I originally posted this as a blog on WordPress back in 2007 under my pen name slingshaught

The question in the subject is a valid one.... I have always respected the writings of Heinlein, this passage may offer more insight:

Robert A. Heinlein

July 7, 1907 – May 8, 1988

 

 

We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued, ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong anwers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personaly interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard an observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He
uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.
For explanations of a universe that confuses him, he seizes onto numerology, astrology, hysterical religions, and other fancy ways to go crazy. Having accepted such glorified nonsense, facts make no impression on him, even if at the cost of his own life. Joe, one of the hardest things to believe is the abysmal depth of human stupidity.

Source:
Kettle Belly Baldwin in Gulf from Assignment in Eternity

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comments

  • Charles Szekula - Thank you for your kind words and for honoring our Creator whose name is forever blessed.

    Charles Szekula's Page
    Charles Szekula's Page on Tea Party Command Center
  • Darryl -

    Well organized, intelligent and eloquent, obviously the product of randomness and billions of years of chance.  Proponents of evilution (no that's not a typo) have declared that, while their theory is without foundation they are forced to accept it because the alternative of a Creator God is unacceptable.  

    I'm not sure about the validity of stereotyping agnostics as "people who are not well read" as it sounds a lot like their typical statements about us who fear God.  I do think agnostics are among the sheeple; people who accept what they are taught without critical thought when it fits their fancy. Perhaps this is exactly what you were conveying.  

    Thank you for your willingness to put your name with what most would call foolishness.  I am humbled to stand by your side.

  • "How do feel about this?"  

         I feel that you are as ignorant as you are mistaken, but since you initiated the challenge, allow me to retort.

         First, let me just say that agnostics, who doubt that God exists, are people who aren't well read, and really haven't attempted any research on the subject.  Atheists don't really exist.  Atheists are people who are mad at God for some presumed slight.  Yet why does the pot question the potter?

         If you are a devotee to science, let me explain in words you'll understand.  In an infinite universe or multiverse, there are infinite possibilities.  If all things are possible an infinite number of times, then by logical argument, infinity divided by infinity equals 1, ergo, God is real.  You can pour all the chemicals you wish into your petri dish, but no matter what you do, you won't "create" life.  No carbon based life form as been manufactured in a lab, and never will be.  If you want to be poetic about it, "Only God can make a tree."

         The evidence of intelligent design, good sir, is so overwhelming that one would have to be a fool to ignore it.  

         Red is natures warning color, yet some fruits and vegetables turn red when ripened and ready to eat.  Tomatoes were thought to be poisonous, by the ignorant masses, until George Washington Carver came along.  People actually paid to see someone eating a tomato.  (You may look this fact up, at your leisure.)  The point is, why do these things change color when ripening?  Is there a genetic cause?  Is there an environmental reason to change color when ready for animal consumption?  

         Photosynthesis happens in green plants in order to convert CO2 into oxygen and water vapor, but in the fall, the leaves die out, photosynthesis stops and the greens turn to brown and die.

         Evidence of Gods existence surrounds us every day.  It takes someone walking around with blinders on, believing in the cults of ignorance started by psychology and anger with Him to deny what the soul tells us is true.

         If you don't believe in God, how do you have a soul?, and who put it there?  If you believe in reincarnation, then who made THAT happen?  

         You leave more problems with denial than you do with acceptance.  "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best."

  • Mr Mumme Thank you for a very well thought out interpretation.   Mine is close to the same but arrived at in a different way.   But no matter how it is done,   there really is no doubt that GOD does exist.

    Thanks again.

    Semper Fidelis

  • Okay, I'm willing to take a stab at this.  

    Everything we think is colored by our worldview.  Initially, our worldview is (typically) inherited from our parents' point of view.  We tend to see things as they saw them, and as they taught them to us. We trust them and through our experience with them we learn to trust our teachers and those in authority over us.  We are originally indoctrinated into the way we reason.  This original viewpoint becomes so much a part of us that, if we reject it, we will continually be hounded by it for the rest of our lives.

