What If The Choice Is Between God And Government? From Where Does YOUR Authority Derive?

(Brunette here.) Are you skeptical about religion? Yes? . . . me too. Are you equally skeptical of Atheism? (Ditto.) Atheism seems quite popular at present; I take no issue with individual atheists, though evangelizing atheists (evangelists of any sort, frankly) DO irk me. Faith is an extremely personal thing to those who possess it. In tossing religion out the window, does it concern you that God might get the boot too? Recently I’ve come to see that as a problem that affects Americans (and Western cultures) in numerous ways. Once you abandon the tenet of a loving creator, you also abandon the presumed basis of equality, for starters.

Consequently, the presumption of equality risks becoming a casualty of the courts, crooked cops, politicians, and academics (i.e., lesser authorities) . . . it becomes Lucy’s football (of Charlie Brown fame) rather than the immovable cornerstone of justice. The idea is that we’re all created equal (by God), so the system must treat individuals as such. That concept is too important to scrap; it’s repugnant to see it done casually out of misguided disdain for religion.

Equality raises the humble and humbles the mighty, exactly as a loving God might wish, for the sake of peace among men. Take God-given equality away from the equation, and you’ve got what looks much like the world today: noisy people claiming to be oppressed, while in reality acting to oppress others in the search for “equality” as they themselves define it — usually favoring them, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I now see God as the ultimate defender of Individualism and therefore Liberty. Yet it seems that so many individualists reject God altogether. Unfortunately, the very authority you may choose to deny God will inevitably end up in the hands of lesser creatures; and (as we’ve seen) often the most corrupt and self-serving sorts. In a society where “In God We Trust” is considered an anachronism, those vile men and women most eager to sully their higher selves for worldly gain tend to rise to the top of societies like so much pond scum. If you’re unwilling to cede authority to God, behold the consequences . . . they’re probably all around you. In your face, too. Just as more guns = less crime, perhaps more God = less (and better) government?

Government, perhaps more than any other institution, derives benefit from Godlessness. Ironically, religious institutions do too. What need (apart from a community gathering place) has one of a church, mosque, or temple when one can have a personal connection to the Big Guy (or Gal, if you prefer) without requiring any middlemen? Whether it’s a walk with Jesus or a meditation on the Buddha, it’s an often solitary pursuit and a peaceful one . . . no mob scene need apply.

No middlemen . . . isn’t that the point of a good (as opposed to a tyrannical) God? Either we agree amongst ourselves to act as if there is (or may be) a higher power, a supreme authority that none may rise above, or authority becomes a golden ring there for the grasping by . . . well, the grasping. A loving God is the sole authority that offers no incentive — and is instead a disincentive — to wield power over others.

A loving God is the internal police force that holds us accountable for our actions, as well as the internal counselor who offers solace and mercy when we screw up, and encourages us to learn from our mistakes rather than damning us for them. God is the internal teacher who shows us the power of truth and the value of forgiveness. God offers us grace and rewards gratitude with a sense of peace and well-being, just as God allows us to punish ourselves by rejecting those freely offered gifts.

It appears America’s Founding Fathers understood all of this, probably much better than I do. Trust in God, rather than in man-made authority, made America unique and Americans took pride in the society that resulted.

If human rights aren’t acknowledged as God-given, endless squabbling ensues about what those rights are and who determines them. As with equality, if we fail to accredit God for bestowing human rights and Liberty upon us all, well then . . . the resulting mess visits consequences upon us all. Governments become enabled to take liberties with us and restrict rights. Again, we find ourselves playing Charlie Brown to Lucy’s football.

Naturally, I understand why so many have soured on religion . . . having had bad experiences via religious upbringing, and/or education. Nowhere have I seen more heart-wrenching tales of religious oppression than at ExMuslim TV (twitter account) or their Youtube channel. The clips are all short and I highly recommend them. Understandably, it seems most ex-Muslims tend to become atheists and reject God outright. Many risk their lives in doing so; it’s important enough to them . . . “give me liberty or give me death” ring a bell? Few things enrage me like hearing the slippery term ‘Islamophobia’ used to silence the courageous voices of apostates from Islam: Listen to them, please.

