Tuesday, October 29, 2013

ON G-O-D: Jersey Flight

"The genuine refutation must penetrate the opponent's stronghold and meet him on his own ground; no advantage is gained by attacking him somewhere else and defeating him where he is not." Hegel's Science of Logic, A. V. Miller (George Allen and Unwin, London, Humanities Press, New York, 1969), p.581  

[Think.  Think.  Think…] Of course, this is precisely what we cannot do without an object or topic upon which to think. So how then, can we discourse on god without a clear definition of god? This is the whole problem with theism. This is the summation of the strongest refutation of theism. All the difficulty surrounding theism arises precisely at the point one tries to mark out a clear definition of god. And even if one establishes a definition one does not stick to what they proclaim; the idea of god is an idea of metamorphosis; it is an idea of vague shadow; it is an idea without a constant. The theist has no choice but alter the use of god in relation to the emphasis of his evidence (the nature of his so-called proof)… different proof is liable to prove different gods.
 
What is the proper definition of god and is this definition determined from the evidence or does the nature of god determine the nature of evidence to be used? 

Men start with god long before they start with evidence. And perhaps one can tell us this: the theist is ever so fond of speaking in terms of universals; of the necessity of objectivity, then let him begin with his notion of god; it is only fair to ask (since he requires absolute consistency in the case of the opposite view): what is the universal, authoritative and true definition of god? Until this has been established how shall we rightfully discuss the idea of god? 

And how great is the burden of this proof considering the variables, the sheer violent diversity surrounding the term god? Make no mistake; the ontology of G-O-D is the central issue of G-O-D itself!                

Thursday, October 24, 2013

CHRISTIAN MIND CONTROL- Jersey Flight


The student should be bothered by the teacher who isolates him, who seeks to control him,
forbids him to use his mind and manifests insecurity at the sight of opposition. A strong theory should be able to withstand criticism, and will often earn greater respect under the knife. However, those who are afraid to ask questions are often afraid because their systems are threatened by reason. Essentially, the Christian admits, though not directly, that he is forced to suppress reason as a necessary sacrifice by which to retain his Christianity.   
 
By ‘dialogue’ people mean that you must not have the old wranglings we used to have,
but you must come and exchange opinions and try to see the other person’s point of
view… But where our friends of the ecumenical movement go so wrong is that they
encourage dialogue with Roman Catholics, for instance, or with people who deny the
very elements of the Christian faith. And my reply is that you must not, and you cannot,
have a dialogue with people who either deny the faith altogether or so add to it that
they deny it.[1]

If the atheist was to suggest a similar approach to reason, it would look something like
this: 
 
By ‘dialogue’ people mean that you must not have the old wranglings we used to have,
but you must come and exchange opinions and try to see the other person’s point of
view… But where our atheist friends go so wrong is that they encourage dialogue with
Christians, for instance, or with people who deny the very elements of atheism. And my
reply is that you must not, and you cannot, have a dialogue with people who either deny
atheism altogether or so add to it that they deny it.
 
Indeed, the above is an example, of precisely how an atheist, or any thinker for that matter, should not reason.   
The Christian must prohibit counterfactual thinking because it remains antithetical to the content of his system; for he has been told, since the earliest stages of his emotional conversion, to avoid dialogue with non-believers, with those who fail to affirm his creed. And this is precisely because Christianity cannot withstand the legitimate assault of reason:
 
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create
obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
Romans 16:17 ESV
 
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your
house or give him any greeting…” 2 John 1:10 ESV
 
The disciple is not encouraged to ask the skeptic why he rejects his dogma, but is simply told to avoid those who do not believe. This is backwards; it does not take mankind forward, but holds him captive to a mindless creed; a system he is never permitted to question. For religious leaders the risk is simply too great, they cannot afford to expose their followers to the benefits of reason, and this is because reason brings with it the danger of apostasy, and for those with power, could mean the painful loss of that power.
 
The deeper we probe the darker the light of religion becomes, for on the basis of its own principles Christianity cannot even justify a conversation with itself. The disciple remains confined by the teacher’s dogma; for he is not only commanded to keep away from non- believers, but is also commanded to keep away from non-corresponding-believers, away from all those who fail to affirm his creed. Hence, consistent Christianity, or at least the kind taught by Paul, must proceed against itself as a kind of suicidal solipsism. The question then, is how those who follow the dogma of Paul can logically follow the dogma of James, when the dogma of Paul is set against the dogma of James? And to those who reject the tension between Paul and James, I tell you, these men are only metaphors for the scope of Christianity!
   
Perhaps the point is that it is always dangerous to join a sect, which is so certain of the truth, that it admonishes its disciples to avoid reason. For a man who is taught to reject reason can made to believe anything. The Christian must control the mind precisely because he cannot convince it by reason, and hence, intelligent dialogue is forbidden.  In the end, all religious converts, in one way or another, are warned against, prohibited to engage in, counterfactual thinking because it leads away from their sect.
 
With Christianity, what is often called darkness is really light and what is often called light is really darkness. We did not say always, but that this most often seems to be the case.

NOTES------------------

[1] Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Romans, Exposition of Chapter 14:1-17, Liberty and Conscious.” Published
by, The Banner of Truth Trust 2003, pg.30-31