Is belief in God madness in a modern world?

In the much heated thread Is morality decreasing with Time, Anglagard partially sums up his position on the issues with the following statement and message: http://EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time? -->EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time?He says:There is an old East Indian proverb that says, 'You can touch your nose like this, or like this' (you'll have to use your imagination). Sometimes you have to go the hard route in order to make a case.This is such an occasion, and requires a serious effort to defend my position properly. I will show that his is a logically incoherent statement, and then explain why I believe that what I believe is quite sane. This is an attempt to defend the credibility of Christian thinking, not a direct attempt to preach Christ. I also do not want to impune Anglagard. We all make unthoughful comments from time to time. It's more than forgiveable, but the implications are invaluable.Anglagards comment, when taken into context with all of his comments in the thread, reveal that he is invoking 'reality' (that which is absolute by definition) to give solid ground to the accusation that some of us are 'mad' in relation to that ground. But he does so all the while in defense of the position that 'reality' is not absolute, but subjective.I believe that is the equivilant of him saying: [qs][b]'We cannot know reality, and if you were not so out of touch with it, you would know that! You are a nut job!'[/qs]It's also like the Agnostic professor who told a Christian professor, 'You are an anacronism, you believe in the concept of truth. You cannot arrive at the truth!' To which the Chritian professor said, 'Then how did you arrive at that?'All of this finds it's context in the 'moral realm' (an integral part of reality whatever it is), wherein we find the only legitimate inference to confirming the existence of reality within a philosophical dialog. So it is not just a blind appeal to conscious I offer, but also one measured carefully by intellectual objectivity.His comment disregards the debate entirely with arrogant posturing. But it's not even a challenge to show the contradiction, and this is not new. It's as old as men, and in our modern world, Richard Dawkins of Oxford is probably the most visible anchor for eager believers looking for an authority to justify this type of intellectual snobbery. It is common elitism inwhich the opponents are demonized as mad, instead of showing logically how the argument is flawed. But this is itself an example of the deteriorating respect for truth and logic, and this is increasing in our postmodern climate. And it is indeed one pillar of the moral dimension.It is shoddy if not dishonest to label your opponents without valid arguments and testimony, and therfore immmoral. And that same lack of intellectual integrity fuels all manner of incoherent justifications of moral depravity that was always controlled by sound theological doctrine and the invocation of shame. Each time these prophets of indulgence reared their heads, an establishment of Judaic or Christian societies (or just those with good moral sense) was able to refute these arguments in the bygone era where conscious was honored more than defensive and sophist rhetoric. I'm not here to defend those occasions where the religious establishment imposed with savagery the means of controlling those problems because it is not defendable.Now when I said 'it's nothing new', that was an argument in favor of morality being the same, not decreasing. But that is just one of the other pillars of the moral dimension. Just because some things moral have not changed, and just because some things moral (such as racially motivated slavery and bigotry) have increased, does not mean everything within the dimension of morality has improved or remained unchanged.One factor in the moral realm that has changed, is the percentage of the population who is in control of the debate has shifted from one who undertood these things, to one that does not or will not. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but my fingers keep getting bit off. And my response to such has generally disturbed me. It takes great effort for me to handle this properly.Christendom has failed to stop all of this because it has abandoned the intellectual battle (ergo Emanuel Kant). Thank you Emanuel! You gave the church a bag of goods, and gave aid and comfort to your rational mind, over and seperated, from your own heart. (the irony of his name is rich no?) The pressure to conform to the intellectual harrasment is fierceas always, but now the shoe is on the other foot as they say. The false prophets will takeover, and these sucesses will convince them of their autonomy. It is proof and judgement (fire from heaven in full view of men) against us in their temporal, yet inevitable favor. And who can warn them when they have made up their minds long ago in light of the surrender by so many a good Christian soldier?C.S. Lewis said, "To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether." (Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)You may think It's madness, but I believe what I relay to you with my entire being as not just some hogwash religion, but reality, and with the full approval of my mind. And I encourage anyone to show where these words contradict themselves, instead of just saying that they do and dismissing tham as preachy or subjective. If it's so obvious to everyone that an argument is void of logic, then it should be easy to point it out in a logical manner as I did above with Anglagards comment. It's not enough to defer to the bias of the times as say, 'everybody knows that's crazy'. How do they arrive at that?Even so, you'll win more often than not because not only is what I say illegible to you, but to the vast majority of the audience who is likely too busy with the after Christmas sale to waste their valuable time with things so irrelevant to our immediate lives of materialism and blisful ignorance. Our debate is not so entertaining as we like to think because most of our brethren don't think. And they don't believe they are qualified to do so, thanks to the work of so many a charlatan and word smith. Who wants to tackle unravling a knot like those so common on this noble forum.So just hurl the 'madman' label... It will sell like hotcakes I assure you, just as it did in Noah's day, and evermore. But you will miss your ship coming in.Mark 3:20 Then Jesus went home. Again such a large crowd gathered that Jesus and his disciples had no time to eat. 21 When his family heard about it, they set out to take charge of him, because people were saying, "He's gone mad!" 22 Some teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem were saying, "He has Beelzebul in him! It is the chief of the demons who gives him the power to drive them out." (GNT)Matthew 11: 18 Jesus said, '...For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.'