Evangelical Protestants and the GOP

[kentonio]

No, you misunderstand. I'm saying we have a tendency towards what's generally classified as a form of idolatry. We generally don't want to worship God as He is, but as we would like Him to be. We create a mental image and, without thinking about it, assign it certain traits. God is this cool guy, so obviously he approves of me, agrees with certain opinions of mine, etc. We put words in his mouth, listen to them, and then call ourselves obedient. The real God is unknowable and tends to ask things of us that we don't actually want to do.

An extreme example of this would be a Christian with philandering tendencies who tells himself it's okay because he's in love with these women and "God approves of love," ignoring the eighty times God's on record in the Bible saying NO ADULTERY. But we all do it to some extent. When he said X, he didn't really mean it like that! I, for one, have to continually remind myself that turn the other cheek applies to people who insult you on the internet, even if they're acting totally dickish, even if they don't appreciate the whole cheek-turning thing at all. It'd be a lot easier to believe that it's totally understandable and cool to talk down to people when they're being real douchebags. Sometimes I catch myself believing that, tacitly, despite all efforts to the contrary. As one Orthodox writer put it, "true faith is in a constant dialogue with doubt, for our every image of God is an idol which must be smashed." Though he was thinking more of our anthropomorphizing tendencies, which are less obviously harmful.

Wouldn't a physical manifestation of god actually be a good thing then, because it would require people to confront reality and not hide behind their own picture of god? For those who believe in heaven and hell, that would seem to be especially important given the stakes.

[Kidlicious]

Funny how whenever the religious get asked to justify or support their arguments about religion they always seem to resort to 'You just don't understand it!'. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe we do understand it and what we understand is that it doesn't actually make any sense when you strip away the pretty coverings?

When you say things like, "I skimmed over it" and it looked like nonsense, it's obvious that you don't understand it.

[Jon Miller]

For a physical manifestation of God, it would be a lot easier to worship the physical manifestation instead of God.

JM

[Elok]

Wouldn't a physical manifestation of god actually be a good thing then, because it would require people to confront reality and not hide behind their own picture of god? For those who believe in heaven and hell, that would seem to be especially important given the stakes.

No, the last time He did that He got whacked by a gang of people offended because His real idea of piety trumped the fake one they'd invested so much time and energy in believing. Also it undermined their social status. Very few people really, truly, and in their innermost being want to do what God says. Even for them it's probably an evanescent thing that comes and goes. The rest of us may have a portion of that desire, but it's drowned out by vanity, resentment and laziness. The Christian life is a continual effort to train ourselves toward obedience.

[kentonio]

How much time have you spent trying to understand it?

Just 'academically', I am not even talking about 'experientially'.

JM

Quite a bit both experientially and academically. Grew up CoE, checked out a number of religions and spiritual beliefs looking for something that could stand up to examination and found them all fundamantally wanting. I could very easily have been a religious person, but I cannot get over infinite regress and irreducable complexity.

Although to be fair if I was religious it'd almost certainly be a form of deism. The ide aof a god interfering in the affairs of mankind is just too far out there.

[kentonio]

No, the last time He did that He got whacked by a gang of people offended because His real idea of piety trumped the fake one they'd invested so much time and energy in believing. Also it undermined their social status. Very few people really, truly, and in their innermost being want to do what God says. Even for them it's probably an evanescent thing that comes and goes. The rest of us may have a portion of that desire, but it's drowned out by vanity, resentment and laziness. The Christian life is a continual effort to train ourselves toward obedience.

But that seems like you're saying christian life is a continual effort towards x but you don't want to be confronted by x because its too difficult?

[Kidlicious]

Christianity is very simple. It's not the complexity that you couldn't get over. You didn't want something simple, you wanted to be able to figure something out.

[Elok]

But that seems like you're saying christian life is a continual effort towards x but you don't want to be confronted by x because its too difficult?

Say we're currently in the process of weight training to get stronger. What you're suggesting amounts to throwing an anvil at us and saying "catch." Maybe some people have trained that hard, but most people would either shriek and get out of the way or be crushed flat.

[Jon Miller]

I actually think that, without any revelation/experiential knowledge, deism is the most rational position to hold.

Meaning no offense, but from your posts on apolyton I would not have guessed you had read any major theological works.

JM

[Elok]

Wait, isn't "irreducible complexity" just one of Michael Behe and company's sham arguments for creationism? Or does it mean something else?

[kentonio]

Christianity is very simple. It's not the complexity that you couldn't get over. You didn't want something simple, you wanted to be able to figure something out.

Thanks Sigmund, anything else you want to tell me about what I think?

[Kidlicious]

Thanks Sigmund, anything else you want to tell me about what I think?

You're the one who says God doesn't exist because I can't study him under a microscope and figure out everything about him.

If you want to know about yourself, read the Bible. But you don't know your own self.

[kentonio]

Say we're currently in the process of weight training to get stronger. What you're suggesting amounts to throwing an anvil at us and saying "catch." Maybe some people have trained that hard, but most people would either shriek and get out of the way or be crushed flat.

I can kind of see that, but you could also argue that children would have a far easier life if god was demonstrable.

Wait, isn't "irreducible complexity" just one of Michael Behe and company's sham arguments for creationism? Or does it mean something else?

Its used as an argument by the ID nutters, but it can also be used as an argument against a creator figure.

[Kidlicious]

Its used as an argument by the ID nutters, but it can also be used as an argument against a creator figure.

So you think like them?

[Elok]

I can kind of see that, but you could also argue that children would have a far easier life if god was demonstrable.

Children rebel against authority just as much as anybody else.

Its used as an argument by the ID nutters, but it can also be used as an argument against a creator figure.

How? Are you talking about flaws in human anatomy, like the blind spot in the eye? Even that's not really "irreducible complexity," though...wait, are you talking about the argument that God must necessarily be even more complex than His creation, and so demands a creator Himself? That's a fine answer to the flawed argument from nature--a sort of debater's judo, using their own argument against them--but it depends on the assumption that our deductions about a thing are applicable to its maker.