28 March 2004

Atheists, in their arguments against God’s existence, seem to ignore this inherent indifference to time - that is, time does not apply to God in the same way that it does to us. To have no beginning or end, God must exist outside of time - otherwise, he’d be bound to time’s end. God would be nothing more than a powerful, yet mortal, wizard in essence no difference than us.

God, in all likelyhood, does not see time as a series if linear, connected events. Outside of time, he’d see it as a unit - three dimentionally... rather than the two dimensional ways we see it. We see an action and a reaction - what if there is something more? What if God saw time more as a lake, where a dropping rock ripples in every direction, with the effects on other ripples not so apparent. The rock drops into the water, spreading its effects not only only the surface, but throughout that three dimensional space...

( C: 1 )

26 March 2004

I’ll be gone for the next week, perhaps - with only sporadic internet access, but I’ve set it so that some posts will show up during that time. I’ll also make an effort to get to a computer and write something worthwhile. About worthwhile things. Because that’s just the kind of guy I am.

Also, my host is upgrading our accounts at 10:00am BST on the 30th of March - the site will be down for about 10 minutes. I just wouldn’t want anyone freaking out! j/k - lol

( C: 5 )

25 March 2004

The following are more or less the thoughts I jotted today, as I tried to find a good way of arguing FOR atheism.

The Atheist: No God.

Many atheists would argue against God’s existence from the position of evil - that is, the existence of evil removes the possibility of God (specifically, a loving one - but the argument tends to be generalized to all possible gods). However, the problem necessitates a god: by arguing that there can be no god because of evil, atheists are using something subjective (given their fundamental premise - no god means no absolute definition of what is evil) something which can only exist if there is a God. That is to say, evil can only be if there is something absolute which defines evil as such. They are using something that can be only defined by God to argue against God. The thoughts would seem inconsistent, since his argument demands the existence of the thing he is arguing against. For an atheist, evil cannot exist – and therefore should not be used in argument.

The problem of evil is an argument against the Good God, perhaps - but not a good one for the atheist. By using this argument, they are not saying, “I do not believe in a God” but “I cannot believe in a good God.” (And if the presence of evil argues for a malevolent god, what does the presence of good argue for? If evil is an indicator of an evil force, the same must be true for the presence of good)

If I were an atheist, I would perhaps argue from the position of chaos and disorder. After all, a creator who creates a universe as failed as this one (no matter its complexity) would surely be flawed himself - and therefore, not much of a god. The creation tends to follow the creator, for the creator pours himself into the creation. Ask any artist, and this will hold true - the author writes himself (flaws and all - unintentionally and intentionally) into his books; the painter into his paintings; and the sculptor his pieces. A chaotic, flawed universe such as this surely would indicate a chaotic, flawed god... something very much not god - or no god at all. Problem: this does not account for order. This would be a better argument for an evil God.

The problem is that ultimate arguments must stem from an ultimate starting point - atheism has no such groundwork. There is no place to begin. None which doesn’t possess some bit of moral, ethical, or intellectual universality... an absolute which requires an absolute. Seems to me, at this point, that atheism is untenable.

( C: 3 )

24 March 2004

Wisdom, according to the proverbs, is something to be sought - and such a search (truly done) will lead to God... He dispenses all wisdom - and surely an encounter with him would cause one to fear Him... the starting point of wisdom. Desire wisdom: it will lead to God; an encounter which could only lead to a right fear; which is the starting point of moral knowledge.

( C: 0 )

21 March 2004

“Fearing the Lord is beginning of moral knowledge...”

If fearing the Lord is the starting point, or beginning, of moral knowledge, it stands to reason that those who do not fear the Lord do not have moral knowledge. Without a proper starting point, the knowledge cannot be attained. This would somewhat synonymous with attempting to find one’s way to an indeterminate end point with a set of directions (“moral principles”) - but minus and solid starting point. No matter how good the directions, you’ll never arrive at the end with those directions... unless a starting point is eventually found.

Therefore, knowledge of morality requires the fear of God. Morality without God is just not moral, no matter how it appears. It may appear to be true moral knowledge, on the surface; but it lacks the thing that would make it true.

To teach morality without first beginning with the fear of the Lord is to teach empty morality - a meaningless, powerless, thing.

Proper fear is related to knowledge in that one must know the thing is real and powerful. Otherwise, God becomes a boogieman and obedience is relegated to the night, when irrational fear is overwhelming. Proper fear is related to knowledge of the feared object and its absoluteness: its unchangability, its truth, and its power to enforce.

Exodus 20:20 - God reveals himself to Israel, and they fear him; the beginning of fear is reality - knowledge of reality. Thus, wisdom begins with knowledge of God as God.

To not teach from this beginning is to deny the church wisdom and relegate it to a blinding state of foolishness which masquerades as wisdom.

( C: 0 )

20 March 2004

Two connected odd incidents in one night:

Last evening, I decided to take a trip to Starbucks and read a bit -- since it was about 8:30 and the coffeeshop I normally visit closes at 9:00. I drove out there, grabbed the usual mocha, sat down, and began to read through Proverbs.

As I’m reading away slash staring off into space (as is my tendency), I notice a figure standing directly to my right. Standing close enough to confuse me; I zone in and realize that it’s a girl and she’s talking to me.

“What are you reading?”

I blink and look down. “The Bible.”

Now she blinks. “The Bible?” She overemphasized “the”.
Read on...

( C: 4 )

19 March 2004

My obsession/compulsive web design tendencies are kicking in. Expect a redesign in the next several days - assuming things go as I anticipate.

( C: 0 )

17 March 2004

I was scanning through my archives and came across this particular post. It seemed worth posting again.

My difficulty understanding the wisdom of God becomes more evident each and every time I read this passage. It is powerful in its description of who God is, and the human reaction to God. The Lord’s majesty is so great that he fills the temple, that his face must be covered, that the whole temple – the temple, the most holy place of holy places… that place shakes! The most holy of all things man could create: it was shaking at his majesty. How utterly shocking that it is; the greatest and most holy thing we could create, it cannot contain nor hold the holiness and glory of the Lord.

Even Isaiah, a prophet of this God, a man who surely must be more holy than all of Israel, cannot stand before the Lord. He says, “Too bad for me! I am destroyed, for my lips are contaminated by sin, and I live among people whose lips are contaminated by sin. My eyes have seen the king, the Lord who leads armies.”

As he gazes upon the Lord, he realizes that he cannot praise this Lord – for he is a sinful man. Isn’t that the way of the Lord? We cannot realize his holiness until we gaze upon his majesty. And when we realize his holiness, with it comes the knowledge that we cannot praise him. We cannot even speak of him, for our dirt, our ugliness, degrades our praise of his glory. Man’s words are unworthy to even speak of good things.
Read on...

( C: 0 )

16 March 2004

Thought is frustrating for me, right now; there seems to be blocks which prevent me from making logical connections. The answers I seek are always tantalizingly out of reach. I can see a hint of them, in the distance. But no matter how far I travel, I never seem to be capable of reaching them... perhaps they are but a mirage.

( C: 0 )

15 March 2004

Moral authority, by its very nature, is founded in not only being moral, but being in a position of higher morality. How can a drug user morally argue against drug use? That’s the essence of hypocracy - calling for moral action when you’re unwilling to take that specific action. What power is there in proclaiming something, if its veracity is not proven in one’s own life?

( C: 0 )