In defense of nihilism

I'm sorry Paul, am still a bit lost. Choosing a belief on a simple factual matter. What simple factual matter are you referring to? I've got no problem with no works = faith is dead. But as in so many things one has to decide is works a causal thing or a consequential thing. James "I will show you my faith by my works" seems to me to point to works being a consequence of faith. If true faith then works will follow.A man cannot actually believe in God (nor Christ as his savior) without evidence. Once he has the evidence he will believe and have faith. We can see that God must be the one to instigate things. Belief and faith are thus from God - not man. And faith, given by God, results in works.A person may believe in God, as the demons did. Better that than nought says James - but little use. Did not the Jews believe in God? But they didn't believe they had need of personal salvation in Christ.

This about it? I am not being deliberately obtuse here, honest, but I am still confused as to what you mean precisely. I'll make a guess though. Could I take it that you mean "choosing to believe that God in fact exists (or does not in fact exist)...has no value in itself"?If so I would agree. A persons belief in itself does not make something fact or not fact. A fact is independant of anyone believing it. But I wouldn't say it has no value. The belief may result in that which is very valuable both to them and others. I won't elaborate as I'm not sure I'm on the right track here. A person can believe the earth is 250,000 km from the moon. They haven't satisfied themselves personally that that is the case. But they believe it on various good grounds - always faith-based and faith in the sense that the faith is blind in some way. It hasn't actually seen.A person can also believe something because they know it themselves - they have the actual proof available to them. I believe this screen is sitting on front of me for instance. That is the same as my belief in God. That God is a fact, not dependant on my belief for his factuality. But I happen to know that fact. This is a different kind of faith. It is not blind faith. It is like the faith I have in my brakes to stop me. They have been proven - that's how I have that kind of faith.Now it must appear obvious that that kind of faith can only come into my possession because of an act on Gods part - I couldn't work up that kind of faith no matter how hard I tried. No human argument - no matter how compelling - could establish that kind of faith for me.Now if one were to imagine for a moment what it would be like to have that kind of faith. To actually know for sure that the person who made the whole show exists. And not only exists but has chosen to reveal that fact to me. To reveal something of his nature to me. It would, I suggest, be the most life changing event one could undergo. There is nothing: not having kids, not winning the lotto, nothing...which would trump that. Nothing would come even close.That kind of faith is something that God has produced by his very action in revealing himself. The belief in him is total: throw me to the lions total. That one would therefore look on what God says with new eyes and interest is not a difficult thing to imagine. That one would have a different view of oneself in relation to the world around than one had previously is not a difficult thing to imagine (if one is still meditating on what the significance of what God revealing himself to them would actually mean mean - take your time).And this change, this faith or belief, is going to manifest itself in some way. That is not too difficult to imagine either.That is, I would argue, what James is talking about here. Believing that God exists due to the efforts of your religion - no matter how effective, is not the same as belief yuo possess because you 100% know. And if there is no manifestation of it (in this case works) then whatever you may say about it, it is not the kind of belief that causes change. It is not the kind of belief that arises when one comes face to face with God (so to speak). And the other kind of faith - the intellectual assent, the religious belief cannot produce works because the motor to drive such a thing doesn't exist. It may well produce works that on the surface appear to be works: money to the poor etc. But the motivation is completely different. One could compare those works to a beautifully decorated Christmas tree - no matter how sparkly and twinkly it appears - it is in fact dead - stuck in a pot in your living room. That kind of faith is useless in the end. It has no living heart in it. It is not being done to glorify God - simply for the fact that one cannot glorify and thank and praise - somebody one doesn't know. Such a faith is indeed dead.

I really am incorrigible....I will offer no resistance, should the Thought Police come a-screaming in....This message has been edited by iano, 29-Nov-2005 02:46 PM

The presenting of the proof to me was at my request. I asked God, out of my own free will, if he would do so. And he did. He wasn't tramping on my free willBut if he were to just 'appear', unbidden, then he would be trampling on our free-will.Note, there is no problem with the fact I didn't have any proof of his existance when I asked. I couldn't like I say, have believed in someone I'd no apparent evidence for."God...if you are there" does not constitute belief but it does constitute an act of will.