Millions of ExMuslims are forced to publicly identify as Muslims.” “Am I an Islamophobe? Or isn’t Islam freedomophobe?” “I am an ExMuslim because I believe in equality and humanity.” “Nothing demeans women more than Islamic law. Beware of its advocates disguised as feminists.” “The importance of supporting ExMuslims.” “Mum said, ‘You can’t tell anyone else, they will kill you.'” Those are all very short clips, but should begin to convey the scale of the problems ExMuslims face. Yes, we need to be concerned about Islam, very much so — however, the quieter Muslims are the ones likely to be suffering in silence, afraid to risk death and dishonor for expressing very reasonable doubts.

Just as gun-grabbers are unable or unwilling to see that responsible gun owners keep their neighborhoods safer, it seems to me that people who disdain or disparage God (and others’ faith in God) are reckless to do so. Sure, religion can be a treacherous thing and attract fanatics, but think of it as a spiritual means of self-defense against an uncertain and sometimes cruel world. Take half an hour to listen to David Wood’s stunning testimony, if you haven’t — if you have a heart, you’ll come away with a deeper understanding of what religion (and God) can mean to a person. Alternatively, here’s a much shorter version of his story.

The faith of our neighbors might shield us, both culturally and spiritually, from the growth, power, and rapacity of government — a god of choice for some non-believers. Christians by and large tend to be good self-governors, despite a few radical fringe groups that seem to get all the press these days. Christians, like conservatives, tend to receive a lot of unwarranted abuse and don’t tend to noisily protest — unlike the left with their “safe spaces,” “microaggressions,” and their recent alarming trend of anti-white sentiment.

And IF there is a God, perhaps God (this He/She business gets awkward) DOES care for us as individuals. Perhaps we’re all a bit special in God’s eyes. Imagine you’re a doting parent, yet your kids grow up to be bitter, angry, and disrespectful. You want them to live happy and successful lives, but they choose to get into trouble and then expect you to bail them out. They scorn your gifts and affection, only want money from you, or a new car, or a ride somewhere. A loving parent holds out hope the kids will change for the better with time, and tries to help . . . but it’s up to the sons and daughters to use their freedom wisely.

In the end, I’ve decided that the brilliant Jordan Peterson gets it right in this YouTube clip, “Do you believe that God Exists?” Jordan replies, “I ACT AS IF God exists. Now, you can decide for yourself whether that means that I believe in Him.” Jordan has some fascinating insights regarding God and religion. For example, in this YouTube clip with Dave Rubin. Or here, where he’s asked about his religious beliefs. Maybe “the real reason modern people can’t see God is that they won’t look low enough.” I’ve seen other talks, too, and recommend his new YouTube channel here, or his Vid.me channel if you prefer. YouTube lately has gone on a rampage of censorship, and apparently outraged many users like Peterson, Paul Joseph Watson, Diamond and Silk, Joy Villa, (just to name a few) some of whom will be seeking out alternate platforms.

Here’s a fantastic introduction to Jordan Peterson’s incredible work if you’re unfamiliar with him: Postmodernism: How And why it must be fought (12 min.) . . . he speaks of “The paramount importance of the individual and the divinity of speech, that’s something to sell!” (to young people who are searching for meaning in life.) He packs so much into that short speech, it’s like learning what’s wrong with today’s world in a nutshell. If you know students who’ve been indoctrinated by the left, and wish to red-pill them, turn them on to Jordan Peterson’s work. Here’s J.P.’s Twitter, or find his other social media accounts at JordanBPeterson.com.

In an interview I’ve been unable to find again for this article, Jordan describes his concept of God — I’ll attempt to sum it up: God is the spirit of humanity, across time and space, encompassing not only billions of different individuals, but the many stages of you and your own life. (That’s a clumsy attempt, in my own words, to recapture the gist of what I heard. He’s eloquent and well worth listening to; one reason it’s so hard to recall which particular clip that was from . . . I’ve listened to many.) 😉

You’re a very different person at 40 than you were at 20, or at 2, and you’ll be a changed person when you’re 80 . . . and if you’re on an intellectual journey, rather than stuck in whatever ideological rut you were born into, you might have very different ideas from one stage of life to another. You’ll likely have confronted and discarded much in the way of nonsensical ideas, and embraced perspectives that would once have seemed alien. You’ll have learned from your experiences, to put it simply. So God, in a sense, is the sum total of human potentiality, including yours. It’s a theory I find intriguing.