(NIV)Acts 2:15 Then Peter said, 'For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.' (KJV)Here we are with the same old dilemma in a new age. An age in which the public is educated by wholly secular governments with facts and figures, and taught that in 'the modern tolerant world', understanding is regarded as delusional and exclusive bigotry. Yet somehow that idea is allowed exclusivity over all others. I hope you now understand that. Bigotry remains, because there are some things we simply must be bigoted about.'There is no meaning' they say, only the facts. Facts without meaning? Then what can facts prove? Facts don't have reason or meaning, they only allow you to use them as blocks to build such a tower. It takes a reason, to deny 'reason' (a logical suicide). What is your reason? 'It's all relative'? Ah, except for the fact that absolutists are mad because they actually think they've met God in a personal way, and want to share it with me'. 'Not at the expense of my good time'! That is the only evil in the postmodern mind. The prophets of which are sucessfully in the process of eliminating the theist competitors by sheer defiance of them and their God. Not because they have a better argument, but because they understand the power of threatening the material wealth of their opponents who worship those idols be they intellectual, economic, or otherwise.You think Christians are hypocrites? You have no idea how depraved humanity is; you refuse to see it, except in others! Many christians who read this will in some measure shrink in shame, because their Holy Spirit empowered super-conscious guides them. And just because I write it, does not mean that I am not one of them who is ashamed, I assure you I am more so than most... That's how I know! From dragging this cross with me and taking the spit balls and floggings with more patience than I could have ever mustered alone. My pride is hand-cuffed, but not yet crucified. It still wants to rip apart it's enemy.I don't undertand this Mystery of Babylon that appeals to ancient peoples and the modernist alike. It is the mother of contradiction. How can incoherence be sensible? I don't understand why any sane person would be so eager to throw away their soul in exchange for the now which is so temporary. If there is one thing that is absolute that any type of mind can see, it is that we will all individually die (at the very least once physically).I couldn't give a solid example of an absolute that satisfied the pack in the other thread in terms of morality, because they would only allow the terms to be defined within a subjective and materialist framework. They are interested in only outward signs of piety. They are unaware of their own secret passion to destroy. the believe the mask they wear. In their mind the heart and the Spirit is irrelevant. The act is all that counts. So there! Finally, after being wrestled by the inconquereable beasts that we all can be, I offer one example of an absolute in purely material terms though admittedly not directly moral in nature; Physical Death! Will you invoke metaphysics to undermine my absolute given in the terms you desired? I can dream, can't I?On that note, if there is no higher life (creator) that preceded our own, then life itself is indeed relative. Inwhich case nothing is immoral in reality because reality itself is immoral. But the insanity (the chaos) is, that in that case my belief in absolutes and my exhalting them as a means of bringing all of this morass into proper focus is also not immoral or incorrect in any way. Our conflict is simply man, worshipping his maker.The point is (and to play devils advocate) that physical death is absolute, irrespective of theology. The Bible says in Heb 9:27 'Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.' It is in that framework of life's futility, that the postmodern-existentialist citezen finds his anti-reasoning for fleshly happiness. For if this life is all there is, then live it to the full. Pour out your desires and ambitions, it the only chance you get. And if God turns out to have been there all along, it is His own fault for not showing himself to me, or taking care of me, in the terms that I define for Him. He dare not condemn me.I suppose some of them are hoping for knowing that their life contributed to something in terms of the future. Isn't it telling, that those who deny meaning, long for it with such passion. We all do, and I am not suggesting it is weakness, rather a clue playing the part of a lighthouse to those listening. But maybe they're right. Perhaps the history books will give glowing accounts of the final victory of humanity over the absolute, and will mark their collective achievement with rave reviews. I can hear it now! 'The new Rennaisance!' Man has been born unto himself once and for all. He has become the measure of all things entirely! Oh, how the future will owe all of you a debt of gratitude for your sacrifices. For enduring this terrain of mine and my evil comrades. You finally buried this myth of Christ once and for all. What a sacrifice you've made for their freedom. Imagine the glory you will receive for doing that for them. Your sufferings celebrated by the whole world! But then again, that whole concept of sacrifice is so passe', rediculous, and mad. It reminds me of an ancient tale of a prophecy about a Spotless Lamb. An unthinkable sacrifice, but I can't remember what it was? The whole attonement thing makes no sense! There's no need for bloodshed or sacrifice.I can see the glowing depictions of humanities past heros writ large in your honor. Fables of you will be told and retold. Stories about those who paid the price for man's final freedom from the oppression of absolutes will go on and on. They finnaly had to resort to bloodshed because the rebels could not understand the game. but now they'l live in infamy! That is until the sun (or should I say Son?) engulfs them as God's sovereignty has given all the time He knew they needed to choose to face the light, or not! It's only a lifetime. Who could have known?We're all gonna get what we wish for... I just pray some of you figure out that you don't yet know what you're asking for. But you can. There is no condemnation, only forgiveness and open arms. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And if he refuses food as well, in favor of spending his time in frolic upon the wide open field, then God will patiently wait for him to tire and come home for at least some real nourishment.Yet still some refuse. Let them not blame the farmer for failing to provide the trough because they're too proud to lower their necks in appriciation. They need no-one!Does anyone else marvel at this beast we've become, and it's ability to suck the intelligent life out of so many a capable soul?or am I alone?