    Yet, in our free society, as we grow older, we encounter people with differing worldviews, often opposing worldviews; and as mature, critically-thinking beings we begin to consider the truths and evidences that support or refute a differing position.  Sometimes we deny the evidence because it just won't fit within our framework of reality.  Sometimes we accept non-factual claims because it does, or perhaps specifically because it doesn't, fit with the viewpoints we have come to hold.  The seeker of truth has to take on the burden of questioning his own worldview, in order to be honest.  I found that this led to conflicts with family and friends.  Not because I was opinionated, but rather because I was questioning and seeking - a follower no longer.  For a long time I rejected the worldview of my youth.  I wrestled with it and won the battle against it.  I adopted the worldview of my teachers, but only  after considering the validity of their "proofs".   When I look back, I think I did this just to establish myself as an individual in my own right; to be able to say that I had made up my own mind. As I grew older, I began to grow cynical of what I had now accepted, because it wasn't fitting in with my experience of reality.  As the world began to adapt to the worldview that I now held, it seemed to be  fulfilling the predictions that came from my parent's worldview.  As "science" presented its arguments for my new worldview I found fraudulent claims, junk science, and out-right lies.  I began to test the evidence from opposing points of view.  I began to ask questions regarding the results of holding the point of view.  I tried to see which truth claim made the most logical sense.

    Logic as a way to God is not possible.  Not because a belief in God is illogical, but because logic is already dependent upon worldview.  The only way to to find out about God is if He presents Himself to us.  My worldview says that in fact He has revealed Himself, and that the way to God is through His Son.  I am dogmatic about this.  Ken Ham has said something like "Everybody is dogmatic.  The difference is which dog they're dogmatic about."  The author clearly has his own biased and dogmatic worldview as he proclaims, without support, that:

    1) " the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the SACCHARINE adoration of his creations" (emphasis mine).  I am going to make the assumption that the reference here is to the Christian God of the Bible.  The definition of saccharine is "cloyingly agreeable or ingratiating".  The Biblical God nowhere requires or seeks such adoration.  The Bible teaches that man was formed to bring glory to God and to have communion with Him.  God does deserve/want our fervent and devoted love, even worship (this is the definition of adoration).  If you examine the God of Scriptures, if He is who He claims to be, and if He has done what Scriptures purport, then He deserves nothing less than our adoration.  Yet, He doesn't demand it or place the condition for salvation upon it.

    2) The statement "that he can be persuaded by their prayers" shows another misunderstanding and a  twisting of Scripture.  The Bible teaches clearly that we are to "rightly divide the Word of Truth."  This means that we are to understand it before we try to apply it or attempt to interpret it.  Jesus taught to the Jews of His generation to "ask whatever you will of the Father and He will give it to you."  I have quoted the many verses which say the same or similar thing many times as an example of how my parents' worldview was flawed.  Experience teaches me that it just doesn't work that way.  I had failed to realize that neither Jesus nor His apostles applied this verse to the Gentiles or to the Jews after Christ's ascension.  The promise was made to give evidence that the God-man was now present.  The New Testament authors, after Christ's earthly ministry, taught that "we have not because we ask amiss" and further, that "we do not even know what to ask for", but rather we should ask for God's will to be done.  Before the objections are raised that "if we only ask for God's will, why bother asking?" or "God's will will be done whether or not we ask", I would like to propose that we ask because we are humble, needy people who depend upon our gracious Lord and recognize that we are dependent upon Him.  Further, God's will is not always done.  The Bible clearly teaches that God's will is for none to perish, but at the same time some will.  God's will was for man to physically live and commune with Him forever but He gave man the freedom of choice and man chose to rebel.  No, He merely desires for our hearts to be correlated with the reality that we are His created beings.  In other words, that we accept the truth of our circumstances and our relationship to Him.

    3) As to God becoming "petulant if he does not receive this flattery", this is the most uninformed point of all.  Petulant means "moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance."  This is not the Biblical perspective in any way.  

          a) The Bible repeatedly condemns flattery of any kind.

          b) God does not move suddenly, or with impatient irritation ever.  The Bible teaches that God is slow to wrath, ever-willing to give ample opportunity for repentance, and self-sacrificing  by giving His only Son to die for the sins of the world.  Especially in regard to God not being impatient, He has waited millenniums to bring His declared judgments down on our rebellion.  In return He asks for a repentant heart and belief in Him.

          c) Treason against divine authority can in no way be considered as a "trifling annoyance."

    Before I continue I want to cite dictionary.com as the source for the definitions given above.

    In short, I would like to say that I totally agree with the author that "the most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens...and the most ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it..." is the straw-man concept that the author has perpetrated himself.

