In accordance with the long-standing tradition of this blog, when I find something I really think is relevant and well-written, I repost it with attribution. Usually it’s an excerpt. Or ten. Occasionally, it’s an entire piece. Today is one of those “entire piece” days. I meant to cross-post it here some time back, but things happened and it slipped my mind, but now I’m fixing that. By permission, from a post at Facebook by Brad R. Torgerson:
Long thought. Don’t say you had no warning.
The explicitly secular perspective is that there is no proof of a spiritual layer to human experience, therefore this spiritual layer does not exist. Or if it exists, it exists purely as a construct of the human mind. A figment. Untestable. And that while it’s all well and good to have morals, principles, and values, any of these things rooted in spiritual soil—amounting to supernatural belief in that which is unseen and unknown—is self-delusion. Perhaps even dangerous self-delusion?
But I ask: what of the self-delusions of those who turn their backs on “old time” faith? Surely by now it’s abundantly evident that those who deny the old churches and the old ways of believing (coping?) merely fashion new churches and new beliefs (again, coping?) to explain not just how the world and the universe work, but what our purpose in this world ought to be. Why we’re here. Or, if not why, what we ought to be doing with ourselves during our finite lives.
The Marxists replaced God with the State. Whose purpose was to perfect the human condition. But which did in fact make immense human misery across the decades of the Marxist Century (1920-2020.) And there are Marxists who insist to this day that their paradigm is the paradigm which will own the human future. They agitate for this. Protest for it. Threaten it.
How is the belief of the devout Marxist—after an entire century of woe, pain, death, and suffering on every continent—in any way different from the belief of, say, a Catholic? Or a Muslim? Or a Mormon?
We have all the proof in the world that Marxist economies and Marxist governments are doomed to failure, and waste human life at an unconscionable level. Yet the Marxist, like a Scientologist, seems to think we’ve yet to achieve the necessary level of understanding (cough, “OT,” cough) which will make the perfection of the human condition possible. So we need to try one more time.
Always, there is one more time. Disregard all the awfulness of the past hundred years. It just doesn’t matter. We need to do it again, comrades!
Is this not a church? Is this not unbreakable faith? Despite all the evidence telling us it’s unfounded?
And now we have sexual and ethnic identitarianism, as well as environmentalism, rolled up into the Marxist tapestry. The purpose of the State is not just the perfection of the human condition, it’s also the salvation of the planet from certain catastrophic climate doom. As well as the full liberation of the transhuman mind to express itself as any gender it wants, any sexual flavor it can conceive. And all of this must be respected and enshrined by human activity as well as interactivity.
I’d call anything that denies the realities of biology and medical science, a kind of religious faith. Faith in the plasticity of people such that they can decide things for themselves which nature (or God, if you prefer) decided in the womb. A sort of gender and sexual Lysenkoism. The politics tell us it is so, so it must be so. Even when our genes and our bodies tell us, “Nope.”
I’d also call anything that revolves around doom prophecies of climate Armageddon, borderline cult-ish.
Consider: if you’re a street preacher who hangs a sign on his body and stands on the corner shouting, “The end is near!” they call you crazy. But if you’re Greta Thunberg and you go to a posh international conference and shout into a podium mic, “The end is near!” they put you up at the nicest hotels, publish your books to international fanfare, and make you rich.
And I’ve barely addressed the priests and priestesses of anti-racism. Consider someone like Robin DiAngelo, who’s made herself into a millionaire selling white guilt to wine moms. How is this any different from a plastic-haired televangelist who used to sell fire-and-brimstone guilt to evangelicals?
So, I think we have to conclude that humanity is in fact wired for faith. And even if we throw out the old churches and the old ways, we just invent new churches and new ways.
And I am frankly scared to death of the new churches. Cultural Marxism. Environmental Marxism. Equity Marxism, as preached by the anti-racists. It’s all prosecuted with a kind of religious zeal. Especially regarding punishment of designated evil-doers. Do not get caught being a kulak, comrade. It might not go well for you when the rainbow Cheka comes.
