Thursday, January 10, 2008

Semi-Autobiography: A Journy to Atheism

Without wasting time, let's get to the topic of tonight, that being how I have come to be an atheist.

I would like to, first off, describe my defintion of an atheist. At one point I would have agreed that it was all a matter of semantics, but after studying the point some more, I do believe there is a fundemental difference between an atheist and an anti-, or non-, theist. When you think of an atheist, you typically think of someone who says, "God does not exist." I reject that notion. I simply believe that the case for God is unproven, not disproven. And what that means is, I'm not saying God does not exist, in fact, I'd say He very well could exist. But as of right now, there is no sufficient evidence to support it.

For example, I could propose that I breathe fire. You'd want evidence, right? Well, what if I don't do it? Does that mean I can't, or does that mean I can't right now? The antitheist would say I can't, and the atheist would say I could, but I haven't proven my proposition.

Make sense?

So, I suppose it all started when I was in ninth grade. Religion hadn't been a part of my life up to that point. Sure, I went to church with my father whenever I visited him, but did I ever think about God, who He was, Jesus Christ, angels? Nope. But ninth grade changed that because ninth grade was the year I had to participate in Confirmation. This meant taking notes during the sermon, visiting our pastor every Wednesday night for dinner and Bible-study, and participating in the services (ex. reading the Bible for the congregation). At first, I didn't really care. But then I started to think deeply about this stuff. After hearing some of it, I became an antitheist. I didn't want anything to do with it in large part because I didn't understand the Trinity (although now I do and agree with it, assuming God were to exist).

At this time I was taking part in a discussion on a Harry Potter fansite, where we just talked about philosophy and religion. Side note: there was a man there who claimed to see demons, and even said he had scars from them. Anyway, I talked extensively with others there who happened to be skeptics or atheists. Others were of various religions, but none of them Bible-believing Christians. Somehow I started to work my way back to a form of theism, but I had very unbiblical beliefs.

For example, I believed in reincarnation. I thought it was unjust for God to send people to hell, so I simply believed that when we died, after achieving sainthood, we'd return to be a part of God. That was because I saw a Jew on 7th Heaven express a similar idea.

Well, during ninth grade in English class I had to write what we called the Alphabetical Autobiography, and that simply meant we had the letter of the week and we had to write about a personal theme that began with that letter. Around the time I made my quasi-theistic beliefs, we came to the letter R, and I took that chance to write about Religion, expressing my beliefs. For this assignment, it had to be proof-read by a fellow classmate, so I handed it to a girl who happened to be a Lutheran. A couple days after that, she wrote me a letter explaining how wrong I was and shared the Gospel with me. At first I treated her unkindly, thinking her to be judgmental. But somewhere along the line I responded to the Gospel, at least intellectually, and claimed Christ as my Savior. For the first couple of months I refused to accept the Bible as perfectly true and hesitated to accept creation as true, but because I was studying Protestantism at my church, I fell under the sway of "sola Scripture," which, for you atheists reading this, means the Bible is the supreme source of knowledge regarding God, Jesus, and the Church. Since the Bible claimed itself true, well, by golly, it must be true! And since creation was a part of the Bible, that must have been true as well! So for the past year and a half or so, I've been trying to live as a Christian.

At the end of the summer after I "became" a Christian, I read James White's book, Debating Calvinism, a debate in the form of a book, and it set me out on the path of reformed soteriology, or, theology of salvation. James convinced me of the biblical quality of reformed theology, and that became a major force in my thinking.

I fell in love with Charles H. Spurgeon's sermons, in particular. Truly, he has a way of moving the heart. I also read stuff, mostly online, by John Piper, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul. I read blogs, such as the Reformed Mafia, Between Two Worlds, and Shepherd's Scrapbook.

Now I'm sure you noticed something up to this point. Whenever I talk about my "conversion," I speak of it in hypothetical terms. This is for a couple reasons, the first being because the Bible says, "If they were one of us, they'd have stayed with us, but they left us because they were not of us." So since I have left Christianity, I never truly was a Christian. But why did I leave?

I suppose that has a few reasons, if I wanted to be honest. I'm a homosexual, and with my "sola Scriptura" view of the Bible, I knew they were completely incompatible. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, say homosexuality is a sin. No matter how much I wish to deny it, the Bible does say it. And so I had prayed, and prayed, and prayed, and I fasted, and I read my Bible, and I memorized Scripture, and I told Christian friends about it for them to pray for me--but I'm still a homosexual. We now face a conundrum. How can I be a Christian and a homosexual? Ultimately, I can't. "Don't you know that the wicked shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" But I couldn't change. And I couldn't reconcile that with my faith. So inevitably I had to drop my faith. Because the Bible says, "Whosoever is in Christ is born anew, he is a new creation, and the old has passed away." But for me, despite my belief in Jesus Christ being the Son of God, crucified for my sins, buried, and resurrected, despite believing the Trinity, despite believing Calvinism, the old never passed away for me. My old habits didn't die, not even for a moment, when I thought I became a Christian.

