands.
Surely, this tells us a great deal about how Christ, our Shepherd, nourishes us with the meal of His Body and Blood! When we are too young to take this meal directly, we take it indirectly through our mother's milk. However, as we begin to grow and mature, we are able to partake in it ourselves. We may not understand right from the beginning that it is in fact our Great Shepherd that is providing this vital nourishment to our souls, but, over time, this fact becomes clear. We hear His voice and cheerfully obey His commands.
Likewise, the new twig sprouting on the vine does not know from where it gets its life giving nourishment, but it does in fact receive it. The vine does not shut off its supply of life from the new twig until it grows up. If so, it would never grow up. But, the twig receives its life from the vine because it itself is an integral part of that vine. It is not separated and cared for in a different manner, only to become grafted back in at a later date.
A man does not neglect part of his body, cut it off and remove it, then re-attach it at a later date if it is deemed worthy. Instead, he cares for the whole body, and only cuts off what is dead or diseased. A man does not love part of his wife, and discard the other parts, waiting on a hopeful future date when he can love the remainder of her body.
Perhaps my words here are not perfectly stated, and they may indeed be in need of revision. However, I think it is plain from these and other word-pictures of the Bible that the sacraments are not for some of Christ's body, bride, branches, and sheep, but for all. Christ owns us and Christ provides what is needed for us. This includes all our body parts, all our branches, and all the sheep of the fold, including the newborns. Given this, why on earth would we neglect so great an ownership, and so great a care?
Dare we tell Christ that no, he can't have our little ones yet until we are satisfied to our set of standards that they know that they belong to Him? Dare we neglect His ownership, and His care? I contend that we do so only at great risk of becoming unfruitful ourselves, and then we risk the horrible prospect of being cut off and discarded.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Great Fraud
Ok, I have found a bunch of my old stuff and am in the process of posting it. This is something I wrote several years ago when in a particularly foul mood.
___________________________________________
I have always believed that taxes in general were entirely too high. By the time I pay my federal and state taxes, my property taxes, my vehicle tags, my fire dues, the sales tax on nearly every purchase - not to mention all the taxes which are built into the cost of nearly every product or service I obtain and that I have no idea how much they may be - I have lost a great deal of what little money I make to taxes. I realize that some level of taxation is absolutely mandatory if we are to have the necessary government functions pertaining to the protection of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual. However, the level of taxes we pay, as well as the "services" rendered for them, are far out of line with where they should be.
Beyond all this, though, lies an even greater problem in my mind. Recently while filing my federal return for this year, I came to realize that even these taxes, as "taxing" as they are, do not get under my skin to nearly such an irritating level as the one other tax I have to pay which is not even mentioned in the rather substantial list above. I am talking about the Social Security tax.
Previously this was not as noticeable, nor as maddening as it is now. For, unlike in years passed, I have for the past several years been self-employed. The self-employed person must honestly make account of every penny he has earned, then honestly account for every expense he deducts from that. Woe unto him who makes a mistake in all this complicated business! Once that net income is calculated, we can take a generous discount of just over seven and a half percent from it. This new figure, over ninety two percent of our net income, is then taxed at a rate of just over fifteen percent. That is to say, my actual net income is taxed at just over thirteen and three quarters percent. This amount goes to the Social Security fund.
Think about that for a minute. On top of the federal, state, local, sales, property, and other taxes I have to pay, here is another almost fourteen percent of every penny I make taken away from me and my family. Considering such essentials as food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care, which together run into the thousands of dollars per year, as well as other taxes, which run into the thousands of dollars per year, I still have to consider yet this further tax, which runs into another several thousand dollars per year. Just exactly where in the world does the government suggest I get this money? I can not cut out such essentials as food and clothing. However, I can not cut out such non-essentials as taxes, for if I did, I would likely end up in jail. Great system!
It would be humorous were it not so sad, that the very people who have placed all these onerous tax burdens upon us, are the exact same ones who claim to care about the working man. Well, I really do not know what exactly you would call me (and millions of others) but a working man. Frankly, I think I prefer to do without the help. In fact, I can not afford this type of help! If Washington actually cared the least little bit for the common man, or even the not so common man, they would do everything in their power not to hinder man's attempts to better himself. Taxation of any kind is a severe hindrance. While some level of it may in fact be necessary, surely we must reign it in. Social Security would be an excellent place to start.
I have been self-employed for about three and a half years. Thus far, I have been slowly growing my business until this year, for the first time I made a noticeable improvement. Thus far, I have been living largely of the "fat" I had earned before. That is to say, I have been slowly dwindling what I had earned while gainfully employed in the highly regulated semi-private sector. This year, I made great headway and did not have to skim quite as much fat as before, though I still had to fall back on some money previously set aside for retirement just to pay my bills. However, having just barely stayed afloat, I am now faced with a tax bill which I am uncertain at this time how I will meet, especially when considering that I now also have this year's income for which to continue to pay these taxes. The overwhelming cause of this problem is not state or federal income taxes, though. It is the self-employment tax which is for Social Security.
"Oh", but you say, "This is for you! This goes into helping you finance your retirement." Oh, okay, I guess I am just too stupid to do that for myself!
We need to rise up and call Social Security what it really is. A fraud. A fraud imposed on the masses of citizens of this country.
First of all, do I have any guarantee that I will ever see any of that money again? No. I have heard horror stories of people paying thousands of dollars into that system, then having the misfortune of dying before they reached the age where they can collect. What becomes of all that money they paid in? If I am fortunate enough to receive some Social Security payments some years down the road, is there any guarantee that I will get all of it back, plus simply the interest it could have accumulated had I put that money even in a low interest bearing savings account? No. Maybe I will get none of that money, maybe little, maybe a significant portion, or, maybe if I am lucky, I may get more back than I ever paid in, plus the accumulated interest. This last scenario would require several strokes of good luck, and I am more inclined to think that one of the other scenarios is far more likely.