Oh ye of little faith...of course I can! By way of analogy might be best. Imagine you are addressing the boss:"Give me a pay rise because I deserve it"
"Give me a pay rise or I'll leave"
"I would like a pay rise - but will trust your judgment"
"Give me a pay rise you worm"
"Can I have a pay rise, I want to buy a new car"
"Someone else got a pay rise therefore I should get oneGet the picture Crash? There are many ways to ask. It is reasonable to suppose not all ways of asking will result in the desired response

Are you talking about a form of words? Or are you talking about the heart behind them? God unlike your boss hears the words but also hears the heart behind them. Maybe you do want God - I don't know. But it is according to his timing that your heart will be in a position to ask him - from the heart. He needs to prepare you and lead you to himself (all without affecting your free will and you don't strike me as the most malleable willed person I know (it takes one to know one )And if you have a problem with his sovereignty and method then that, I suggest, would be ample demonstration that you are not prepared to subject yourself to him. Your way is never better than his. And you can't subject yourself to him if he doesn't enable you to do that. And if you complain about that then you are again showing the same rebelliousness that Adam showed.If you find yourself wanting him but he isn't coming then assume that its something up with you, something you need to learn. Trust him. If you are genuine then you should have no problem asking him to help you get there. It is a process and the rate at which it goes is perhaps related to the degree to which you are prepared not to resist. Note: it is not what you do - it is what you don't do. Don't resist. Ask for help. Be patient. You will buck and toss but he expects that and it in no way causes him to turn his back on you. If it is him you are seeking.

It doesn't in itself. It is how the knowledge was arrived at. Rape and making love involve sexual intercourse but there is a world of difference between them. One involves the trampling on free will, the other doesn't. The person who knows God exists can never again exercise their free will to say "I don't believe nor do I want to believe in God" Fine if they chose to relinquish that right. Not fine if they haven't "Make love to me Johnny". An act of free will. No trampling involved It is not a form of words. I can know a woman wants to make love by all kinds of unmistakable signs. I don't need her to ask. But those signs must be there. Otherwise there is no invite. Granted, he draws people to himself (how would anyone know where to 'seek' by themselves). He will woo and encourage those signs to be expressed. But he won't force where he is not wanted The main problem that God is trying to rectify is a distortion of position: God on the throne, man subject to God (I can here the howls from here, sounds awful doesn't it? "Man subject too..."). Man wants to be on the throne. Man is a rebelThis is witnessed by statement like that above. "I think...be enough". God has a problem with that. If God decided that you would have to crawl on your knees around the equator then that would have to be good enough for you. Your's is not to question him (although you can me) only to follow what he says. The thing is he doesn't ask you to crawl around on your knees. He simply asks that you acknowledge your current position before him. And none of what he asks is unreasonable:- I am a hopeless sinner. I offend you and disobey you every day
- I am sorry (or should be) for doing that. I would like to stop but can't.
- I deserve to be cast out for what I've done but you offer me a way out through your son who you gave up for me
- thank youNo one can feel these things in their heart without him helping them to do so. In the meantime we get: Can you see how the lack of acceptance of his authority is exhibited here? Don't worry if you can't. Me, I was kicking up and screaming blue murder almost up to the moment he turned on the light. He does love us afterall

I would say we could transpose the word wise/unwise for bi- /hetro. Bi-nhilism wants it cake and to eat it too"There is no objective morality...Hey! stop thief" lacks the courage of it's convictions. Step into the breach, live nihilism to the full. So what if insanity lies at the end. It is at least honest.Oops, there is no such thing as honesty either

Dishonourable? Spoken like a true bi-nihiist. But if one wasn't a nihilist then one is entitled to believe there is a purpose to life (for want of evidence to the contrary). And if one was to chose to believe something that offered to reveal this purpose then I don't see how that is dishonourable. One would beget the other perhaps

Pray tell how you figure that Crash. Like have you a meter reading for it for us to compare?