Keep in mind that we are now talking about eleventh grade, last fall, before the New Year. So during that time I came in contact with Sartre, with his message that existence precedes essence. And the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with it, but I realized that it contradicted my Christian faith. I had heard about Christian existentialism, but that doesn't make sense because, as I pointed out in my earlier post on existentialism, if God exists, then our essence precedes our existence.

So three days after the New Year, I decided to recant of my Christian faith and here I am, now trying to learn more about atheism and existentialism. I still attend my church and my youth group, in part because I see no escape from it right now (I'm part of the Student Leadership Team) and because my friends at church would become too invasive in my life if they knew I left because I am an atheist, not to mention my mother (although she isn't even a Christian, so I don't know why she cares).

~~~

I don't want to die.
Sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all.

--Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody

11 comments:

Rhology said...

Hi Existentialist,


Just a few comments, since you were kind enough to write this down.

"sola Scripture," which, for you atheists reading this, means the Bible is the supreme source of knowledge regarding God, Jesus, and the Church. Since the Bible claimed itself true, well, by golly, it must be true!

It's Sola ScripturA. No big deal either way...
Better stated, the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.
We don't believe the Bible is true b/c it says it is. We believe it is true b/c it is the self-revelation of the One True God. I outline a defense of that idea here.

But I couldn't change. And I couldn't reconcile that with my faith. So inevitably I had to drop my faith.

I hope you won't mind if I ask these questions. I hope you will understand that I am different than other "fundies" out there, ie, I'm not ready to mob-lynch you b/c you are a stated homosexual.
I ask b/c you were kind enough to volunteer the info.
1) Why did you think it was YOUR job to change?
2) Did you really believe that the Bible was true? You said you did, 4 paragraphs before. How rational is it to abandon a true belief for the sake of sthg that is not true but that you like better? Is that not what we train 4-yr-olds NOT to do? "Don't run into the busy highway to retrieve your ball, little Johnny. I know you want your ball back, but you'll get run over."
3) You're a junior in high school NOW. How much time did you give it before you gave up on the homosexual vs Bible thing?
4) Why did you allow your belief in man's sin (your homosexuality) trump your (stated) confidence in God's power to save and to change?

And the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with it, but I realized that it contradicted my Christian faith.

This is one reason I appreciate you - you are not afraid to call a contradiction a contradiction.
I am 100% in agreement - Sartre's core message is at odds with the biblical one. And it is unliveable, as I explained before.

So three days after the New Year

You mean less than 2 weeks ago?

I see no escape from it right now (I'm part of the Student Leadership Team)

I know this means little to you since you don't know me at all; I'm just a blogger.
But can I ask you, plead with you? Please at least quit the Leadership team of your youth group. It's by far the most honest thing to do.
Just leave quietly or something...

But even more strongly I ask you to reconsider the rashness of your actions. You have drop-kicked a loving Savior for the sake of a self-destructive (morally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually) lifestyle and a self-destructive philosophy that is unliveable. That's a lousy trade.

Peace,
Rhology

Existentialist said...

Rhology,

It's Sola ScripturA. No big deal either way...

Sorry, typo. I know it is "sola Scriptura," along with Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christos, et Soli Deo Gloria.

Better stated, the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.

Yes, that would be the definition I was aiming at. Sorry, I don't do too well when explaining myself at times.

We believe it is true b/c it is the self-revelation of the One True God.

But of course you know I'm just going to ask you how do you know it is the self-revelation of God?

I think, as many atheists do, that using the Bible is a circular way of arguing for the existence of God.

"How do you know God exists?"
His Word says He does.
"How do you know the Bible is God's Word?"
Because God exists.
"How do you know God exists?"
Ad infinitum.

I hope you won't mind if I ask these questions.

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Please, if I can't stand your questions, then I shouldn't really stand at all, should I? :)

I hope you will understand that I am different than other "fundies" out there

Don't worry, like I said, I know what kind of crowd you come from, and that crowd is totally separate from fundamentalists.

Why did you think it was YOUR job to change?

"Repent," "Love the Lord your God with all your heart...," and I'm sure you know the rest.

But I didn't necessarily think it was my job to change, what I was getting as was that I didn't change, even though the Bible says, "The old has passed away" (1 Cor. 5:7, I think).

Did you really believe that the Bible was true?

Not only did I think it was true, I considered being an apologist or pastor, which is a main reason I joined the SLT in the first place.

How rational is it to abandon a true belief for the sake of sthg that is not true but that you like better?