In “Discourse with moderate Muslims,” Jordan says, “War is what happens when discourse fails . . . truthful discourse, that’s the hope for the salvation of the world.” Between the slippery and naive left’s approach of coddling Muslims with ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations,’ and the fervently hostile approach of some on the right to Islam, there’s the middle course of discourse. And I agree with Jordan, it’s the only way we can continue to coexist and come to terms with fellow humans of incompatible ideologies — drop the ideologies for the sake of dialog and the future of humanity.

The problem is not that people believe in a God, it’s what God the individuals believe in . . . and man’s various concepts of God are certainly NOT created equal. (Don’t they all claim to be superior?) They range from the wonderful to the horrifying, so it’s vital to distinguish between the traditions and retain the ability to discuss them. That’s why Sharia is so treacherous; no criticism is tolerated. The less criticism is tolerated, the more thoughtful criticism becomes urgently necessary.

So for heaven’s sake, reject God if you choose . . . but don’t badger others to relinquish their faith. Can it hurt to suppose that there MIGHT be a God, a creator who loves us, and ACT as though God has made us all equal so we don’t have to endure all the detestable squabbling about who’s most oppressed (a contest Maajid Nawaz has dubbed “oppression Olympics”)? If you won’t acknowledge that Liberty (free will) is God-given, how are you going to defend it against gangs and governments, short of war? Did God make you a sovereign individual, or is a cursory nod to God too high a price to pay for individual sovereignty? For human rights?

Can you at least give God’s existence the BENEFIT OF A DOUBT for the sake of retaining civilization, for the future of humanity and our home planet? Can you conjure up some gratitude for God for the blessings of Life, Liberty, Individual Sovereignty, and Equality, or is that too much to ask?

MAGA . . . Make America GRATEFUL Again!

16 Comments to “What If The Choice Is Between God And Government? From Where Does YOUR Authority Derive?”

  1. Henry Says:

    I never thought I’d ever make a “check your privilege” argument, but one follows.

    “If human rights aren’t acknowledged as God-given, endless squabbling ensues about what those rights are and who determines them.”

    This entire essay seems to be based on the same fallacious assumption as Pascal’s Wager: that your god is the only god, the right god, and that furthermore, what you have convinced yourself he wants is what he actually wants.

    It’s abundantly clear that the Founders were informed — in certain instances where faith may have been lacking, then at least by shared culture — by the tenets of the God of the Bible. You write as if the privilege bestowed by this historical happenstance is somehow natural and universal. It is not.

    When Paul tells the government that his god doesn’t allow him to work on Sundays, the American system bestows that claim with enhanced credibility — despite the fact that Saul, who claims to worship the very same god, says that his told him he is not allowed to work Saturdays; and moreover, the government treats that claim as equally credible.

    When Joseph says that his god told him to marry multiple women and keep black people out of his temples, does he enjoy the same enhanced credibility under the American system? It seems he does not. How about Abdul, whose god has ordered him to carve his daughter’s privates, or to stone the drag queen across the street? By all accounts, Abdul is out of luck in the USA — though as if to illustrate my point, there are other countries in which his god’s commands enjoy enhanced credibility under their civil law. Think about that.

    Given this background, arguing that denying God forces us to abandon the defense of God having told us we have certain rights, is like arguing that accepting a job forces us to abandon Welfare. Though both claims are true, it’s only a social and historical happenstance that finds you entitled to either in the first place, and many would argue that morally you were never so entitled.

    In other words, if I don’t believe in your god — or if I somehow can seize power over you by arguing that the edicts of your god must now be put to evidentiary testing same as any other fact in the legal arena — then your possession of the rights that your god told you you have is no more secure than my possession of the same rights as a disbeliever in gods. In other words, hiding behind your god is affording you temporary concealment, but not the solid cover you believe you have.

    Those who feel they cannot depend on divinity as a foolproof legal crutch ultimately realize that any right you have, you have only because either you can physically defend it, or because nobody is interested in relieving you of it at the moment… and the former is the only circumstance you can control in the long run.

  2. MamaLiberty Says:

    There is a difference between a creator, and a god. Most gods are whatever a person chooses/allows to dictate their lives and choices – usually thereby removing any personal responsibility for those actions and choices. “God told me…” And groups of these people have banded together to form organized religion, which further solidifies the self deception.