In the meantime, I have to struggle simply to make ends meet, while someone else is getting paid off the money that I am putting into this money pit. Do I have any guarantee that the people receiving my money need it as bad, or worse, than I? No. Herein lies one of the many insanities of this whole system. The money which is wrenched from my hands, against my will, and which I can not afford, does not even go into an account with my name on it, to be grown and returned to me upon my retirement, at my desire, at some future date. It is placed in a fund used to pay people who are now in retirement. What happened to the money that they put in all those years? It went to the past generations when they retired!
We all know how the mathematics of this system works. The way it is funded, coupled with changes in the population growth, has caused this inane system to grow to the monster that it now is. When this system was started, the ratio of people paying into the system to the people receiving from it was such that the effect on the payers was not really noticed to a great degree. However, the inception of the baby boom generation, along with the lower birth rates subsequent to this, gives us a situation that as the baby boomers retire, this ratio becomes slanted more and more against those who are currently, or will be, paying into the system. Proportionally, less people are paying for the retirements of more people.
This situation is so bad, that if I were to concoct such a system as this, then try to go out on the free market and sell it to individuals who would buy into it of their own free will, it would be illegal. However, when the government does the same thing, only not freely but by force, it is called an entitlement. But an entitlement for whom? I certainly do not feel like I am "entitled" to pay a significant portion of my much-needed income so that some retired executive with about a hundred other sources of income and savings can receive it!
Social Security is such an ingrained part of American Culture now that it is nearly impossible to reform it, much less completely do away with it. The best the politicians can seem to come up with is this rather corny idea that we could now take a small percentage of it, and be forced to invest it in some sort of semi-private market – all still by the force of and under the direction of the government. This still is not right. It is still the government telling us what we are to do with the money we make. I am responsible for myself, and my own planning. I am in business for myself to gain the level of freedom for myself and my family that I desire. I certainly plan to grow this business in such a way as to become independent of anyone else for my well being. However, this is much slowed by the fact that probably well over half of my income goes to taxes in some form or other, most notably to this fraudulent atrocity.
I think the necessary reform for Social Security is nothing less than this: We must make it voluntary. Anyone who wants to "invest" in this system could be free to do so. Anyone who chooses to bypass receiving such "help" from the government and go it alone, could and should likewise be free to do so.
The cry of the entitlement crowd can already be heard. "But if it were voluntary, the whole system might collapse!" The answer to this objection is present within the objection itself. This system would collapse if it were not for the government's use of force against its citizens to keep it intact. Any system which requires that free citizens be forced to participate in order for it to "help" them, is surely not a system worth having.
Would you voluntarily give up any supposed benefit you might get at some point in the future, assuming you lived long enough, if it meant more money in your pocket right now – money you could invest or spend as you best saw fit in your own preparation for your own future, as well as your own provision for yourself and your family? I know I would gladly right now give up any claim on any money I may have coming to me in the future - even at the loss of the thousands of dollars I have already put in - if it meant that I would no longer be forced against my will to place yet more money into the fund. I will gladly provide for the needs of myself and my family. I will gladly prepare for my future. I will gladly voluntarily help those I can. But I will support such fraudulent entitlements as this only at the threat of violence, which is precisely the only reason that I am going to find some way to meet this current tax burden.
___________________________________________
I have always believed that taxes in general were entirely too high. By the time I pay my federal and state taxes, my property taxes, my vehicle tags, my fire dues, the sales tax on nearly every purchase - not to mention all the taxes which are built into the cost of nearly every product or service I obtain and that I have no idea how much they may be - I have lost a great deal of what little money I make to taxes. I realize that some level of taxation is absolutely mandatory if we are to have the necessary government functions pertaining to the protection of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual. However, the level of taxes we pay, as well as the "services" rendered for them, are far out of line with where they should be.
Beyond all this, though, lies an even greater problem in my mind. Recently while filing my federal return for this year, I came to realize that even these taxes, as "taxing" as they are, do not get under my skin to nearly such an irritating level as the one other tax I have to pay which is not even mentioned in the rather substantial list above. I am talking about the Social Security tax.
Previously this was not as noticeable, nor as maddening as it is now. For, unlike in years passed, I have for the past several years been self-employed. The self-employed person must honestly make account of every penny he has earned, then honestly account for every expense he deducts from that. Woe unto him who makes a mistake in all this complicated business! Once that net income is calculated, we can take a generous discount of just over seven and a half percent from it. This new figure, over ninety two percent of our net income, is then taxed at a rate of just over fifteen percent. That is to say, my actual net income is taxed at just over thirteen and three quarters percent. This amount goes to the Social Security fund.
Think about that for a minute. On top of the federal, state, local, sales, property, and other taxes I have to pay, here is another almost fourteen percent of every penny I make taken away from me and my family. Considering such essentials as food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care, which together run into the thousands of dollars per year, as well as other taxes, which run into the thousands of dollars per year, I still have to consider yet this further tax, which runs into another several thousand dollars per year. Just exactly where in the world does the government suggest I get this money? I can not cut out such essentials as food and clothing. However, I can not cut out such non-essentials as taxes, for if I did, I would likely end up in jail. Great system!