Now hold on a minute here. :) You know, as well as I do, that a sincere belief does not mean the thing believed in is true. Plenty of Muslims sincerely believe the Koran is true, but that doesn't make it true. So at one point I might have sincerely believed it to be true, but have since then relinquished that belief for the time being.

How much time did you give

Since I "became" a Christian back in the ninth grade.

Why did you allow your belief in man's sin trump your (stated) confidence in God's power to save and to change?

1. I didn't allow anything.
2. As I keep pointing out, God promised in His Word to change me. Ezekial 36:26-27, "I have taken away your heart of stone and given you a heart of flesh. I have put My Spirit within you to obey Me."

This is one reason I appreciate you - you are not afraid to call a contradiction a contradiction.

I might be an atheist, but I'm certainly not irrational. :D Of course this depends on who I am speaking to, since I know Psalm 14:1 just jumped into your mind.

You mean less than 2 weeks ago?

To be precise, yes.

I know this means little to you since you don't know me at all

The very fact that I'm willing to engage in a meaningful discussion about God, the Bible, and Jesus with you doesn't strike you with the feeling that I respect what you have to say?

But can I ask you, plead with you? Please at least quit the Leadership team of your youth group. It's by far the most honest thing to do.
Just leave quietly or something...


I'd be more than glad to, but I wouldn't be allowed to leave quietly. They'd be too nosy, trying to get me to reconsider, and what not. But, for you, and I suppose for me, I'll see what I can do.

You have drop-kicked a loving Savior for the sake of a self-destructive (morally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually) lifestyle

I didn't know I could drop-kick anyone, let alone the Almighty. Suh-weet!

But just so we have our facts straight, I am struggling with my choice. Certainly I'd love to do what I want when I want, but a central part of my belief is the preservation of humanity, and homosexuality doesn't preserve humanity.

I ask you, though, in all seriousness, which you would rather I do: Struggle to believe in something that is irrational (in my mind), try to live in a way I don't entirely agree with, or be honest with myself before I change from atheism to Christianity?

Take care,
-Existentialist

Rhology said...

Hey Ex,

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

I'm just going to ask you how do you know it is the self-revelation of God?

I think, as many atheists do, that using the Bible is a circular way of arguing for the existence of God.

"How do you know God exists?"
His Word says He does.
"How do you know the Bible is God's Word?"
Because God exists.
"How do you know God exists?"
Ad infinitum.


I wouldn't believe it either if that were all there is. :-D
But let me redirect your attention to the link I posted, where I defend and explain what I mean.

"Repent," "Love the Lord your God with all your heart...," and I'm sure you know the rest.

1 Peter 1:3-5
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1 Peter 5:6-7
6Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time,
7casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.

Etc.
When you talk of relying on your own power, that is not the way someone who loved Jesus and has been transformed by Him talks.
We can do nothing apart from Him - John 15:5. Relying on ourselves is the quickest way to disaster.
That's what I was getting at.

even though the Bible says, "The old has passed away" (1 Cor. 5:7, I think).

2 Cor 5:17 actually.
Did the old pass away?
If not, why do you think it didn't?
If so, why are you embracing it and thinking "well, my desires haven't been automatically zapped into oblivion by God, so I guess He doesn't exist after all"?

a sincere belief does not mean the thing believed in is true.

That's why I didn't say "a sincere belief". I said "a true belief".

1. I didn't allow anything.

Well, you said this:
But I couldn't change. And I couldn't reconcile that with my faith. So inevitably I had to drop my faith.

How is that not what I said?

2. As I keep pointing out, God promised in His Word to change me. Ezekial 36:26-27, "I have taken away your heart of stone and given you a heart of flesh. I have put My Spirit within you to obey Me."

1) He might not have changed you, since you are not walking with Him now. Those whom God justifies give evidence of that justification by walking in holiness.
2) You're quoting the one side of the equation. Romans 6 discusses the same thing, and that discussion is followed by Romans 7, where Paul speaks with passion, hate, and grief against the desires that still wage war against the soul. Both are true, we can forget neither.

I might be an atheist, but I'm certainly not irrational.

Well, atheism is irrational in itself.
So is Sartre-ian philosophy.
But yeah, it was a compliment. :-D

You mean less than 2 weeks ago?

To be precise, yes.


I'm not trying to be rude here, but you go from "committed Christian" to apostate and within less than a week you've already launched a blog?
You're not even 18 yrs old, man. You might consider letting it marinate a little. Talk to your pastor. Ask him for secrecy and his confidence. You're staring an unliveable garbage heap of philosophy in the face, but you don't have to make the jump just yet!

The very fact that I'm willing to engage in a meaningful discussion about God, the Bible, and Jesus with you doesn't strike you with the feeling that I respect what you have to say?

Well, I was trying not to be overbearing. ;-)
Haha, oops.

a central part of my belief is the preservation of humanity

I'd very much like to discuss THAT. May I ask what you mean?

Struggle to believe in something that is irrational (in my mind), try to live in a way I don't entirely agree with, or be honest with myself before I change from atheism to Christianity?

