Friday, March 10, 2006

Thank God That God Is Not the God Who Is Not!

The God Who Is Not (by exbeliever):

There are Christians very unlike the christian bloggers that we regularly read and hear from. In fact, I think that most Christians are very unlike the ones in the blogosphere. These are good people who hold to good humanistic principles. They believe the best about people. They want people to experience happiness.

I would agree that there are many misinformed Christians out there. They think that the solution to man’s problem lies in man, and, therefore, man must be made out to be the best creature on earth. If the solution to man’s problem is man, then why not uphold some “good” humanistic principles? But this simply lacks Biblical reality. The good news of the gospel does not come until after the bad news is presented. In fact, the good news would not be at all meaningful without the bad news. I certainly hope that exbeliever is not implying that people like me (as well as everyone else in the historical and Biblical realm of orthodox evangelicalism, lest exbeliever think that we are the minority) do not “want people to experience happiness.” No, that is the very thing I want. I simply recognize that happiness cannot be found in sin, and that one cannot find true joy apart from obedience to and worship of our holy God. You see, all exbeliever is doing here is asserting his humanistic presupposition over against Biblical principles. It isn’t that the Bible doesn’t want people to be happy (no, joy is a topic that is spoken of quite a lot in the Scriptures). Rather, exbeliever doesn’t like the means and end of happiness that the Bible presents. So, really, all exbeliever is doing is telling us that he does not like the Bible. It isn’t that Christians are failing to be consistent, or are failing to desire the happiness of others. It’s simply that exbeliever rejects Biblical revelation, and, therefore, rejects the principles of the Bible. Will he ever tell us something new?

Their idea about the Christian God is also very different from the Christian bloggers we are most often in contact with here. Unfortunately, it seems that their idea of the Christian God is also very different from the ones (for there are many different concepts of God in the Bible) presented in the Bible and throughout church history.

The first scenario is certainly possible. I, of course, find the second one not only highly unlikely, but simply untrue. But notice that exbeliever just makes the assertion. He gives us no citations of any Biblical passage or comparison of those citations to the beliefs of these “Christian bloggers” (of whom he gives us no names). He simply assumes that we know what he’s talking about. But that simply won’t cut it.

It seems, to me, that these people are trying to squeeze an idea of a good god into a religion that is antithetical to that conception.

Once again, more assertions without substantiation. The Biblical God is good by definition. Why should we believe otherwise? What reasons does exbeliever give us to reject the God of the Bible as a “good God”?

We, intuitively, know that if a god exists, that god is the zenith of wisdom and morality and, as such, would not be petty about things like human mistakes, homosexuality, etc.

I find this extremely unlikely in an atheistic worldview. Indeed, I find it very ironic that exbeliever is appealing to some “intuitive” presuppositions of those with whom he disagrees. Is the belief in a God a plausible one or an implausible one? If it is plausible, then what is exbeliever doing on this blog? If it is implausible, then why is exbeliever appealing to theistic presuppositions in support of atheistic presuppositions?

Furthermore, how do we know this? Why should my conception of God reflect exbeleiver’s? To me, the God which exists is the God of the Bible. Is exbeliever’s “intuition” superior to mine? In fact, how can exbeliever account for this “intuition”? Sure, an atheistic worldview might be able to account for evolving mythologies concerning a “god,” but that is miles away from some universal “intuition” that we supposedly all share concerning about the likeness of a possible God, to which exbeliever is now appealing.

We also, intuitively, know that if a god with that kind of greatness did actually exist, our world would look very different than it does.

This is as weak as the first one, if not much weaker. Why? By what standard, anyway, does you portray how the world “looks”? And what does that have to do with the ultimate character and purpose of a good God? I mean, really, does exbeliever actually expect us to accept these unjustified asserted assumptions?

I believe there is the idea, in the heart of every human, of what a god must be if one does exist, but there is also a nagging realization that this god doesn’t exist (e.g. because of the prevalence of rape, murder, molestation, etc.).

This is simply the same appeal to the previous two faulty “intuitions.”

What I think many Christians are doing is taking this idea of what a true god would be (i.e. what we know this true god would be if one existed) and trying to force it into Christianity. The problem, however, is that the Bible and church history are clearly opposed to this notion of god. This is a religion that believes its God told people to kill disobedient children and homosexuals; who told rape victims to marry their attackers; who invented the idea of hell to punish those who disagree with him.

Forcing it into “Christianity”? Christianity is a revealed religion, based upon the revelation of the Holy Scriptures. So, if exbeliever senses anything in the doctrine of Christianity (which would be hard to define apart from the Bible anyway) that is inconsistent with the Bible, then he should go ahead and tell us.

Notice these such biased understatements, such as “who invented the idea of hell to punish those who disagree with him,” as if God sends into hell those who simply lost a game of a chess with him or something. “There is intellectual disagreement between us, therefore, you must suffer forever.” What pathetic understatements!

There is this tension, though, because most Christians cannot make themselves believe that a true god (the god they know would exist if one existed) would do such awful things. They try to ignore the God of the Christian Bible and Christian history and put this other concept of god into their religion.

It’s always good to know that someone can simply restate his opening paragraph over and over again without even attempting to justify it.

I can’t help but believe that this is a blasphemous act, not toward the Christian God, but toward the god we know would exist if one existed.

“Blasphemous act”? Can we blaspheme a god that does not exist? Does exbeliever really think he is making sense?

It is paramount to calling a true god a devil (i.e. one who calls for the death and torture of others).

“True god.” Well, if he was the “true god,” then he would exist, would he not! I mean, can the “true god” (i.e., the truly good creator to whom we owe our lives) be the “true god” if he doesn’t exist? In other words, exbeliever is a theist at heart, but an atheist in mind. But hey, that’s the exact description of Scripture: he knows God exists in his heart, but suppresses the truth in his mind.

It does not seem difficult to imagine what a god would be like if one existed.

Actually, in an atheistic worldview, it would seem very difficult. How could you imagine the existence of something that does not exist, or something that you have found to be irrational? How does the atheistic worldview even account for the conception of a Perfect God? And does not the definition of God require his existence?

She would be a good god, a god that is not petty, a god very unlike the Christian God.

No, folks, “free thinkers” never think for themselves. I wonder if it is exbeliever’s “intuition” that causes him to refer to God in the feminine…

Unfortunately, the state of the world seems to be a clear indication that this “true” god does not, in fact, exist (things would be much different).

Again, this is the opening paragraphs restated, and even without creativity. Here’s a tip: if your simply going to assert the same assumptions over and over again without once offering us a single shred of substantiation, you might as well learn how to creatively disguise your tactics.

I think most Christians also know this intuitively, but want so desperately for this true god to exist, that they try to squeeze it into a religion that is antithetical to it. I believe this is a great disservice to the idea of the true god, the god we know would exist if one existed.

And, here we go again, disserving and “blaspheming” that intuitive concept of the “true god” (who’s so “true” that he can’t even exist), whom we all “know would exist if one existed.”

So, while I don’t believe a god exists, I feel compelled to defend the idea of a true god.

Why is exbeliever so compelled? And from where did the concept of the “true god” that we supposedly all share come?

I feel compelled to point out that Christians (and other members of the world religions) are blaspheming the real god, i.e. The God Who is Not.

Oh, so we’re not only blaspheming the hypothetical “true god.” Now we are blaspheming him by name, The God Who is Not. I guess, for an atheist, the “God Who is Not” is indeed the perfect God. I mean, you have all of the wonderful concepts of theism without the responsibility and accountability that theism brings. You can live like an atheist, under the conception that there is no one holding you responsible for your actions, no creator whom you owe worship, and yet still have the precious theistic concept of the “true god” who would exist if only the universe wasn’t a free-for-all, atheistic world.

Atheists are simply people who think too highly of “The God Who is Not” to attach her to one of the hideous world religions. We think too highly of her to associate her with this chaotic, uncaring world.

By what standard is this world “chaotic” or “uncaring,” according to the atheistic worldview?

If any being worthy of the title “god” existed, I can’t help but believe that she would be happier with the atheists of this world than the Christians, Muslims, religious Jews, etc. We are the only ones who refuse to disgrace her by attributing horrific deeds to her.

Nope, the assertions don’t justify themselves. In what way does the Christian worldview attribute to God “horrific deeds”? By what standard are they “horrific”?

Atheists are the true worshippers of the true god, The God Who is Not.

Convenient worship. Very convenient. Thank God that God is not the God who is not!

Evan May.


  1. But have you ever seriously taken a look at the God who is described in the Bible? Ex-believer and I believe we have, and that God is not fitting to be worshipped. You make all kinds of excuses for his behavior because you want that God to be the God who is.

  2. But have you ever seriously taken a look at the God who is described in the Bible?

    Is this a serious question?

    Ex-believer and I believe we have, and that God is not fitting to be worshipped.

    By what standard do you judge that He is not fit to be worshipped?

    You make all kinds of excuses for his behavior because you want that God to be the God who is.

    You make all kinds of excuses for your behavior because you do not want to worship the true God.

  3. But have you ever seriously taken a look at the God who is described in the Bible?

    No, Loftus, despite the fact that I'm on this blog, I'm almost as ignorant as you when it comes to biblical matters ;-D

    Ex-believer and I believe we have, and that God is not fitting to be worshipped.

    So Biblical principles do not match up to the standard of your presuppositions. But where have you justified your standards?

    Furthermore, as my article pointed out, exbeliever went on and on simply restating the same thing over and over again without once offering any substantiation. And I notice that you have not chosen to back up his statements either.

    So really, all this comes down to is you asserting that the God of Christianity is not the "true God" (whoever that is; he's so "true" that he can't exist), and then my rebutting that he is the true God.

    You make all kinds of excuses for his behavior because you want that God to be the God who is.

    What excuses? Don't just come by and offer me assertions.