It would be humorous were it not so sad, that the very people who have placed all these onerous tax burdens upon us, are the exact same ones who claim to care about the working man. Well, I really do not know what exactly you would call me (and millions of others) but a working man. Frankly, I think I prefer to do without the help. In fact, I can not afford this type of help! If Washington actually cared the least little bit for the common man, or even the not so common man, they would do everything in their power not to hinder man's attempts to better himself. Taxation of any kind is a severe hindrance. While some level of it may in fact be necessary, surely we must reign it in. Social Security would be an excellent place to start.
I have been self-employed for about three and a half years. Thus far, I have been slowly growing my business until this year, for the first time I made a noticeable improvement. Thus far, I have been living largely of the "fat" I had earned before. That is to say, I have been slowly dwindling what I had earned while gainfully employed in the highly regulated semi-private sector. This year, I made great headway and did not have to skim quite as much fat as before, though I still had to fall back on some money previously set aside for retirement just to pay my bills. However, having just barely stayed afloat, I am now faced with a tax bill which I am uncertain at this time how I will meet, especially when considering that I now also have this year's income for which to continue to pay these taxes. The overwhelming cause of this problem is not state or federal income taxes, though. It is the self-employment tax which is for Social Security.
"Oh", but you say, "This is for you! This goes into helping you finance your retirement." Oh, okay, I guess I am just too stupid to do that for myself!
We need to rise up and call Social Security what it really is. A fraud. A fraud imposed on the masses of citizens of this country.
First of all, do I have any guarantee that I will ever see any of that money again? No. I have heard horror stories of people paying thousands of dollars into that system, then having the misfortune of dying before they reached the age where they can collect. What becomes of all that money they paid in? If I am fortunate enough to receive some Social Security payments some years down the road, is there any guarantee that I will get all of it back, plus simply the interest it could have accumulated had I put that money even in a low interest bearing savings account? No. Maybe I will get none of that money, maybe little, maybe a significant portion, or, maybe if I am lucky, I may get more back than I ever paid in, plus the accumulated interest. This last scenario would require several strokes of good luck, and I am more inclined to think that one of the other scenarios is far more likely.
In the meantime, I have to struggle simply to make ends meet, while someone else is getting paid off the money that I am putting into this money pit. Do I have any guarantee that the people receiving my money need it as bad, or worse, than I? No. Herein lies one of the many insanities of this whole system. The money which is wrenched from my hands, against my will, and which I can not afford, does not even go into an account with my name on it, to be grown and returned to me upon my retirement, at my desire, at some future date. It is placed in a fund used to pay people who are now in retirement. What happened to the money that they put in all those years? It went to the past generations when they retired!
We all know how the mathematics of this system works. The way it is funded, coupled with changes in the population growth, has caused this inane system to grow to the monster that it now is. When this system was started, the ratio of people paying into the system to the people receiving from it was such that the effect on the payers was not really noticed to a great degree. However, the inception of the baby boom generation, along with the lower birth rates subsequent to this, gives us a situation that as the baby boomers retire, this ratio becomes slanted more and more against those who are currently, or will be, paying into the system. Proportionally, less people are paying for the retirements of more people.
This situation is so bad, that if I were to concoct such a system as this, then try to go out on the free market and sell it to individuals who would buy into it of their own free will, it would be illegal. However, when the government does the same thing, only not freely but by force, it is called an entitlement. But an entitlement for whom? I certainly do not feel like I am "entitled" to pay a significant portion of my much-needed income so that some retired executive with about a hundred other sources of income and savings can receive it!
Social Security is such an ingrained part of American Culture now that it is nearly impossible to reform it, much less completely do away with it. The best the politicians can seem to come up with is this rather corny idea that we could now take a small percentage of it, and be forced to invest it in some sort of semi-private market – all still by the force of and under the direction of the government. This still is not right. It is still the government telling us what we are to do with the money we make. I am responsible for myself, and my own planning. I am in business for myself to gain the level of freedom for myself and my family that I desire. I certainly plan to grow this business in such a way as to become independent of anyone else for my well being. However, this is much slowed by the fact that probably well over half of my income goes to taxes in some form or other, most notably to this fraudulent atrocity.
I think the necessary reform for Social Security is nothing less than this: We must make it voluntary. Anyone who wants to "invest" in this system could be free to do so. Anyone who chooses to bypass receiving such "help" from the government and go it alone, could and should likewise be free to do so.
The cry of the entitlement crowd can already be heard. "But if it were voluntary, the whole system might collapse!" The answer to this objection is present within the objection itself. This system would collapse if it were not for the government's use of force against its citizens to keep it intact. Any system which requires that free citizens be forced to participate in order for it to "help" them, is surely not a system worth having.
Would you voluntarily give up any supposed benefit you might get at some point in the future, assuming you lived long enough, if it meant more money in your pocket right now – money you could invest or spend as you best saw fit in your own preparation for your own future, as well as your own provision for yourself and your family? I know I would gladly right now give up any claim on any money I may have coming to me in the future - even at the loss of the thousands of dollars I have already put in - if it meant that I would no longer be forced against my will to place yet more money into the fund. I will gladly provide for the needs of myself and my family. I will gladly prepare for my future. I will gladly voluntarily help those I can. But I will support such fraudulent entitlements as this only at the threat of violence, which is precisely the only reason that I am going to find some way to meet this current tax burden.
The Atheists Ego
Again - something from years past
________________________________
A recent writer to the Reader's Opinion section of the Birmingham News made the following statement: "(T)here can be no God who would sanction or allow an attack like this or, for that matter, many other events happening all over the world." The writer would do well to contemplate his own words a little deeper.