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

This is far too long for an opening post! If you make any more posts like this, I will suspend you!What do the other moderators think? Am I being too harsh on the scotmeister?

I didn't realize it was that serious!Easy boy... I was pleading for at least one thread with serious discourse and substance...I'll take that as a no!

I just want to have the OPs short and concise. anything approaching a page is too long.
perhaps a half page should be the max.You can always wax philosophic once your topic gets going

---

---

In the much heated thread Is morality decreasing with Time, Anglagard partially sums up his position on the issues with the following statement and message: http://EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time? -->EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time?He says:I will show that his is a logically incoherent statement. I do not want to impune Anglagard. We all make unthoughful comments from time to time. It's more than forgiveable, but the implications are invaluable.Anglagards comment, when taken into context with all of his comments in the thread, reveal that he is invoking 'reality' (which is absolute by definition) to give solid ground to the accusation that some of us are 'mad' in relation to that ground. But he does so all the while in defense of the position that 'reality' is not absolute, but subjective.I believe that is the equivilant of him saying: It's also like the Agnostic professor who told a Christian professor, 'You are an anachronism. You believe in the concept of truth. You cannot arrive at the truth!' To which the Chritian professor said, 'Then how did you arrive at that?'All of this finds it's context in the 'moral realm' (an integral part of reality whatever may be), wherein we find the only legitimate inference to confirming the existence of reality within a philosophical dialog. So it is not just a blind appeal to conscious I offer you in my defense, but also one measured carefully by intellectual objectivity and consistency.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Topic promoted to Faith/Belief.