Let me add a bit to the pot here.
Just as you said above: You know, as well as I do, that a sincere belief does not mean the thing believed in is true.
That applies to atheism as much as any other philosophy. The thing is, though, atheism is irrational and unliveable, both. It's an unsightly package.
I've been there, I was a hard agnostic/soft atheist for ~3 years in my teens. For a while, it was a struggle between what I thought was "scientific" (though I didn't really know what that meant), and by that I mean that "science has disproved God, hasn't it?" was my thing, and the understanding that all my hopes and dreams were worthless in the light of the fact that I would die and they'd all be lost.
God provided an answer to a question or two out of my plethora of questions, and changed my heart thereby. All the questions are not yet answered, but far more than enough to satisfy me have been.
For a direct answer, I'd say: Believe the truth. Atheism ain't it.
Also, less directly, even though this is the way we met, and I'm glad for that, I'd suggest that you chill with the blog for a while and even chill with reading so much of other blogs, like the ones linked-to below. They have no answers for you; I'm a witness of that! And I'm also doing my best to demonstrate that fact on my own blog and sometimes on others'. But maybe now is a better time for reflection and a serious talk with your pastor. You never know - though he may not seem like the type who could really help or take something like that seriously, God might use you to make a drastic change for the better in HIS life! That would be exciting!

I'll pray for you.
May I know at least your first name? Mine's Alan; a bit more about me is on my profile page.

Peace,
Rhology

Existentialist said...

But let me redirect your attention to the link I posted, where I defend and explain what I mean.

Could you provide the URL, please? I have trouble viewing it within my pop-up comment box.

When you talk of relying on your own power, that is not the way someone who loved Jesus and has been transformed by Him talks.

But I wasn't, or, at least I wasn't intending to. How else am I supposed to be changed except by praying, reading my Bible, memorizing my Bible (Psalm 119:11), et. al.?

We can do nothing apart from Him - John 15:5.

Why not throw Ephesians 2:1 in there as well? :-)

2 Cor 5:17 actually.

Thanks, I always manage to confuse 2 Cor. 5:17 with 1 Cor. 5:7 (ie. We walk by faith, not by sight).

Did the old pass away?

I suppose we wouldn't be here if it had, now would we? :)

If not, why do you think it didn't?

Because God doesn't exist, therefore there is no God to help me.

well, my desires haven't been automatically zapped into oblivion by God, so I guess He doesn't exist after all

You need to understand that when I'm talking about that, I refer to nearly two years worth of time, and not once did I feel even the slightest change.

That's why I didn't say "a sincere belief". I said "a true belief".

Could you please explain the difference?

How is that not what I said?

By "allow" I take that to mean that I could have prevented my sinful nature, assuming I have one. I'm saying I couldn't have prevented being born sinful any more than I could have prevented being born a homosexual.

He might not have changed you, since you are not walking with Him now.

Like I said, this is the culmination of nearly two years. I became a Christian a little after my sixteenth birthday, and we are now up to my eighteenth in two months. I was walking with Him then, yet nothing happened.

You're quoting the one side of the equation. Romans 6 discusses the same thing, and that discussion is followed by Romans 7, where Paul speaks with passion, hate, and grief against the desires that still wage war against the soul. Both are true, we can forget neither.

So why does God allow some Christians immediate release from sin (for example, making the alcoholic sober or the drug addict clean), but not others? Of course I know you can say, "He has the right to do as He wants," but why would God want any of His children to struggle with sin?

Well, atheism is irrational in itself.

And you know I'd bid to differ.

I'm not trying to be rude here

Hakuna matata, you aren't.

but you go from "committed Christian" to apostate and within less than a week you've already launched a blog?

Yes, for the very reason that is happening right now. I like to discuss my thoughts, and a blog is the perfect way to do that. Without it, I suppose you and I wouldn't be talking right now, correct? And if that were the case, then, supposing God exists, you wouldn't have known about my needs and been able to share the Gospel with me. And that just would have been a pity, now wouldn't it? :)

You're staring an unliveable garbage heap of philosophy in the face, but you don't have to make the jump just yet!

But if I no longer believe in Christianity, why should I stick with it?

Sure, I'd like to discuss it, but does that mean I need to discuss it from a point of view I personally disagree with?

Well, I was trying not to be overbearing.

Nonsense, you were no such thing!

One thing you should know about me, Rhology, is that I don't get easily offended, so please stop acting like I'm a bomb that could explode at any moment. If you feel the need to be blunt, be blunt.

May I ask what you mean?

Certainly.

What I mean is to keep the human civilization alive for as long as possible. My view of death is more typical of an atheist, unlike my refusal of dogmatic naturalism and materialism, in that I think death is the absolute end. When humans die out, the ride is over. But I'd like to keep humankind going as long as possible. Certainly it will come to end eventually, but to keep it going as long as possible is my goal. That is what gives meaning to my life. And from an outside perspective, that may seem absurd. But as Camus states, that is only because it is an outside perspective. It has value because I give it value.