In essence, what he means is this: "I can not fathom a God who would sanction or allow an attack like this, etc., and since I can not fathom Him, He can not exist." In other words, this writer is informing us that it is he who has the final say on what God can or can not be or do or allow. This writer has set his own intellect up as the sole and final judge over the possibility of God's existence. To so do, this writer must evidently see himself as omnipotent, having the ability to see all, comprehend all, and judge all.
I believe this writer does believe in a god. But his god is himself. No other God can exist without his personal approval. This is the absolute height of arrogance.
The "problem" of evil, pain, and suffering is perhaps the atheist's final plea. However, he must come to understand that without God, he can not even define good and evil. He has to assume that his own intellect, which by his creed is only a series of random eletro-chemical impulses, can somehow define what is good and what is evil.
Perhaps when the writer, and others like him, contemplate that without God they are setting their own minds up as omnipotent, while yet their own minds are only the result random chance and chaos, they will conclude that God does indeed exist, based on the impossibility of the contrary.
________________________________
A recent writer to the Reader's Opinion section of the Birmingham News made the following statement: "(T)here can be no God who would sanction or allow an attack like this or, for that matter, many other events happening all over the world." The writer would do well to contemplate his own words a little deeper.
In essence, what he means is this: "I can not fathom a God who would sanction or allow an attack like this, etc., and since I can not fathom Him, He can not exist." In other words, this writer is informing us that it is he who has the final say on what God can or can not be or do or allow. This writer has set his own intellect up as the sole and final judge over the possibility of God's existence. To so do, this writer must evidently see himself as omnipotent, having the ability to see all, comprehend all, and judge all.
I believe this writer does believe in a god. But his god is himself. No other God can exist without his personal approval. This is the absolute height of arrogance.
The "problem" of evil, pain, and suffering is perhaps the atheist's final plea. However, he must come to understand that without God, he can not even define good and evil. He has to assume that his own intellect, which by his creed is only a series of random eletro-chemical impulses, can somehow define what is good and what is evil.
Perhaps when the writer, and others like him, contemplate that without God they are setting their own minds up as omnipotent, while yet their own minds are only the result random chance and chaos, they will conclude that God does indeed exist, based on the impossibility of the contrary.
Church Signs
Here is just a handful of the silly church signs I have seen.
"Go and sin no more."…We believe this is possible. (Pentecostal Church near Tuscaloosa.)
Anger is one letter short of danger. ( Near Boaz)
God is not mad at you no matter what. (near Huntsville)
The Flock that Rocks. (Newspaper add for a church in Florida Today.)
"Go and sin no more."…We believe this is possible. (Pentecostal Church near Tuscaloosa.)
Anger is one letter short of danger. ( Near Boaz)
God is not mad at you no matter what. (near Huntsville)
The Flock that Rocks. (Newspaper add for a church in Florida Today.)
Words have meaning
This is something else I wrote several years ago in relation to a letter to the editor I had read.
_______________________________________
A recent writer in the "My Turn" column opened his discussion with the following sentence: "One of the Founders of our country said we are giving the people a democracy if they can keep it." He then went on to discuss the losing of our "democracy" to a military takeover from within. Much of what he said I could give a hearty "amen" to, while yet other statements I would strongly disagree with.
Yet, before reading the rest of his column, this first sentence caught my attention in such a way as to yield the rest of his discussion secondary. In this sentence are two examples of error and omission which seem to paint a pretty dim picture of where we as a nation are in our level of understanding of our own history.
First, and this is the least severe of the two, is the fact that this retired professor would use a quote, and a fairly famous one at that, yet attribute it only to "one of the Founders." Exactly how difficult would it be for a learned man to determine who it was who actually said it? Second and more severely, the quote itself was misstated in a way which may seem minor, but has major implications.
The Founder was Ben Franklin. What he said, in response to a question about the type of government they had just given us was that it was a "Republic, if they can keep it." Did you catch that not so subtle difference? A "republic" and not a "democracy" is what our founders produced when they developed the constitution. Which leads to some obvious questions such as "What is a Republic?" "What is a democracy?" "How are they different?" and "Is it really all that important anyway?"
A democracy is defined in my dictionary as "government by the people; esp. rule by the majority." This same dictionary defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected representatives governing according to law." That is, the choice between a democracy and a republic is the choice between the rule of man (in the majority) or rule of law, administered by elected representatives.
A major danger with a democracy lies in its inability to deal with factions. This is particularly true if that faction happens to entail a majority of the public. It is also true in the presence of many and varied factions which overlap as well oppose each other in both majority and minority groups. To use an extreme and admittedly silly example, I told my son that in a democracy, if the majority (a large "faction") decided it would be a good thing to put all ten-year-old boys in jail, then he would have to go to jail. In a democracy you see, the majority rules. There are no rights for minorities.
Exactly how a democracy or a republic would or would not be able to deal with these factions was the topic of The Federalist No. 10. There, the writer (Publius) says of a democracy: "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Further, Publius adds "A republic…promises the cure for which we are seeking," adding several paragraphs of explanation.
I am sure that the writer meant by "democracy" actually "representative democracy", a term which he did in fact use some paragraphs later and which would, in essence, mean approximately the same thing as "republic". But, why did he not use the more correct terminology, particularly in light of the fact that he was referring to a direct quote? Words are the means by which we communicate ideas to one another and pass these ideas along to our posterity. A misuse of words causes a lack of understanding. It is this lack of understanding of such terms and concepts as "democracy" and "republicanism" which has led us to the point in which we are now at. Only by regaining an understanding of our history and the type of government our founders gave can we hope to recover the level of freedom all people strive for.