    Evidence of the creator, on the other hand, is abundant and clear. That creator also, very obviously, has little or no regard for individuals. Life was created, and left to us to use, mold and abuse as we may. I don’t think individuals can expect any more personal relationship with the creator than microbes have with a scientist… and especially not some loving, emotional relationship. Do microbes pray? I don’t know.

    But the whole point of individual liberty is that each person chooses for him/herself. As long as there is no initiation of force to include others against their will, each one can believe exactly whatever they want… as long as they are prepared to accept the consequences rather than burden others with them. Unfortunately, there are a great many people who will use guns, knives and anything else available to do exactly that.

    It is those, among others, that cause the wise to practice all the requirements for effective self defense.

  3. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Interesting choice of avatar, Henry.

    As for your reaction to the essay, did you get as far as the Jordan Peterson material and links toward the end? It rather seems as though you’re responding to things I did not write, and/or things I certainly didn’t intend the way you read them, so I’m bemused. Perhaps you’ve put my words into a familiar context that’s non-applicable here?

    Vin and I are assuredly not Bible-thumpers . . . nothing of the sort. I’m just sick and tired of seeing decent people get bashed for their harmless religious convictions. Especially when others with harmful (aggressive, violent, coercive) religious convictions get a pass, because they’re “minorities.”

    I put a great deal of time and a great deal of thought into this piece, and am not going to attempt a re-write or lengthy exchanges in the comment section.

    At least now you can say you’ve made your first “check your privilege” argument. 😉

  4. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Dear Mama,

    You and I see things differently. Guess I have a mystical streak, I never could get into Ayn Rand largely for that reason. Whereas I very much enjoy Jordan Peterson’s talks, as you’ve probably already noticed.

    One of the things he stresses, is that young people (his students) are generally hungry for a sense of personal responsibility . . . something that many have not been taught. He says it give their lives meaning, which I see as a good thing. 🙂

    Anyway, IOU an email & will try to catch up soon.

  5. MamaLiberty Says:

    I don’t have a lot of use for Rand either. 🙂 I’ve never been “mystical” in the religious sense of it, but I find endless mystery and wonder in the natural world, contemplating the universe I understand no more than that microbe – in comparison with the vast potential of space and time.

    I practice non-aggression and “live and let live” because that is the best way for me to live, in my own self interest. I don’t find any need for a “god” for that. Does that mind set come from the creator? I don’t know.

    As for young people demonstrating personal responsibility, I know plenty of them here in rural Wyoming, but wouldn’t expect to find many in the city or a college. I’m glad if there actually are some.

    Looking forward to your email, as always! 🙂

  6. Sam Fox Says:

    I am very grateful that Yeshua Messiah [Jesus Christ] did not come to start a new religion. He had already done that via Moses. When that one failed, as He knew it would, Elohim sent Yeshua to live amongst us as an example of what a relationship with the Creator, Elohim, was like. Yeshua came to show us that through Him [Yeshua] any one that chooses to can have a relationship with His Father.

    The New Covenant Yeshua established is not replete with rules & regulations though it does reflect the 10 Commandments given to Moses. But even the ‘Big 10″ were over ridden so to speak with you shall love God with all your heart & love your neighbor as yourself. All too often men like to take over stuff. They add rules & codes & their own ideas…they turn the simple into the complicated, like what men have done to our founding documents.

    As a follower of The Way I admit I did not realize & learn what I am now saying right away. But Jesus was kind, gentle & patient with me till I understood that He did not want to saddle me or anyone with a ‘new religion’ called Christianity, He just wanted & wants me to walk humbly with my Creator as best I can, based on HIs New Covenant aka New Testament.

    I borrow a line from the song White Houses, by Eric Burdon & the Animals–“There’s a Bible in the drawer of the hotel room, cyin out to be read! It stays right there collecting dust ’cause no one understands what’s being said!”

    I know more about the Book now than I did starting out in ’69. The Spirit of the Christ has helped me a lot in that regard. I still have so much to learn, but that is not His issue for me. What He wants from me is to live what I have learned. He has helped me in that area as well…

    SamFox

  7. Sam Fox Says:

    Regarding the tile of the piece, What If The Choice Is God Or Government: that conflict is drawing closer to each one every day. That event to me is satan trying to ‘run the place’ on a global scale & will be when the RFID chip replaces $$. I will have to politely decline the chip or whatever medium replaces cash if it is to be put on or in my body.