At least the old churches (many of them, anyway) bend a knee to a higher power. Concede that innocence is the default state of man, not guilt. And present a path for rehabilitation and redemption. Both temporal and spiritual. Our entire Western Enlightenment edifice of temporal law is predicated on it. Men are to answer for their own crimes, not the crimes of others. Collective guilt is anathema. You can’t punish a person merely for belonging to a category.
That last bit—about punishing people for their demographics—has been the focus of equality activism in America since the inception. And we had almost reached this point where everyone agreed it was wrong to exclude, defame, slander, judge, or jail anybody because of their sex, their gender, their ethnicity, who they sleep with, who they marry, et al.
But the new gods are jealous, and seek to drive out the old God. New types of sin are invented to replace the old type. And new villainy is invented to replace the old villainy.
Consider, stealing is no longer wrong, but misgendering somebody is.
Consider also, you can sleep around all you want, no harm no foul, but you better give up your car and buy an EV, or you’re a wretched climate sinner.
These are just two examples. I could spell out many, many others. I am sure you could, too. And is it not all just religion? Is it not just scriptures and a holy class of learned clerics piously insisting, while also making accusations of wrong, followed by threats of damnation? Except, nobody’s in their box ready to hear your confession. Give you penance. Nor will there be baptism for the cleansing of sin. No salvation promised. Merely incrimination.
For being a kulak, comrade.
A race kulak. A gender kulak. A sex kulak. A climate kulak. Sooner or later the bleeding edge of self-styled intellectual progress gets around to branding everyone a kulak for some reason. And each new breed of iconoclasts topples the statues and touchstones of the old, to in turn be toppled again by the iconoclasts who come after. Revolution as the perpetual state of things. Endless overturning of all that is established, for all that is new. Or believed to be new.
Is this insistence on perpetual revolution—especially as it destroys good and necessary institutions—not a kind of religious fanaticism?
Oh, there might not be any God in any of it, per se, but the zeal is the same as that possessed by the legendary mob who set fire to the library of Alexandria.
We must keep pushing the Year Zero button, comrade! The perfection of the human condition is at hand!
I want to hope that we can snap back from this. That we haven’t so thoroughly shed our Christian Enlightenment skin that the entire project tips into the sea of history. And in a thousand years some future civilization has to try to re-invent all that we made and did, from 1500 A.D. to 2000 A.D. Learning all the lessons all over again. Following an interminable dark age of suffering, ignorance, and a massive backsliding for the human species, from where we were at in 1999.
But the candle of my hope flickers too much these days. I see how easily the doctrines and gospels of the new religions fire the eyes of too many. Who’re absolutely certain in their hearts they’ve got all the answers.
Just like the Bolsheviks of 1920, the Neo-Bolsheviks of our time are going to bring it all down. Then make it all new again, in their own image. Because people who’ve never built anything in their lives, know precisely how civilization and society ought to be rebuilt.
Their faith in themselves and their ideas tells them this is true. And they will seemingly not be dissuaded.
There is absolutely zero tangible evidence to support the belief in an almighty deity…a God. There is no proof to the contrary either. The standard response to people making claims of his existence is the same response to those claiming Extraterrestrial entities exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The only major difference between God, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster is God requires we acknowledge his existence, the other two apparently prefer to remain occult, out of sight.
Yet why would an entity that claims omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence refuse to provide adequate proof of existence? The most rational explanation for God is the “ancient astronauts” theory. The notion that ancient humans met extraterrestrial travelers and mistook their science for miracles, attributing these events to entities they believed to be gods. As Arthur C. Clarke stated, technology of a sufficient level is indistinguishable from miracles.