Actually, even the term "republic" is a short hand, simplified version of the government our founders forged. A more complete description would be to say our (central) government is a "constitutional federated republic." Moreover, it is a mixed governmental system, containing elements of the monarchical principle, the aristocrat principle, and the democratic principle, while still being fully republican and not actually being any of these other three. It was a republic in the sense that it was to be administered by representatives elected directly or indirectly by the people. However, these representatives were arrayed in such a way as to have automatic "checks and balances" upon each other, so that the central government would not obtain too much power.
However, not only were the various branches of government checked by being pitted against one another at the federal level, they were also as a whole pitted against the state governments, as well as more indirectly against the local governments and the people themselves. Finally, the central government was also held in check by a written constitution (the law) which specifically limited its powers to an enumerated few. This constitution was then further undergirded by an attached Bill of Rights which specifically limited the central government's power all the more.
However, in the last century or so, much of this system of checks and balances has come under attack. Supreme Court decisions have given the central government powers over the states and the people which can be found nowhere either clearly or hidden within the test of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution such as the one giving it the power to tax the income of its citizens have increased the central government's power over the people. Other amendments, unconstitutional laws, court decisions, presidential orders, moves toward democracy and away from republicanism, and an overall reduction in the level of understanding in the general public have allowed this restricted government to usurp powers which it has no authority or jurisdiction to possess.
So yes, knowing and understanding the differences between a republic and a democracy is vitally important. If we are to ignore the meanings and the histories of these words, the next thing you know we will be distorting the meanings of other words as well, just as this writer did in his third paragraph. There he equates the "right" and "left" with the "haves" and "have-nots". Later, he indicates that most of the "hate" in our politics comes of course from "conservatives". When we get loose with our definitions, we can assault those who disagree with us much easier, thereby strengthening our own "faction". When we discount the value of the meanings of words, when we play fast and loose with our language and we throw all the rules of communication out the window, it is then easy to label one set of people as responsible for all problems.
However, when we understand words and concepts and history, we can more clearly understand that most of our political problems, as well as those in other countries, stem from the lack of limits or restraints on government, and the rise of a faction (or many factions) having a heavily weighted and unwarranted access to the use of unlimited government force.
_______________________________________
A recent writer in the "My Turn" column opened his discussion with the following sentence: "One of the Founders of our country said we are giving the people a democracy if they can keep it." He then went on to discuss the losing of our "democracy" to a military takeover from within. Much of what he said I could give a hearty "amen" to, while yet other statements I would strongly disagree with.
Yet, before reading the rest of his column, this first sentence caught my attention in such a way as to yield the rest of his discussion secondary. In this sentence are two examples of error and omission which seem to paint a pretty dim picture of where we as a nation are in our level of understanding of our own history.
First, and this is the least severe of the two, is the fact that this retired professor would use a quote, and a fairly famous one at that, yet attribute it only to "one of the Founders." Exactly how difficult would it be for a learned man to determine who it was who actually said it? Second and more severely, the quote itself was misstated in a way which may seem minor, but has major implications.
The Founder was Ben Franklin. What he said, in response to a question about the type of government they had just given us was that it was a "Republic, if they can keep it." Did you catch that not so subtle difference? A "republic" and not a "democracy" is what our founders produced when they developed the constitution. Which leads to some obvious questions such as "What is a Republic?" "What is a democracy?" "How are they different?" and "Is it really all that important anyway?"
A democracy is defined in my dictionary as "government by the people; esp. rule by the majority." This same dictionary defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected representatives governing according to law." That is, the choice between a democracy and a republic is the choice between the rule of man (in the majority) or rule of law, administered by elected representatives.
A major danger with a democracy lies in its inability to deal with factions. This is particularly true if that faction happens to entail a majority of the public. It is also true in the presence of many and varied factions which overlap as well oppose each other in both majority and minority groups. To use an extreme and admittedly silly example, I told my son that in a democracy, if the majority (a large "faction") decided it would be a good thing to put all ten-year-old boys in jail, then he would have to go to jail. In a democracy you see, the majority rules. There are no rights for minorities.
Exactly how a democracy or a republic would or would not be able to deal with these factions was the topic of The Federalist No. 10. There, the writer (Publius) says of a democracy: "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Further, Publius adds "A republic…promises the cure for which we are seeking," adding several paragraphs of explanation.
I am sure that the writer meant by "democracy" actually "representative democracy", a term which he did in fact use some paragraphs later and which would, in essence, mean approximately the same thing as "republic". But, why did he not use the more correct terminology, particularly in light of the fact that he was referring to a direct quote? Words are the means by which we communicate ideas to one another and pass these ideas along to our posterity. A misuse of words causes a lack of understanding. It is this lack of understanding of such terms and concepts as "democracy" and "republicanism" which has led us to the point in which we are now at. Only by regaining an understanding of our history and the type of government our founders gave can we hope to recover the level of freedom all people strive for.
Actually, even the term "republic" is a short hand, simplified version of the government our founders forged. A more complete description would be to say our (central) government is a "constitutional federated republic." Moreover, it is a mixed governmental system, containing elements of the monarchical principle, the aristocrat principle, and the democratic principle, while still being fully republican and not actually being any of these other three. It was a republic in the sense that it was to be administered by representatives elected directly or indirectly by the people. However, these representatives were arrayed in such a way as to have automatic "checks and balances" upon each other, so that the central government would not obtain too much power.
However, not only were the various branches of government checked by being pitted against one another at the federal level, they were also as a whole pitted against the state governments, as well as more indirectly against the local governments and the people themselves. Finally, the central government was also held in check by a written constitution (the law) which specifically limited its powers to an enumerated few. This constitution was then further undergirded by an attached Bill of Rights which specifically limited the central government's power all the more.