Claiming something to be an objective moral truth is not the same as it actually being an objective moral truth. If you investigated where National Socialism and Communism derived their objective moral truths you would see that they invariably came from man-made philosophies. But man-made philosophies cannot be objective as it is not possible to prove that they are correct.If there is any such thing as an objective truth it would require that truth to be established by an unchangeable and infallible entity. God. If one was claiming objective moral rights and wrongs one would have to base ones philosophy on God as the basis of it (not that that makes the philosophy an objective one)As far as I am aware the underlying motivation of nazism's killing of jews, homosexuals, gyspies, criminals, slavics, intelligentia etc was to create an Ubermensch or Superman - which derives directly from the thinking of nihilisms messiah, Nietzsche. Similarily, communism had no place for God in it's Marxist-derived philosophy. Both Nietzsche and Marx were ardent athiests.Using religion to further your goals says nothing about religion, only about that which you are prepared to do to further your goalsThis message has been edited by iano, 30-Nov-2005 12:18 PM

If the parody fails it fails I think mainly in the order of its protagonists. The father and the children are all people. They are all of the same order. Your story has people, both in the story and outside it, considering the actions of the father in a way they feel is objective. This they may do being as they are, of the same order (at least in theory: mans thinking is subjective many would argue). But God is not of the same order of man. If he exists then he is patently unknown orders above man. So man evaluating the actions of God doesn't work anything like as easily. The created analysing the creator...?It seems to me that the only way a man can know anything at all about the personality and motivations of the creator is if the creator reveals those things to man. Man can't work it up by himself. Even that may bring problems. One only has to peruse EvC Bible forums to see that when it comes to one area where God has revealed himself, things are anything but clear cut. He seems to have spoken, but the language used seems such as to allow subjective man to arrive at any number of conclusions as to what is being said. Patently further illumination from God is required if there is to be any chance of arriving at an objective understanding of what God is saying.Whilst this might not provide any universal agreement there is nothing to say the illumination would be universal so disagreement is not a grounds for stating God doesn't illuminate. Neither is there any reason to think that if there was further illumination that this would be complete and that an individual, illuminated-to-a-degree, would understand it all. Thus even if some have some of it right there is no need to think anybody has it all rightTo the person who remains totally unilluminated, things aren't clarified by others experience. As far as that person is concerned, all seem to claim to have received Gods further illumination and claim that they have the truth. Which is true, which is false. The unilluminated cannot tell.So it seems to be a one-to-one deal. In order for man to know anything about God, he must realise that he is dependent, as an individual, on God to illuminate to him personally. Man dependant on God. That very thing that Adam sought to rid himself of.

When the state sentences a man to death for a crime, does it do so angrily or is it just carrying out the punishment the befits breaking the law in question?Whether or not you see the offence (one little biddy apple) as befitting the punishment is neither here nor there

You look like you're mixing your metaphors on this installment Robin On the one hand you paraphrase the bible but at the critical juncture, stray into speculation as to whether any of it is true. If the man only 'supposedly' sneaked back into town (your source material says he did) then maybe he only supposedly had a son and an adopted daughter. How is the poor reader to know what to believe of you taleI was looking forward to seeing how you would deal with parodying the sacrificing of self (including the foreknowledge that it would happen). The climax, the raison d'etre, the piece de la resistance, the candle on the cake, the ... and you fluffed it..Shame...

In mine too. Some of them in the lower courts especially are fond of the drink and the sentences can er...vary? I say a bloke get 6 months for driving with no car insurance and another who had stolen a car get off. I was next up and I was up for no insurance. O'er But in principle, Justice is blind and unemotional. When it exercises wrath it does so on a punishment fits the crime basis. Wrath is not about emotion:

quote:

---

Wrath 2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

---

Although there are other definitions of wrath (mans wrath can include anger) this one compares unemotional application of justice with divine wrath. And this is Gods wrath. It does involve anger but not in the sense that we understand it. Gods anger is always 100% righteous. It is never out of pique or to cover his mistakes or because he got the wrong end of the stick. If he is angry with us it is because we have done something to deserve it. His anger is in complete proportion to what we do.When I say his anger is unlike ours - thus we cannot understand it - I mean that at the same time that he is full of wrath and hating the sin we commit, he is full of love too. The closest a person can come to understanding this is with their own child. Whilst they are furious with them, love is not at the forefront - yet they don't cease to love their child just because they are angry. But God loves and is wrathful at the same time"While we were sinners (objects of wrath) Christ died for us (God sacrificed him - act of love)"One should never lose sight of that. God cannot set aside wrath or justice. Sin must be punished. Every single last one. But as the flamethrower is started up and prepares to cook the sin (and the person to whom sin is attached in limpet-like fashion) God in an act of love diverts it and aims it at his son instead.That's effectively what the person asks God to do. And he would do it in a flash. Now if that is not love - punishing your own begotten son - for the sins of your enemy - then I don't know what is.Would you cook your son for Pol Pot. Didn't think so