If there truly is a deity matching the Judeo Christian belief it would be mere child’s play for him to PROVE his existence. Yet he doesn’t. Unless and until there is evidence to the contrary RATIONAL people do not believe in mythical entities with magical powers. The overwhelming need for humans to believe in something more powerful than they are is a fundamental psychological requirement for a significant portion of society. That does not mean the entity chosen to fulfill that subconscious need actually exists.
Dan, you are so tiresome… I cannot see air so therefore it doesn’t exist?
Look, i’m not going to engage you in a back and forth; your type relishes the chaos and always loves to have the last word. You simply do not believe in God; I do – and if ever the twain shall meet, I leave it in God’s hands to present you in life with a chance to open your eyes. I am too old, have tried too many times these past decades, to make your ilk think otherwise.
I’ll leave you with this – if God does not exist; if there is no Creator, then per your view it must be a Lie. How then, does a Lie lead to the creation of the modern world, of the West where monotheism took hold, where Christianity formed the world views of peoples, communities, nations, continents? Can a Lie do all that?
Well, I can partially answer my own question. Yes – for a while. As the author correctly notes, there was a “marxist century” – where everyone had to make believe that Marxism was the Truth (or else!). So yeah, that and a couple of three hundred million deaths later, and yeah, the Lie can do all that. Until it crumbles like the Berlin Wall.
But the question still remains – if you think that Christianity is a Lie, if you think that there is no God – how then can you explain a world built upon that belief that has stood (… shakily standing of late, but still here …) for two millenia?
Rationalism. Yes, you put stock in it. So did Robispierre, the Jacobins, Lenin, Mao – and others. Even Gramsci, who correctly predicted the March through the Institutions that the modern day, marxist athiest AntiChrist Left has so successfully used to take control of our Government, political process, schools, Radio, TV, Newsmedia – at least he acknowledged that there was a God that first needed to be defeated before the Marxist Utopia could (… really, for real now, this time it WILL work! …) be built.
But, as I mentioned above, my central question remains. I’m not expecting an epiphany from you on your response (if you deign to provide one…); as I said, you do not Believe; I Do. I think however, if you do reply, it will be to reinforce your beliefs, maybe try to refute mine. Which brings me to an old Spanish Pearl of Wisdom ( “Los Dichos” as we say in that native tongue):
“Según su Condiciòn, Juzga el Ladròn”
Yours respectfully; or not – it matters naught to me. My points here are posted merely to show all other readers that your godless drivel does not exist without someone like me calling bullshit on you.
CGVet58
Dan ,
We are infinite Beings with infinite potential if we want it , No belief in a higher power if that is your choice , The results of that nonbelief is every where around us now . Every day things get worse because we have strayed from a stable system (10 Commandments) given to us by the Almighty. The only son of that almighty provided us with a template to live our lives to reach that unlimited potential. As far as proof of an existence in God you do not have to look far to see the consequences of disbelief . the Existence of God is everywhere if you look , Can you create a world like ours , can you bring forth life out of nothingness? The Marvel and beauty are there for all to see if we just look. We as individuals are a greater part of the whole if we accept the rules given for our own benefit and of others by God. How can we help others if we cannot help ourselves? Why has not God intervened ? How do you know he has not ? There are many individuals trying that do good and not seek publicity but are acting on their own in their small parts of the world to make things better , again if you do not look you do not see. We do not have all the answers for a reason , so we can grow as a person , instead of tearing down try to be the light , redemption is available to all who seek him , just for the sake of asking.
A follower of one much wiser than myself , a follower of an only son who died for me in my place for the Salvation of the Human Race. A debt I can never fully repay but endeavour to try.
“This is the way” Jesus Christ of Nazareth
“Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
hello Nightbreaker,
it is always good to enter into free association with another believer in Jesus. I can confirm the sense of fraternity it gives me even if we are 10 thousand miles apart, and do so over an electronic medium. An idea, a Belief, the Truth, can exist without limits of place or time. And that is as it should be; God lives outside of Time; how else could his immutable Truth not also exist in like manner?