However, in the last century or so, much of this system of checks and balances has come under attack. Supreme Court decisions have given the central government powers over the states and the people which can be found nowhere either clearly or hidden within the test of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution such as the one giving it the power to tax the income of its citizens have increased the central government's power over the people. Other amendments, unconstitutional laws, court decisions, presidential orders, moves toward democracy and away from republicanism, and an overall reduction in the level of understanding in the general public have allowed this restricted government to usurp powers which it has no authority or jurisdiction to possess.
So yes, knowing and understanding the differences between a republic and a democracy is vitally important. If we are to ignore the meanings and the histories of these words, the next thing you know we will be distorting the meanings of other words as well, just as this writer did in his third paragraph. There he equates the "right" and "left" with the "haves" and "have-nots". Later, he indicates that most of the "hate" in our politics comes of course from "conservatives". When we get loose with our definitions, we can assault those who disagree with us much easier, thereby strengthening our own "faction". When we discount the value of the meanings of words, when we play fast and loose with our language and we throw all the rules of communication out the window, it is then easy to label one set of people as responsible for all problems.
However, when we understand words and concepts and history, we can more clearly understand that most of our political problems, as well as those in other countries, stem from the lack of limits or restraints on government, and the rise of a faction (or many factions) having a heavily weighted and unwarranted access to the use of unlimited government force.
Atheistic Presuppositions
This is something I wrote years ago. I found it recently and thought I'd post it. Yeah, it's a little unpolished, but in case you haven't noticed, everything I post is!
______________________________________________________________
The events of September 11 have shaken many Americans to the core. While no one rejoices at this tragedy, many atheists and skeptics have happily used it to attempt to further their cause. The cause of the atheists and skeptics is to deny the existence of God, or at the very least, to place it in extreme doubt. God can not be "proven" to exist using the natural order they would tell us, as if limiting a discussion of the supernatural to the natural in any way made sense.
However, in addition to attempting to limit all discussions to the natural order, the atheists and skeptics also have a reliable old friend they bring out at every opportunity to cast doubt on the possibility of God's existence. This "friend" is known as "the problem of evil."
The argument goes something like this: The God of the Bible can not exist if evil exists in the world. (And the events of September 11 were indeed evil, as we all know). That is because the Bible teaches that God is all good, with no mixture of sin or evil, and that God is all powerful, and can cause to happen or not happen whatever He desires. If God desires only good, and can do anything at all, then there should be no evil in the world. Since there most assuredly is evil in the world, then it is impossible that such a God could exist.
According to many an atheist and skeptic, this is the one argument a Christian simply can not get around, and it is almost universally one of the main reasons many unbelievers are unbelievers. How can an all-good and all-powerful God sanction evil or allow evil to exist? Obviously, an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow such. Yet evil exists. Therefore, God, at least the God of the Bible, must not exist.
Unfortunately for the unbeliever who clings to this line of reasoning, he has not thought out all of the implications tied to the making of that argument, particularly in light of his reluctance to even discuss things beyond the natural realm. The very concept of "good and evil" is itself outside of the natural realm, and hence should be off limits to the atheists who claim to only believe what can be empirically verified.
The problem for the atheist goes much further than this, however. To understand how much further it goes, we will need to briefly discuss the atheistic presuppositions.
The impossibility of a world without God
Everyone has presuppositions, that is, underlying worldviews that provide the foundation for, and inevitably bias, his views on any topic. The Christian presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists, that He is all-good, all-powerful, and so forth. He created the world out of nothing by His mere power in the span of six days. He providentially controls whatsoever comes to pass.
The atheist's presupposition is that no God exists. Nothing outside of the natural order - that is, things that can be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and felt - can exist.
Right off the bat the atheist has a problem. For, if this world which we live in exists, which it obviously does, then from whence did it come? They deny the possibility of a Creator, yet can not explain the very existence of our universe. In order for our universe to be here as it is now, there are only two possibilities. One, that it, in some form or other, has always existed for all of eternity past; or two, that it began to exist at some point in history. Both of these possibilities are impossible for the human mind, using natural assumptions, to fathom. We can not even begin to imagine the very concept of an eternity past. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics simply (when viewed through the lens of naturalistic presuppositions) will not allow the universe to have existed for an eternity. The amount of energy in the universe is finite. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that, left free of outside input, energy passes from a useful form to a non-useful form. That is, things go from order, to disorder. Over an eternity, obviously the order or usefulness of the energy in the universe, will long since have been completely dissipated. Unless…
Unless the amount of energy, space, and matter in the universe is itself infinite. Now, can the human mind fathom an infinite amount of space, energy, and matter, which has eternally existed? Of course not. Is there a natural explanation to such a thing? Of course not.
The second option is really no better for the atheist. There, he has to assume that the universe did not exist until some certain point in history, then it began to exist. How does he explain this phenomena, using only naturalism? He can't.
Even with this second option, the unbeliever is faced with such difficult questions as "Is the universe finite, or infinite?" The mind goes into spasms at the thought of either. The thought of an infinite universe is inconceivable to us. Yet, if it is finite, we must ask, why does it not continue beyond its limits? How can it possibly have a physical end? The human mind is not capable of comprehending the answers to these eternal riddles. The consistent atheist knows this and admits it. The ultimate origins and extents of our universe are not part of the realm of natural science, and therefore can not be commented on by scientists. How convenient! The scientist can only look at and analyze what can be sensed. With this admission, though, the atheist has just given away the game. For at this point, it can be said that the existence of God is at the very least as plausible - to the atheist himself - as is His non-existence.