    The Book in the hotel room drawer I mentioned in my above post tells me that event will at one point or another be a reality. Fulfilled prophecy is one reason I trust the Bible & it’s Author.

    One thing about the Book. It doesn’t promise a bed of roses in this life, though it does promise that Elohim the Creator will be with His own at every turn. Shucks Homer, Jesus was perfect & look what religion did to Him…

    SamFox

  8. R R Schoettker Says:

    If the choice is between god or government then either a church or a State is defining and dictating the choice. I reject both. With regard to the derivation of my “authority”, unlike churches or governments, I have never claimed to have any over anyone but myself as a self-proprietor and the source of that is my natural right by birth. That fact was informed, not by revelation from a god or the coercion of a government but by my reason and conscience through the practice of philosophy.

  9. Arrow Says:

    Right on R R. Ditto on “I reject both.” Several questions jump into view. Who is providing the options? On what authority? What is their intent? Who do they answer to?

  10. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Sam — thanks for weighing in. I expected to take some flak for this piece, and feel to some extent it’s been misconstrued in a few of the comments here. So yours are doubly welcome.

    You hit the nail on the head for me with this:

    “But even the ‘Big 10′ were over ridden so to speak with you shall love God with all your heart & love your neighbor as yourself. All too often men like to take over stuff. They add rules & codes & their own ideas…they turn the simple into the complicated, like what men have done to our founding documents.”

    Only recently have I really begun to understand the seeming paradox (if you will) of Jesus as both King of Kings, and simultaneously mankind’s greatest servant: that “he who is the least among you is the greatest” . . . and you’re right, religion treated Him very badly indeed. I doubt He’d be well received in many churches today.

    R R and Arrow — reject religion, by all means! ‘What if the choice is between God and government’ does NOT equal ‘Church vs State’ in my mind, but individual vs collective. God created human individuals as equals; the State treats people as though some are more equal than others (a la Orwell’s Animal Farm.) Nowhere am I arguing on behalf of any *church* or religion, I argue on behalf of freedom of conscience.

    Seriously . . . would you knowingly CHOOSE to live among a Godless culture? Somehow I doubt you’d enjoy it. The more I see Godlessness flourishing (and even celebrated), the more concerned I become for America and mankind.

    Vin helped me out by finding some relevant quotes, mainly from the founding fathers, which follow. Perhaps Bastiat put it best, however:

    “Life, Faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place.” (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, p. 5-6.)

    James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

    Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

    “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (George Washington, Farewell Address, Writings of Washington, Vol. 35, p. 229.)

  11. R R Schoettker Says:

    “Seriously . . . would you knowingly CHOOSE to live among a Godless culture? ”

    Since, in my opinion, there isn’t any god, I by default do live in such a place. Unlike believers I find that culture depraved and perverted, not by the absence of belief in a god but instead by the absence of individual ethics, personal responsibility, and the abandonment of reason and sapience. I have never found the path to right and proper behavior to in any legitimate way necessitate the prior belief in a supernatural entity. Substitute nature or natural in all the quotes above for god or divine and not a single detriment is made to the sentiments expressed. To equate religion with morality as equivalents is a fallacious relationship. I have always believed that no man was ever made a better person through the auspices of any collective than he was made by nature at birth or through his own individual efforts during his life.

  12. R R Schoettker Says:

    ‘‘What if the choice is between God and government’ does NOT equal ‘Church vs State’ in my mind, but individual vs collective. God created human individuals as equals;…”

    In my opinion, there is no ‘god’ or supernatural creator or originator of the physical world or living beings. Humans are a derivative and component part of the physical and material world. They were not ‘made’ by such an entity but instead the reverse is true; that the concept of such an entity was fabricated by humans as a simplistic explanation of a world that was too complex to understand prior to the sustained and gradual examination and understanding of reality accumulated over time and multiple generations of discovery. Unless you are claiming that god speaks to you personally, then almost by default, to follow the precepts of any god is indeed equal to submission to the leadership of a CHURCH who defines what god says and what he requires of you and ALL of them require that this obeisance be made to the human and mortal leadership of the church who they assert is the agent of god on earth.

  13. Vin's Brunette Says:

    R R, your idea of god is clearly NOT my idea of God.