I will share with you the one astonishing thought I always have when I think of God, of Jesus, of His Grace. When I was young, I could never quite wrap my head around the story of Abraham taking his son Isaac to the mountain as God had instructed. Genesis 22, verses 1 – 19. How could God ask a man to sacrifice his own son, his only son? I was so confounded by this, even after I accepted Christ, that I was rebellious.
Only many years later did I come to realize, better understand what had happened. Not just the explanation given forth by the Lord in that passage, but deeper imho. I understood that through that time, from the original sin to the coming of Christ, Man was separated from God by sin. And the Wages of sin is Death. When Christ came to earth, to me it is as if God looked back at Abraham’s faith, at Abraham willing to sacrifice his only son for God – and God in turn sent his son Jesus as a sacrifice for our sake, so that Jesus could defeat death, and in so shedding his blood for us was able to make us clean before the eyes of the Lord so that we, too, would no longer be cast separate from Him and unable to cross past the river of death. Abraham was ready to do what God commanded, even upto the sacrifice of his son. God repaid Abraham’s faith even unto and through Jesus death and resurrection – and through His Grace, allowed us a way to come home to our creator.
Gloria a Diòs!
CGVet58
There’s those that argue he DID prove it, Dan. Some 20 odd centuries ago.
There is zero evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed…let alone that he was a deity. Literally EVERYTHING about Christianity requires you accept it all on FAITH ALONE. As stated. It would be the epitome of simple for a being who is omnipotent to prove his existence….yet he doesn’t. Sorry. I am a rational being. I don’t believe in Santa Claus either. Not unless I see him pop out of my chimney with my own two eyes. And even then I might assume I’m hallucinating.
What part of Jesus’ teachings do you disagree with, Dan?
So you want God to reappear here on earth? He could lower Himself down onto Times Square, perform huge miracles there for all of the world to see. Convince everyone that He is, in fact, God.
Then what?
Everybody suddenly believes and the world is perfect. Utopia is finally here. No faith required. Nope, you don’t have to search for meaning any longer because God has forced you to believe in him. He entered human history and showed he was God. You saw it with your own eyes.
People would still suffer and die, so the proof that they had all seen would soon wear off.
Why can’t he show himself and instead of making the NY skyscrapers levitate, why won’t he remove pain, suffering, and death instead? We want more; we want to put an end to the harsh reality of human existence, have nothing but leisure time, carnal pleasure whenever we want it, no death.
And no need for meaning in life. No quests for science, philosophy, theology, mathematics….
You got what you wanted: all of the answers to life’s questions, all of the solutions to our problems, and you didn’t have to bother with faith, or hope, or love.
Game. Set. Match.
Maybe you should start asking yourself what has God done already and why does it make sense that he would not re-enter history again, this time with all of the evidence that would remove all doubt of His existence.
“each new breed of iconoclasts topples the statues and touchstones of the old, to in turn be toppled again by the iconoclasts who come after. Revolution as the perpetual state of things. Endless overturning of all that is established, for all that is new. ”
My first thought when I read this was the purity spiral seen after the communist takeovers in so many countries. In particular it triggered thoughts of Pol Pot in Cambodia. They started sending to the camps government officials and bankers and through succeeding rounds in the purity spiral took out small business owners and college educated before spiraling all the way down to “but comrade, surely you see the counter-revolutionary implications of prescription eyeglasses.”
At that point about a quarter of the populations heads were rolling around on the floor!
Good luck to all, don’t get on the busses “to a safe place.”
OR…
(in response to Dan)
A rational (perhaps philosophical) person might conclude that, even though there may not be any “proof” in the existence of the Judeo – Christian God, the penalty for being wrong is very profound. If you do worship “God” and are wrong, what did it cost you?Charity? Kindness towards others? If you don’t worship God and are wrong, what does it cost you? Salvation/ Eternal Life? Which is more expensive? Therefore, it is in fact rational (and logical) to worship such a God.