    As to evidence to support the God of the Bible, I would say it is all around us.  It is everywhere.  It begins with the fact that every physical thing wherein we have full knowledge of its origin, has a maker, everything without exception.  For some reason we question the existence of a Maker for physical things that haven't been seen to be made.  I suggest that we should logically begin with the assumption that the physical things we don't know about are probably originated in a similar fashion as the things we do know about, and then try to prove differently if it is important.  To question a belief is fine but to deny the simplest, clearest answer without a shred of evidence is "ridiculous."  As I examine the "proofs" of evolutionary teachings I find so many holes and biases that don't correspond to either my experiences or to other truth claims.  The fact that there are fossils at all suggest that they were swiftly covered with mud, (as in a Biblical flood) and not that they were laid down over eons.  If a horse dies here in the Arizona desert, there will be no evidence of it in a hundred years, let alone millions.  The fact that "supposed evolved species" appear in the geological record above their "supposed ancestors" speaks of the invalidity of the assumption and that they were probably laid down at the same time.  The fact that living, breathing organisms are carbon dated to be 300 million years old speaks of the confidence we should assign to the method. The absolute non-existence in the fossil record of any transitional fossils (yes, I am aware of what evolutionists falsely claim to be "transitional"; I could go on about that for pages) speaks volumes.  The fact that at some point something had to come from nothing (unless you don't accept the laws of thermodynamics and choose to believe that the universe is eternal) speaks of the need for something supernatural; I call Him God.  Enough, I am not here to rant on about creation vs. evolution, and am aware that many will debate or try to refute me and say that I am uninformed even stupid, (I am certain that many have set me aside already); I am here to show that there are reasons, not to deny the facts, but to question their interpretation and to suggest that a fallen man would prefer the non-existence of God and therefore will cling to his worldview.

    The evidence for the Christian God is further shown in prophecies given and then fulfilled.  Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies that were written hundreds of years before His birth, and by many different authors.  Prophecies about His ancestry, His birthplace, His uniqueness, His manner of death, His resurrection, and more.  Things that He couldn't fake or self-fulfill.  He fulfilled many other prophecies and will fulfill still others in the future.  (I know the last part isn't evidence it's faith, but I have already announced my bias.)   Over five hundred people at one time gave witness to His resurrection.  The evidence for the historical Jesus is more voluminous and written closer to the time period both by followers and by those who rejected Him than of anyone else in history.  People rarely die for known false causes, yet all but two of His closest companions were tortured to death in an attempt to dissuade them from their belief in Him.  Of the two that escaped persecution,  Judas, who betrayed Him, went and hung himself; and Jesus' beloved friend John lived to a ripe old age.

    As to that (again my assumption) Christianity is "one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history" I would point to the foundation of the United States and the basis for our freedoms, the charity work performed worldwide, the beginning of the Scientific method, and the motivation of salvation of of the world's souls as being the most productive organism that has ever existed in the history of mankind.

    Finally, there is the outcome of the polar opposite worldviews.  A anti-Christian-God worldview leads to subjective morality.  Everyone's concept of right and wrong, good and evil is without backing. Anyone's opinion is as worthy as anyone else's.  You might think its wrong to kill but if I don't then it's not wrong for me to kill you.  If I believe that a Jew or an African is a lower form of life then I am perfectly within my right to exterminate them.  Who are you to say otherwise?  An anti-Christian-God worldview leads to lawlessness after all, laws are there to promote the good and to discourage evil. Yet, there is again no abiding definition as to what is good or evil.  An anti-Christian-God worldview leads to immorality which leads to disease and death.  An anti-Christian-God world view leads to slavery and dominion and the burden of living under laws that must be obeyed regardless of our inability or fairness.  An anti-Christian-God worldview leads to randomness and purposelessness, and defeatism.  A pro-Christian-God worldview says God made me and everyone and everything else, therefore, He has the right to say what is expected of me and what the consequences are for not obeying.  It leads to love of your fellow man, an understanding that we are all brothers and sisters, that women are to be honored, that widows and orphans are to be cared for, that one has a duty to work, that your problems are kindred to my problems, and to hope.

    Many evil things have been done in the name of the Christian God, but you will never find a basis for them in Scripture.  There is a lot of misinformation, misinterpretation, and people making Christianity claims that their lives don't back up, but these aren't examples of the Christian worldview.

    Well, that's the way I see it.  Maybe, I am just tainted by my worldview, nevertheless, I think the view is at least reasonable and promotes goodness  Further, I believe that I have made the case that the author has shown us "the abysmal depth of human stupidity."

This reply was deleted.