That applies to atheism as much as any other philosophy.

I wouldn't have suggested otherwise, and please forgive me if that's the impression that I gave.

I agree that sincerity does not equal validity. Which is why I take the position of atheism, because I don't think the evidence that most theists propose is valid to support the existence of God.

I've been there, I was a hard agnostic/soft atheist for ~3 years in my teens. For a while, it was a struggle between what I thought was "scientific" (though I didn't really know what that meant), and by that I mean that "science has disproved God, hasn't it?" was my thing, and the understanding that all my hopes and dreams were worthless in the light of the fact that I would die and they'd all be lost.

I could care less, really, about science. Certainly I think it has helped our world, but do I rely on it? No. I am more philosophical in my outlook on the world.

And like I said, I don't believe God has been disproved, I merely believe He has been unproven.

And as for life being meaningless, I again point you to the Myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to roll a rock up a mountain which would inevitably roll back down and he'd have to do it all over again. Now, from our viewpoint, that would be meaningless and absurd. No progress is made, granted. But let's look at it from Sisyphus' point of view: maybe while rolling that rock up the mountain, he's come to love his environment. He enjoys the rock he's pushing, the cool air on his face, the bright sun upon his back, the chirping of nearby birds. For him, life has meaning because he has given it meaning.

Believe the truth. Atheism ain't it.

Coming from the Christian, of course atheism ain't it. :P

I'd suggest that you chill with the blog for a while

But blogging is a way in which I think out what I believe. Especially when I can have a two-way conversation like you and I are having.

even chill with reading so much of other blogs, like the ones linked-to below.

Hahaha! Actually, I haven't read a one of 'em since I linked to them. I find them too offensive. I'm looking for meaningful interaction with people, not disgruntled atheists looking to rile Christians up.

You never know - though he may not seem like the type who could really help or take something like that seriously, God might use you to make a drastic change for the better in HIS life!

True, if the case is that God exists.

May I know at least your first name?

Certainly. My name is Justin. ^-^ Pleasure to meet you, Alan.

Have fun praying for me,
-Existentialist

Rhology said...

Hey,

Sure, sorry about that.

1st link: http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/11/primer-on-bibles-infallibility.html

2nd link, from when I said "And it is unliveable as I explained before."
http://existentialismme.blogspot.com/2008/01/problem-of-evil.html#c6437486887580155045

3rd link, from when I said "So is Sartre-ian philosophy."
http://unavoxveritatis.blogspot.com/2007/12/nonsense-of-jean-paul-sartre.html

Talk to you soon!

Rhology said...

Hi Justin,

How else am I supposed to be changed except by praying, reading my Bible, memorizing my Bible (Psalm 119:11), et. al.?

All those external actions sound right.
Of a greater concern, however, is the state of your heart and spirit before God, and that's sthg that only you can work out between you and God.

Why not throw Ephesians 2:1 in there as well?

Might as well. :-D

Because God doesn't exist, therefore there is no God to help me.

It's impossible to prove a negative.
You lack the exhaustive knowledge of the universe to say that there's definitely not a God.
And you said as much later: I merely believe He has been unproven.

Anyway, check this out:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/09/god-of-bible-lives.html


not once did I feel even the slightest change.

Was it your understanding that knowing God would produce a "feeling"?

A true belief is a belief that corresponds to that which is reality.
A sincere belief is one that is believed sincerely.
It's the difference between saying "Jesus Christ is God" and "If I fly a plane into this building, I'll go to a heaven with 72 virgins even though I've spent the last month boozing and whoring in strip clubs."


I'm saying I couldn't have prevented being born sinful any more than I could have prevented being born a homosexual.

1) "Born a homosexual" is highly questionable.
2) Even if you were born a homosexual, all are born sinners. Some are born with more violent tendencies, some with propensity to crack addiction, etc. Such does not justify giving into those propensities.

I was walking with Him then, yet nothing happened.

What were you expecting to "happen"?

So why does God allow some Christians immediate release from sin (for example, making the alcoholic sober or the drug addict clean), but not others?

He wants to.


Of course I know you can say, "He has the right to do as He wants," but why would God want any of His children to struggle with sin?

Many reasons.
1) To demonstrate that they are His children, as 1 Cor 11:32 and Hebrews 12:5 say.
2) To make us more like Jesus.
3) And yet to demonstrate that we are nothing without Jesus; we have no righteousness in ourselves.
4) To mark the contrast between this life and heaven.
5) To underscore the justice and rightness of God's eventual judgment against sin.
Etc.

It sounds like there's an undercurrent of thought along the lines of "suffering is a terrible evil and never justified, never good". Why would you think that?