If my choices are to believe/worship in 1.) a higher divine (magical) power, that is supported by some amount of historical record, or 2.) men/government (secularist), I will choose the higher power every time. If I choose the former and am wrong, perhaps I am a fool. But if I choose the latter, then I am just a cowardly slave subject to the whims of other men whom I have willfully given dominion over me – also known as a democrat.
If (or assuming) there is a “God”, in the Judeo – Christian context, we cannot begin to comprehend the awesomeness of his divine power and holiness. How arrogant of you to insist that he “prove” himself to exist in order for you to “believe”. Millions, if not billions, of people throughout history have all the proof they need(ed). For others, it is simply a matter of faith, another significant element of Judeo – Christian belief.
On the contrary, “God” does not “require” us to acknowledge his existence; you have the free will to believe in him or not. However, if you desire salvation/ eternal life, in the Judeo – Christian context, the only way to get there is thru his son Jesus Christ. Quite the conundrum isn’t it! On the one hand, you don’t believe in God, but on the other, who doesn’t want salvation/ eternal life which requires you to believe in God (Jesus)? So in that sense, yes there is a requirement, but it really isn’t a requirement because you don’t believe in the first place but if you do believe you’ve already met the requirement by simply believing so is it really a requirement?
And that is how we know God is not a Democrat, Liberal, Marxist, etc. – salvation/ eternal life is not free (and/or at the expense of others); although I do think we get a pretty good discount!
Have a Blessed Day!
“…while it’s all well and good to have morals, principles, and values…”
Any of those things NOT rooted in spiritual soil are likewise constructs of the human mind. Thus they could likewise be considered self-delusion.
Moreover, because they are individual constructs of each human mind, there is nothing to say that integrity has any inherent value over opportunism or sociopathy.
It means leftists are correct, and there is no “THE truth,” there is only “Your truth” and “My truth.”
This is why I say that the source of my individual morals and the value I place on my integrity is quite simply what I refuse to see when I look in a mirror. But with that said, I am the only person that gets any value from that compared to the morals and integrity of, say, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
People placing their faith in humanity is nothing new. What is new is the current rearranging of the deck chairs to make the same old tired Marxism work, this time. They’ve worked very hard, and I consider their work done in the Church the most damaging of all. For proof God exists, I submit we look at the mass exodus of believers from every denomination in the US, who are not swallowing the communists doctrines of demons.
To whom it may concern;
I posted earlier but you have not posted my reply to Dan’s post.
Was it too long? Too personal a response? Too dumb? Perhaps you just haven’t gotten around to it. If that’s the case, my apologies.
If you do not plan on posting it, for whatever reason, a short message saying so would have been respectful, considerate, and appreciated, especially after taking the time (me) to read the article and write a reply. Afterall, I did provide my email address.
Sorry, no. The spam filter put your comment and others away for review, and honestly I don’t check this blog on a daily basis even after I post. This post obviously hit a nerve with the religious, which I should have anticipated. Mea culpa.
John:
Normally I don’t interject in discussions of this type, but I wanted to comment on this:
“If you do worship “God” and are wrong, what did it cost you?Charity? Kindness towards others? If you don’t worship God and are wrong, what does it cost you? Salvation/ Eternal Life? Which is more expensive? Therefore, it is in fact rational (and logical) to worship such a God.”
This is a simple restatement of Pascal’s Wager, but Pascal argued that one must believe, not merely worship, and that’s a different level of commitment.
James 2:14 argues “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?” Wouldn’t the opposite also be true, that acts without faith are similarly useless? John 14:6 says “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
This argues that belief is the fundamental requirement.
I bring this up, because I am an atheist. I cannot bring myself to believe. Going to church seems, in that case, hypocritical, as does prayer. Asking someone to act as though they believe won’t “save their soul.” It’s honestly a little insulting – “fake it ’till you make it”?
Afraid? Ya should have printed it. For Dan.