The atheist, however, then continues with his presupposition that God does not exist, even though it is admittedly outside of his self imposed limits to say so. At this point, he has to conjure up a way in which not only does the universe exist, (a fact that he can not explain using naturalistic limitations), but he also has to explain how the planet earth has come to exist in all its splendor and all of its various levels of life forms.
Obviously, without an intelligent, designing force behind it, the only explanation for the development of our planet, and the various life forms on it, is that somehow order has come out of chaos. How? Well, according to the atheistic assumptions, it has basically been a long series of random chances that have had the cumulative effect of producing what we now see. Random chance bringing order out of chaos is the only explanation the unbeliever has. This is the basis of evolution.
Granted, they attempt to find in the natural order of things a mechanism that causes this. But, tracing this mechanism back to the very origins of the universe is futile to even think about. Granting for the sake of argument only that such a mechanism exists, how does one explain its existence in a universe of unexplained origins, with no intelligence behind it to "jump start" such a mechanism?
Further, the atheist must then admit, for he has no other option, that he himself is the product of order from chaos by the process of random chance. His very thoughts are not in any way spiritual, nor do they in any way have any deep meaning to them, because the spiritual does not exist. They are instead nothing more than electrochemical impulses.
In conclusion then, when the atheist thinks about anything, according to his own creed all that is occurring is an electrochemical process, brought to order out of chaos, through a process of random chance. There is no basis for any type of morality here. In fact, he sits teetering on the fence between being and non-being. Obviously, an electrochemical impulse is not a being. It is a thing. As for other people and objects around him, what guarantee does he have that they exist either, and are not merely the result of some electrochemical process in his own mind? The world of the atheist is fraught with uncertainty!
Back to the problem of evil
Now, this brings us back to our original intent. This atheist that we have just described, sits on his self-constructed throne and tells us that God can not exist because of the problem of evil. However, the question must now be asked, on what basis does the atheist say there is such a thing as good and evil? To begin with, good and evil are supernatural terms, not naturalistic ones. Additionally, since the atheist, and everyone else for that matter, is simply a product of random chance, with no supernatural authority behind it and no spirituality, the very concept of good and evil does not even exist. On what does the atheist base his idea of good and evil? He absolutely can not base it on his own presuppositions, which have been described above. Therefore, he must borrow these concepts, and their definitions, and their foundations, from the theists. He has to assume a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. Surely this can be clearly seen as a precarious position.
Further, after borrowing the worldview of the believer in order to attempt to use it against him, the atheist goes one giant step further. He now says that using his enemies' definitions, which by his own presuppositions must be totally alien to him, he can by his own intellect (which is simply an electrochemical impulse derived from chaos by random chance), define what type of God could or could not exist under those definitions. That is, while his own worldview teaches that he is nothing but the product of random chance magically producing order out of chaos, with no loving or intelligent Being behind it, he now tells us that his intellect is the final judge of what type of omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-loving being may or may not exist.
No doubt, the atheist who so argues is terribly blind to his own arrogance and ignorance, as well as to the precarious perch he is sitting on. He reminds us of countless cartoon characters we have see who run off of a high ledge, and remain momentarily suspended in mid-air with no support whatsoever under them. Once they look down and realize that they have no support, they immediately start a free fall.
Likewise, the atheist thinks he is safe and supported fully. However, when he examines the very presuppositions he bases his belief on, then realizes that using his own presuppositions he can not begin to make sense of the world, and that he must borrow the presuppositions of his avowed enemies in order to argue against them, then he will realize that he is about to free fall.
I would advise him to open his Bible and begin studying it. In that situation, it would make and excellent parachute!
______________________________________________________________
The events of September 11 have shaken many Americans to the core. While no one rejoices at this tragedy, many atheists and skeptics have happily used it to attempt to further their cause. The cause of the atheists and skeptics is to deny the existence of God, or at the very least, to place it in extreme doubt. God can not be "proven" to exist using the natural order they would tell us, as if limiting a discussion of the supernatural to the natural in any way made sense.
However, in addition to attempting to limit all discussions to the natural order, the atheists and skeptics also have a reliable old friend they bring out at every opportunity to cast doubt on the possibility of God's existence. This "friend" is known as "the problem of evil."
The argument goes something like this: The God of the Bible can not exist if evil exists in the world. (And the events of September 11 were indeed evil, as we all know). That is because the Bible teaches that God is all good, with no mixture of sin or evil, and that God is all powerful, and can cause to happen or not happen whatever He desires. If God desires only good, and can do anything at all, then there should be no evil in the world. Since there most assuredly is evil in the world, then it is impossible that such a God could exist.
According to many an atheist and skeptic, this is the one argument a Christian simply can not get around, and it is almost universally one of the main reasons many unbelievers are unbelievers. How can an all-good and all-powerful God sanction evil or allow evil to exist? Obviously, an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow such. Yet evil exists. Therefore, God, at least the God of the Bible, must not exist.
Unfortunately for the unbeliever who clings to this line of reasoning, he has not thought out all of the implications tied to the making of that argument, particularly in light of his reluctance to even discuss things beyond the natural realm. The very concept of "good and evil" is itself outside of the natural realm, and hence should be off limits to the atheists who claim to only believe what can be empirically verified.
The problem for the atheist goes much further than this, however. To understand how much further it goes, we will need to briefly discuss the atheistic presuppositions.
The impossibility of a world without God
Everyone has presuppositions, that is, underlying worldviews that provide the foundation for, and inevitably bias, his views on any topic. The Christian presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists, that He is all-good, all-powerful, and so forth. He created the world out of nothing by His mere power in the span of six days. He providentially controls whatsoever comes to pass.
The atheist's presupposition is that no God exists. Nothing outside of the natural order - that is, things that can be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and felt - can exist.
Right off the bat the atheist has a problem. For, if this world which we live in exists, which it obviously does, then from whence did it come? They deny the possibility of a Creator, yet can not explain the very existence of our universe. In order for our universe to be here as it is now, there are only two possibilities. One, that it, in some form or other, has always existed for all of eternity past; or two, that it began to exist at some point in history. Both of these possibilities are impossible for the human mind, using natural assumptions, to fathom. We can not even begin to imagine the very concept of an eternity past. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics simply (when viewed through the lens of naturalistic presuppositions) will not allow the universe to have existed for an eternity. The amount of energy in the universe is finite. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that, left free of outside input, energy passes from a useful form to a non-useful form. That is, things go from order, to disorder. Over an eternity, obviously the order or usefulness of the energy in the universe, will long since have been completely dissipated. Unless…
Unless the amount of energy, space, and matter in the universe is itself infinite. Now, can the human mind fathom an infinite amount of space, energy, and matter, which has eternally existed? Of course not. Is there a natural explanation to such a thing? Of course not.
The second option is really no better for the atheist. There, he has to assume that the universe did not exist until some certain point in history, then it began to exist. How does he explain this phenomena, using only naturalism? He can't.
Even with this second option, the unbeliever is faced with such difficult questions as "Is the universe finite, or infinite?" The mind goes into spasms at the thought of either. The thought of an infinite universe is inconceivable to us. Yet, if it is finite, we must ask, why does it not continue beyond its limits? How can it possibly have a physical end? The human mind is not capable of comprehending the answers to these eternal riddles. The consistent atheist knows this and admits it. The ultimate origins and extents of our universe are not part of the realm of natural science, and therefore can not be commented on by scientists. How convenient! The scientist can only look at and analyze what can be sensed. With this admission, though, the atheist has just given away the game. For at this point, it can be said that the existence of God is at the very least as plausible - to the atheist himself - as is His non-existence.
The atheist, however, then continues with his presupposition that God does not exist, even though it is admittedly outside of his self imposed limits to say so. At this point, he has to conjure up a way in which not only does the universe exist, (a fact that he can not explain using naturalistic limitations), but he also has to explain how the planet earth has come to exist in all its splendor and all of its various levels of life forms.
Obviously, without an intelligent, designing force behind it, the only explanation for the development of our planet, and the various life forms on it, is that somehow order has come out of chaos. How? Well, according to the atheistic assumptions, it has basically been a long series of random chances that have had the cumulative effect of producing what we now see. Random chance bringing order out of chaos is the only explanation the unbeliever has. This is the basis of evolution.
Granted, they attempt to find in the natural order of things a mechanism that causes this. But, tracing this mechanism back to the very origins of the universe is futile to even think about. Granting for the sake of argument only that such a mechanism exists, how does one explain its existence in a universe of unexplained origins, with no intelligence behind it to "jump start" such a mechanism?
Further, the atheist must then admit, for he has no other option, that he himself is the product of order from chaos by the process of random chance. His very thoughts are not in any way spiritual, nor do they in any way have any deep meaning to them, because the spiritual does not exist. They are instead nothing more than electrochemical impulses.
In conclusion then, when the atheist thinks about anything, according to his own creed all that is occurring is an electrochemical process, brought to order out of chaos, through a process of random chance. There is no basis for any type of morality here. In fact, he sits teetering on the fence between being and non-being. Obviously, an electrochemical impulse is not a being. It is a thing. As for other people and objects around him, what guarantee does he have that they exist either, and are not merely the result of some electrochemical process in his own mind? The world of the atheist is fraught with uncertainty!
Back to the problem of evil
Now, this brings us back to our original intent. This atheist that we have just described, sits on his self-constructed throne and tells us that God can not exist because of the problem of evil. However, the question must now be asked, on what basis does the atheist say there is such a thing as good and evil? To begin with, good and evil are supernatural terms, not naturalistic ones. Additionally, since the atheist, and everyone else for that matter, is simply a product of random chance, with no supernatural authority behind it and no spirituality, the very concept of good and evil does not even exist. On what does the atheist base his idea of good and evil? He absolutely can not base it on his own presuppositions, which have been described above. Therefore, he must borrow these concepts, and their definitions, and their foundations, from the theists. He has to assume a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. Surely this can be clearly seen as a precarious position.
Further, after borrowing the worldview of the believer in order to attempt to use it against him, the atheist goes one giant step further. He now says that using his enemies' definitions, which by his own presuppositions must be totally alien to him, he can by his own intellect (which is simply an electrochemical impulse derived from chaos by random chance), define what type of God could or could not exist under those definitions. That is, while his own worldview teaches that he is nothing but the product of random chance magically producing order out of chaos, with no loving or intelligent Being behind it, he now tells us that his intellect is the final judge of what type of omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-loving being may or may not exist.
No doubt, the atheist who so argues is terribly blind to his own arrogance and ignorance, as well as to the precarious perch he is sitting on. He reminds us of countless cartoon characters we have see who run off of a high ledge, and remain momentarily suspended in mid-air with no support whatsoever under them. Once they look down and realize that they have no support, they immediately start a free fall.
Likewise, the atheist thinks he is safe and supported fully. However, when he examines the very presuppositions he bases his belief on, then realizes that using his own presuppositions he can not begin to make sense of the world, and that he must borrow the presuppositions of his avowed enemies in order to argue against them, then he will realize that he is about to free fall.
I would advise him to open his Bible and begin studying it. In that situation, it would make and excellent parachute!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
