Friday, December 23, 2016

Hate Mail - "... too much of a coward to come out and admit it..."

Again, I'm challenged on whether or not I believe in the Virgin Birth, to which I say that it's easier to believe than much of the current nonsense pushed by atheists who try to turn science into a tool of atheism.  Some of the schemes of multi-verse theory that have gotten play in actual, published science - I'm thinking, especially, of those in which everything that happens generates universes in which the alternatives happen.  That's something that, actually, got into the discourse of science.  And I could also mention, again, my year long challenge to the materialist "brain-only" guys to explain how the brain could make exactly the right physical structure to "be" a new idea before that idea could exist in said brain to instruct it on what to make.  That is an impossible to overcome hurdle to their materialist model, yet it is the simple and naive faith of so many college educated and would-be educated people in the English speaking world that such a miracle happens trillions of times every day in the sentient population of the world.   It's one of the real surprises of my time online, fact checking the claims of atheists, how much of this "science" in cosmology, biology, physics, the so-called social sciences,  is actually motivated by a fanatical desire to disprove God, having nothing to do with the legitimate focus of science.   Science, as well as politics, has entered into a decadent phase in which ideology has become far too much a part of its formal literature and claims.

Unlike the many schemes of materialist explanation of the world that are dreamed up in the ideological use of science, there are at least self-consistent theories of the Virgin Birth and the place of Jesus in the cosmological assertions of believers.  That much of that is left to the belief in the wisdom of God and not something which is vulnerable to human tools of discernment is internally consistent in a manner which materialism cannot have it.   In fact, it is modern materialism which is radically anthropocentric, not monotheistic religion which admits to the limits of human comprehension.

I am open to the possibility that the Virgin Birth is an accurate account, I don't currently believe it is certain that it happened the way that the two Gospels that contain that account have said it.  I do believe that Jesus spoke with a unique prophetic voice,  I do believe that he and his teachings come from God.  If that makes him divine, so be it.   I'm unaware of any other prophet who was as radical in their declarations, some of it extending and building on previous prophets of his Hebrew heritage.   I don't see anything in secular liberalism or radicalism that begins to match the Gospel for its radicalism, I doubt that any materialistic view of the world is capable of generating or sustaining that level of radical leveling of even the most humble of human beings to the same level of the least humble, I don't see anything that is more productive of a demand for equality among people - not only theoretical, political rights held eternally in a potential form by that system that encourages inequality based on schemes of valuation and ownership but actual, material equality - than the Gospel of Jesus.   I don't see any scheme to substitute a mock-up of justice that is more likely to produce real justice than the Gospels.   Atheism, certainly in its materialist form, is almost a certain guarantee to produce exactly its opposite.  That has been the proof of the history of the attempts to produce scientific regimes in the 20th century, their oppressive depravity is unprecedented in history.

That Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world is certainly relevant to the political consideration of Christianity.  All attempts to make that kingdom through politics is bound to fall short or fail catastrophically.  If Jesus didn't attempt to do that, any of his supposed followers who did were bound to produce anything but.  I don't expect that even an acceptably decent secular government can come from either those who want to create a "Christian" state or those who want an atheist-materialist paradise.  It can only come from people who have both the firm conviction of the moral content of the Gospel - identified as Christian or not - and the modesty to admit that an approximation to that is the best that human government can produce.   Schemes of utopia are bound to produce horrors.   Whatever good came to grow in the on-going and developing American democracy didn't come from materialism, it came from people who wanted to put those moral truths into effect.

Again, I doubt that's the answer you wanted, but it's the one you're going to get.


  1. So, the Virgin Birth is problematic, but the divinity of Christ is....?

    And I don't address that question to you. I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with the story of the Virgin Birth, what's uniquely wrong with it, that is.

    First, the Virgin Birth is a Catholic doctrine, not a Protestant one. The veneration of Mary has raised the V.B. to doctrinal status; that is almost unique in Xianity. So to reject the V.B. is not to reject a basic tenet of Xianity. The three basic premises of Xianity, in ecumenical circles, are: communion and baptism as sacraments; baptism in the name of the Trinity; and acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior.

    No V.B. required. So, basically, who gives a shit? Whatever your critics think of the V.B. is their obsession and their problem.

    Interestingly nobody this time of year harangues on the miracle of Hanukkah. I dare say even my raising the issue in that sentence will be read as anti-Semitic in some circles.

    So it goes.

  2. I doubt the person who is asking really cares about what it means. I have come to suspect that the person they're really trying to convince is them.

    Another thing I've come to believe is that too many atheists don't have enough to do in real life. Forced-retired magazine scribblers, under-employed college grads, people not engaged in actually doing anything for anyone else....

    I went through the exercise of rewriting that Massai Credo that Jaroslav Pelikan presented in that On Being program I linked to the other day to make it what I believe and found relatively little I had to change.

    Reading the Cappadocians, if you read about the context they wrote in a lot of the more obscure points of theology make a lot more sense and a lot of it doesn't strike me as being of such importance today. Brueggemann even seems more relevant to me than a lot of the writing from earlier in the 20th century. But its worthwhile reading it, even when it doesn't seem important to me, trying to see things from other points of view. I don't think that's something atheists generally bother with, they having their one true oracle of reality, only not.


  3. "I do believe that Jesus spoke with a unique prophetic voice, I do
    believe that he and his teachings come from God. If that makes him
    divine, so be it."

    Personally, I'll only go as far as saying that Jesus was definitely fabulous.

  4. "Unlike the many schemes of materialist explanation of the world
    that are dreamed up in the ideological use of science, there are at
    least self-consistent theories of the Virgin Birth and the place of
    Jesus in the cosmological assertions of believers."

    Yeah sure, pal. Some invisible sky being knocked up a Jewish virgin and the rest is history.