But if I no longer believe in Christianity, why should I stick with it?

B/c your lack of belief in it doesn't change the fact that it's true any more than flying an airplane into a bldg makes it true that 72 virgins are waiting for you.


If you feel the need to be blunt, be blunt.

Good to know. Thanks! :-)

It has value because I give it value.

This is one of the things I mean by the unliveability of your philosophy. You may not see it after only 3 wks or less living in it, but you will.
And it just so happens that *I* give value to raping little girls. It's the best thing in the world to do.
Is that OK? Why or why not?

For him, life has meaning because he has given it meaning.

For me, raping little girls has meaning because I've given it meaning.

Now, I know that sounds horrible, but it's a thought experiment. Let's follow that trail since I challenge your "we give life meaning" thing. You'll never be able to sustain it for your whole life; it will lead you to despair just like it did for Sartre and Camus, but my statements about raping little girls is meant to expose it that much more quickly.

Peace,
Rhology

Existentialist said...

Of a greater concern, however, is the state of your heart and spirit before God, and that's sthg that only you can work out between you and God.

As I understand it, that is something which I cannot do, given the Calvinistic understanding of total depravity. John 6:44, "No one is able to come to Me unless My Father draws him."

What do you think: Am I unable because I am unwilling, or am I unwilling because I am unable?

But truly it all boils down to the fact that I didn't choose to be unable or unwilling, Adam did, and for God to hold me accountable for that would be morally reprehensible. I don't remember choosing Adam to be my representative in the Garden of Eden, and had I been given the choice, I wouldn't have chosen someone so stupid as to disobey his Creator.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

Agreed, so would you do me the honor of proving as positive?

You lack the exhaustive knowledge of the universe to say that there's definitely not a God.

Agreed, but I am not saying, definitively, that God doesn't exist. I'm saying, as of right now, I assume He doesn't exist. And since I wouldn't believe in God even if the dead came back to life and warned me of the fate ahead, I won't struggle against Divine decree.

Was it your understanding that knowing God would produce a "feeling"?

I would assume, based on the conversion of Saul, that some identifiable "feeling" would present itself. Unregenerate and regenerate alike can read John 3:16, but only the regenerate would feel the immense love that allegedly accompanies it.

It's the difference between saying "Jesus Christ is God" and "If I fly a plane into this building, I'll go to a heaven with 72 virgins even though I've spent the last month boozing and whoring in strip clubs."

Could you try supporting that statement? Because you are trying to get me to agree that the former statement is a factual claim and the latter statement is a personal belief, and while in your mind that would be true, it isn't as obvious in mine.

To me, saying, "This rock is hard," would be a true belief while saying, "Jesus Christ is God," is a sincere belief.

"Born a homosexual" is highly questionable.

Not necessarily. In the Christian mind, homosexuality is a form of sin, all men are born sinners, so it is only natural that some men would be born homosexuals.

But I could see why you would want to discredit that idea, because you see it, the fundamental argument behind it: If I am born something, then I am not responsible for it because I had no choice. Therefore, if homosexuality is a choice, then the homosexual is responsible and therefore guilty.

Of course this is a two-edged sword, for as you just admitted all men are born sinners (Rom. 3:23), and that would necessitate, if we were to be honest and consistent, that the sinner is not responsible for being a sinner.

Now if you say being a sinner is a choice, then that would mean Jesus Christ is unnecessary, for man could simply choose to not be a sinner and would therefore no longer need salvation from sin.

And if that's the case, then the entire argument for Christianity is eroded, a thing which you cannot have.

Such does not justify giving into those propensities.

So are we judged on a basis of works or of nature? Because my understanding is that I am condemned for my sinful nature, not my sinful actions. Yet here you are saying I am justified by my actions rather than my nature, or at least that is the impression you are giving.

For although I might be unable to control my nature, I am in control of my actions, and therefore responsible for my actions. Sadly, my nature subtly and ultimately determines what my actions will be, and so I have no freedom, which is why Christianity is bunk.

What were you expecting to "happen"?

Call me crazy, but something along the lines of at least a decrease, albeit so minor, in my temptations.

He wants to.

I'm trying to understand this, so please help me out...

God doesn't want me to sin, but He wants me to struggle against sin?

To demonstrate that they are His children, as 1 Cor 11:32 and Hebrews 12:5 say.

God's way of letting me know He loves me is to let me struggle under sin's heavy burden? Wow, what a caring father... I sure wish my dad had let me play with that python when I was two, but I guess he didn't love me enough.

To make us more like Jesus.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus, being God incarnate, was safe from sinning, given His natural and immortal holiness, no matter how strong the temptation.

And yet to demonstrate that we are nothing without Jesus; we have no righteousness in ourselves.

Another thing I don't understand...

Why would God create something, let it get ruined, and then fix it to show His glory? It is sad to think God is limited by sin in order to reveal His maximum glory.

And if you say, "No He's not," then why did God allow sin to ruin His creation?

To mark the contrast between this life and heaven.

I don't need two years, or even a lifetime, to know the difference between earth and what Heaven is supposed to be like, thank you very much.

To underscore the justice and rightness of God's eventual judgment against sin.

You know, if He didn't allow suffering, He wouldn't have needed to underscore His justice.

It almost sounds like, to me anyway, the dentist who breaks his child's teeth just to show how wonderful and magnificant a dentist he really is.

Why would you think that?

Do you mean, "Upon what moral, absolute basis would you think that?"

B/c your lack of belief in it doesn't change the fact that it's true any more than flying an airplane into a bldg makes it true that 72 virgins are waiting for you.

Please remember that I didn't convert from Christianity to Islam, so would you kindly refrain from comparing me to them?

And likewise, belief in Christianity doesn't change the fact that it's any more false than believing when your heart stops beating is the end.

This is one of the things I mean by the unliveability of your philosophy. You may not see it after only 3 wks or less living in it, but you will.

If you understood my philosophy, maybe I'd give more credence to your advice.

But as Sartre said, "When you choose yourself, you choose man." And after much explaining, what he means is this: When you choose your own ethics, you are saying, "This is how I expect everyone else to live."

Let's follow that trail since I challenge your "we give life meaning" thing.

Okay, but first off, let's distinguish between "meaning" and "morals" because I think you are confusing the two, or at least using them interchangeably.

it will lead you to despair just like it did for Sartre and Camus

Existentialism is nothing less than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing.
-Jean Paul Sartre

Rhology said...

Hi Existentialist,


Don't make the mistake of "waiting for God to draw you". Just repent and submit to God. Let Him worry about when exactly He's drawing you. Maybe He's drawing you right now; you won't necessarily know it.
Unable/unwilling - the offer of the Gospel is made in good faith to all. Seriously, don't screw around with semantics. Semantics won't save you. Jesus will.


Adam did, and for God to hold me accountable for that would be morally reprehensible

Atheism has no way to make moral judgments one way or the other, so you are acting very inconsistently with your stated position here.
God is the definition of good; it's not up to you, a puny human in the midst of puny humans, to make moral law. And God provides a Savior anyway. Don't get all cranky about Adam's sin getting imputed to you; you've sinned enough to condemn yourself 1000s of times over. Besides, Christ's righteousness is available for imputation; you didn't die on the cross for it!


I wouldn't have chosen someone so stupid as to disobey his Creator.

Said the admitted homosexual.
Look, you are acting self-righteous, like a poseur. You're not fooling anyone. :-) Neither could I - I am a great sinner in need of a greater Savior, just like you are.


prove the positive?

Can you seriously not see the URLs I post?
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/09/god-of-bible-lives.html
I don't know what else to do besides post URLs. If you don't look at them, I don't know what you want except to post the entirety of the post's text in another comment. Should I do that?


only the regenerate would feel the immense love that allegedly accompanies it.

But it's not a matter of feeling, so some feel it and some don't.


Could you try supporting that statement

See the URL on proving God's existence above.


In the Christian mind, homosexuality is a form of sin, all men are born sinners, so it is only natural that some men would be born homosexuals.

I was questioning whether one is born with a genetic orientation towards homosexuality.


If I am born something, then I am not responsible for it because I had no choice.

You missed what I said directly afterwards:
2) Even if you were born a homosexual, all are born sinners. Some are born with more violent tendencies, some with propensity to crack addiction, etc. Such does not justify giving into those propensities.


the sinner is not responsible for being a sinner.


You don't get to decree responsibility and morality; God does. Adam represented you in the Garden, and yes, you would've done the same thing.
But let's grant for the sake of argument that you are absolved of responsibility for Adam's sin. You still ratify his decision virtually every minute of every day by sinning yourself. You are responsible for your own sin.
And you keep leaving out the fact that God is a great Savior and has provided a way of forgiveness of your sin that is also not from you.


So are we judged on a basis of works or of nature?

Both.


Yet here you are saying I am justified by my actions rather than my nature,

No, I'm not saying that at all, and there's not really a reasonable way to extract that meaning from what I actually said.
But since we're on the topic of justification, there are two ways to be righteous before God.
1) be perfect
2) receive someone else's perfect righteousness

You've already screwed up #1 all to heck. #2 is your (and my) only chance.


so I have no freedom, which is why Christianity is bunk.

That's a classic fallacy - the non sequitur. What would be the argument for "Christianity is bunk" following from "I don't have freedom", even if I granted that you don't have freedom?