    My idea of God can most simply be summed up by George Fox’s teaching that there is “That of God in every man.” God, by existing in each one of us, grants us each sovereign authority over ourselves. In your opinion that’s apparently nonsense . . . but America’s founders (who weren’t necessarily religious) obviously understood the importance of that. It would seem your surrogate god is Reason . . . fine, but whatever you do avoid Jordan Peterson’s work; he’s quite persuasive. 😉

  14. R R Schoettker Says:

    “R R, your idea of god is clearly NOT my idea of God.”

    I should hope not, after all your not me but you.

    “God, by existing in each one of us, grants us each sovereign authority over ourselves. In your opinion that’s apparently nonsense”

    No, I would not say nonsense.That isn’t the way I see the source of the ‘grant’ but I try not to disparage much less direct the beliefs of others as that would be a usurpation of their rightful prerogative. As I noted above, substitute nature for god in your statement and we would have little difference in sentiment or meaning between us regarding individual sovereign authority.

    “It would seem your surrogate god is Reason….”

    No, I have no god, actual or surrogate. The only originating or foundational sovereign power that I acknowledge are the physical laws of nature and in these I see no aspect of sentience. Reason is a tool, one of the attributes bestowed on humans by nature that if employed can aid in the discernment of the truth in reality.

    Thanks for engaging in the conversation.

  15. Richard Says:

    One thing that is true is that our actions are extensions of what we believe. We do the things we do because of what we believe. What we believe eventually would make us who we are as individuals and as a society.

    There is an argument made in the article about acting as if there is a God. I believe this is simply not being truthful. If there’s a God, then act on it. If there is not a God, then act on it But we shouldn’t be acting as IF God is, if He is not. That would becoming a hypocrite, lying t ourselves and to others. And living in lies would always bring catastrophic results.

    So the question is: “Is there a God”? And then If there is, what kind of God is He? Has He revealed Himself to us so that we can know Him and what He wants? Can we find out who He is and what is He like? Does He has a purpose, a reason for creating this world? Do He has a purpose, a reason for creating you and me?

    These are all important questions that we need to ask ourselves. We cannot act on anything that is not true. We have the obligation to find out what is truth and act on it. If we do not do that, then we are only hiding behind excuses and we are not being honest to ourselves.

    What about the atheists who believes there is no God. Now, mind you, you cannot prove there’s no God. To prove a negative is much much more difficult than to prove the positive. In any case, if one truly doesn’t believe in a Creator God, then the logical conclusion should be that they are an accident in a random and chaotic universe that has no meaning. No meaning! No purpose! So then how should we act? Then just do whatever you want, because tomorrow we die and that’s the end of it! And as you all know the result of this logical conclusion is hell on earth.

    Does this fact prove that there must be a God that created the universe with a purpose? I don’t think I can prove God to you, but I can tell you that God has proved Himself to me, through His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, through the spiritual experiences that no carnal mind can comprehend, through wonderful miracles, through undeniable Providences, etc, etc. Most importantly, though the personal experiences of His own presence. I can tell you, God is real, Jesus is real, Holy Spirit is real. He loves you and died for your sin, so you can be reconciled to God and find the real purpose of your life, that is to love Him and know Him and serve Him. If you believe it, then act on it.

    Let’s be real on what we believe it and act on it!

  16. parabarbarian Says:

    I will argue that authority *always* end up in the hands of “lesser creatures”. Some exert that authority in the name of a God or Gods and some don’t. However, when the boot is on your neck it makes no difference what myths the oppressor holds dear.

    A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

    The argument about a loving creator is really kind of silly. If Gods are ontologically distinct from biological organisms then, evolution is similar enough to many theologies that is could be called a God. Like the common modern notion of a deity, evolution is an immaterial process. It is also omnipresent in nature and at least as extensive as the planet’s surface. It is billions of years old. It was not made but arose from the structure of the universe.

    That does sound a lot like a God.

    Of course, this creator has no mind to go with its nonexistent body. In many ways its workmanship is, by intelligent standards, very poor design. It is incredibly wasteful and it isn’t nice — not at all.

    If Darwin and his predecessors had discovered that life was created by an immaterial, intelligent and benevolent agent, his contemporaries would have marveled and said “Why, that’s God!” However, what Darwin actually discovered is a blind, idiot God that was not comfortably transcendent and loving but really, really different from its creations.

Comment:

RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe