Skip to main content
I need to be the Apostle of The Blindingly Obvious for a bit here. The conviction of theists of all flavors is that God (or gods, if you like) has spoken. Among theists, then, disagreements center around either the source or the content of divine revelation. Most of the disputes in the "culture wars" arise because non-theist people have a fundamental assumption that religion as we find it is merely human; the natural world is all that truly matters or exists. So, the answer to the question, "Why don't these Christians just live like normal people and embrace X, Y, and Z?" is, "We can't. God has spoken in Jesus Christ." Not that most seculars live consistently by what we find in nature anyway, but the point is, if you're arguing with a Christian, if you hold on to the assumption that religion is a nice story with an ethical gloss, you'll think he's nuts. But you should question your own premise on that one. I agree with the atheists on this point: if religion is merely human, it's pointless. Three basic options in the world, as I see it. 1. Theism; 2. Existentialism (it's like a Choose Your Own Adventure Book, but with life) or 3. Death. The funny thing is, even if you choose (2), you'll move toward one of the other ones. If you move toward others as you are enjoying yourself, you'll end up a theist, probably. And, if you're any sort of reasonable person, you'll start to notice that you can't really create meaning; it's already there. If you have a friend, truly, you'll be sharing in his meaning, not creating it. Since he knows he didn't create squat either, that should be an interesting conversation. There also appear to be people who look like they are enjoying themselves, but they've actually chosen (3) in slow motion. How did Red say it? A man either gets busy living, or gets busy dying. Captain Pike was talking to the doctor (in the first Star Trek pilot, "The Cage," set in 2254) and he said the same thing. Dr. Mark something. I digress.
The will to power is the only thing left, if there is nothing in nature that binds human organizations to a higher law. Which leads me to ask, "Why should I trust your benevolence?" Even revelation is yet higher than the law of nature. Yet, secularist, are you certain you are living in that accord?
Personally, I don't need religion to be ethical. I'm ethical regardless. If you are thinking that religion is a moral compass only, I don't get that. We don't need a fancy story to be good to one another. That should be obvious. But that explanation holds a lot of sway for some reason. Help me out. No; I'm religious because God exists. I wouldn't do or say any of these things common to the life of faith unless I thought it was true.
I appreciate the self-centered atheist all that much more, because he's being consistent, at least. He's in denial, on some level, but he at least acknowledges the logical conclusion of what he believes. Self and Death. Most people are somewhere in between, and thus, are inconsistent. And that's good, on one level. It can be irritating when people who claim to be relativists are so full of moral outrage about tons of things. OK, sometimes amusing. Not often, though. I digress, again.
Christopher Hitchens was one of my favorite dudes to read. Not his philosophy. But he was interesting on many subjects. He mentioned that this was his favorite verse. I agree with Hitch; do this verse. Assuming the words correspond to real concepts, do this verse. When you hit a wall, it's really a door; knock on it. Someone will answer.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...