How can you justify starting with the presupposition that "any system that says I'm not free is bunk"?



Call me crazy, but something along the lines of at least a decrease, albeit so minor, in my temptations.

Ever read 1 Corinthians 10:13?
Romans 7?

God doesn't want me to sin, but He wants me to struggle against sin?

Exactly.
When you are tempted with evil but choose to do good, you are very much like God, and He wants you to be like God.
And His people, those who believe in Jesus and have repented of their sin, have the Holy Spirit living inside of them, Who helps them in prayer and in resistance against sin. He is the Comforter, the Counselor. He doesn't leave us alone.

God's way of letting me know He loves me is to let me struggle under sin's heavy burden? Wow, what a caring father... I sure wish my dad had let me play with that python when I was two, but I guess he didn't love me enough.

It doesn't look like you even read the two verses to which I referred you.
Go back and read them; the characterisation you've made here is not consistent with their message.
Besides, who cares what *you* think is moral and good? I'm being serious - there are 6 billion + people in the world and YOU get to make the moral rules? What if I think your moral rules are evil and that *I* get to make my own rules? What reasonable response could you possibly give that doesn't beg the question?

I'm pretty sure that Jesus, being God incarnate, was safe from sinning, given His natural and immortal holiness, no matter how strong the temptation.

He was nevertheless tempted, just like we are.
Again, if you misinterpret the Bible, it's not my responsibility to allow you your error or follow in it.


Why would God create something, let it get ruined, and then fix it to show His glory?

Why should I assume that something is untrue or wrong if I don't understand it exhaustively?
You don't understand quantum physics exhaustively, do you? Differential equations? Calculus 4? You don't assume those are untrue for that reason, do you?
God has decided that such is what will bring Him the most glory. I don't really get it, but I say, "Cool, You're God. I'm guessing You know better than I do."


It is sad to think God is limited by sin in order to reveal His maximum glory.

Non sequitur again. And contradictory to the previous statement you made.


I don't need two years, or even a lifetime, to know the difference between earth and what Heaven is supposed to be like, thank you very much.

You seem to be a pretty prideful person.
Pride goes before the fall, you know.
And pride will be perhaps the biggest obstacle to anyone accepting the free forgiveness that Jesus offers. I'm not surprised you have broken your profession of faith, with that attitude.

if He didn't allow suffering, He wouldn't have needed to underscore His justice.

Why not trust Him that He thought thru that question as well?
Again, who made you the Pope of Morality, so that you can put God in the dock and pound the gavel?


Do you mean, "Upon what moral, absolute basis would you think that?"

I just want to know your argument for why suffering is never ever justified. You are apparently fond of making naked assertions; I want some meat on those bones.


belief in Christianity doesn't change the fact that it's any more false than believing when your heart stops beating is the end.

Which is why sincerity of belief is not what matters. It's the truth that matters.
Neither does sincerity of LACK OF belief matter. That's why I said what I said.
And just for the record, I was making an obvious example for explanation's sake, not comparing you to jihadist maniacs.

But as Sartre said, "When you choose yourself, you choose man."

Which is empty and unlivable.


When you choose your own ethics, you are saying, "This is how I expect everyone else to live."

That's great and all, but when everyone gets to choose their own ethics, most everyone chooses different. Some choose to kill and rape. What reasonable answer can you give me that tells me why it would be wrong to choose an ethic where murder and rape are GOOD things?
Don't say, "It's just obvious!" It's not obvious to a lot of people. It might be to YOU, but you're just one person.
Don't say, "On the basis of empathy with others!" So what? Some people don't care about empathy with others. They prefer to push others down.
And don't appeal to a Western legacy of fairness. Most people who've ever lived aren't familiar with it. And it's begging the question.



It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all.

It may not be TRYING, but it's nonetheless succeeding.


But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians

I didn't say that.
Despair is despair. You'll find out, just keep following Sartre.
It'll be boosted when you realise you have no possible answer for the moral quandary I've just listed.

it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing.

Maybe those of Sartre's day did, but my view is not so simplistic.


Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing

Then existentialism is even stupider than I gave it credit for.

Let me ask you point blank:
Did you read the post I referred to on the existence of God?
Did you read my friend's post on existentialism?
If not, would you please do so?

Peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

Go thru this. Should be fun.
It's unlike probably anythg you've seen before.
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org

Rhology said...

Also, here are some quotes from atheists that illustrate what I've been saying about the unlivability of atheism.

http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/AtheistBible_08-07.pdf

Rhology said...

Long time no see. Just wanted to point out to you a series of serious, rational deconstruction of Hitchens' book "god is not Great".