Taking The Red Pill

[yxboom]

Taking the Red Pill

by Jon Luker aka Polemicist (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=431[/url)


A fellow blogger (http://schweppe.org/) and I arrived at this analogy recently, when discussing our respective journeys toward what is commonly called the Reformed Faith. If you have seen The Matrix, and are one who cherishes the doctrines of grace as well as the covenantal richness of the Scriptures, I've probably got your attention. What could a movie that portrays a nihilistic machine-controlled world devoid of God have to do with our journey in the faith? Keep in mind this is a loose analogy, and like all analogies cannot be stretched beyond its intended meaning. Bear with me.

While talking to Mike about personal struggles and frustrations of one who is passionate about applying faith to all of life, he made a joking, yet profound statement. "Jon, you took the red pill."

http://polemics.us/pics/~matrix.jpg

Morpheus: At last. Welcome, Neo. As you no doubt have guessed, I am Morpheus.

Neo: It's an honor to meet you.

Morpheus: No, the honor is mine. Please, come. Sit down. I imagine that right now you're feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole? Hmm?

Neo: You could say that.

Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?

Neo: No.

Morpheus: Why not?

Neo: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.

Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Neo: The Matrix?

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind... Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.... Remember, all I'm offering is the truth, nothing more... Follow me...

I have been a believer for decades, but the last decade has been a doozie. I had always entertained (and even held without knowing) Calvinistic views. I remember a youth group meeting (discussing God's omnipotence, I believe) in which I blurted out to the horror of the leader something like this, "Of course God is in complete control of His creation. Why do people get all worked up when we suggest that He is in complete control of salvation?" I was still unaware of that famous Frenchman named Calvin at the time, let alone that guy who I kept getting confused with a civil-rights leader. I was a clueless Calvinist.

http://polemics.us/pics/~sproul.gif

Then I took the "red pill". Actually, it was a book and the cover was purple, but you get the idea. Reading this book put structure around my fuzzy thoughts and sent me down the Reformed Rabbit Hole. It has been a Wonderland adventure ever since, but not one without fits and starts. For one thing, I became something of a zealot. Not in the sense of being divisive, but in the sense of being obsessive. I devoured Calvinistic books and periodicals and couldn't get enough. At the time, I was a deacon/elder in a Baptist church, in which these doctrines were frowned upon, so I kept my zeal largely to myself. For a while. Then it happened. I innocently mentioned the phrase "Covenant Theology" at a board meeting and elicited a collective barrage of anathemas. I knew then that I was in the wrong place and my remaining would be divisive. I had to go. It was a difficult and emotional parting. But that parting allowed my zeal to grow. Too much. Douglas Wilson puts it quite well when he says...

But after God has initially brought believers into an understanding of the preciousness of sovereign election, they frequently enter what a friend of mine called the "cage" stage -- the time when the newly-convinced "Calvinist" ought to be locked into a cage, and not let out until he stabilizes. This is because coming to a "Calvinistic" understanding of Scripture is not a second experience that removes one from temptation and sin. And obviously, our new temptations are tailored and adjusted to our new understanding. So I have listed below some of the more common temptations and sins of those who hold to the doctrine of efficacious grace. [full article] (http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol5/them5-2.htm)

Yep. I needed the cage treatment. Many of Wilson's observations applied very well to me... Exasperation, Arrogance, Imbalance, Frustration... during that time. And oftentimes those same temptations rear their ugly heads again to this day. I am, after all, a sinner. But I had, indeed, taken the red pill. There was no going back. Understanding TULIP was just the beginning of the adventure. I had also come to understand the beauty and wonder of the covenant from what I like to call the "back door".

I saw an advertisement in World Magazine (http://worldmag.com/world/home.asp) for a boldly titled book called Last Days Madness (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0915815354/polemics-20/104-5846056-1010307). Up until that point, eschatology held no interest for me. All I knew was from the pre-millennial dispensational vantage point, which confused me with its exegetical gymnastics. I was essentially a pan-millennialist (it'll all pan out in the end). But the advertisement and description of this book intrigued me. Reading this book lead me to others like it and I eventually became convinced of the postmillennial view. In the process, I became exposed to the ideas of men like Douglas Wilson (http://credenda.org/) and Andrew Sandlin (http://www.christianculture.com/) (just to name two favorites) who helped me understand how faith is applied to all of life. Along the way, I came to accept presuppositional apologetics as well. What a wonderful Rabbit Hole!

But what does it mean to apply our faith to all of life? To me, it primarily means that the secular vs. sacred mindset has to go. The secular Matrix is a facade. All is sacred. Everything is under the reign of Christ (1 Cor. 15:25) and I must order my life in accord with that fact. Our Lord is in the process of putting "all His enemies under His feet" and I am his footsoldier. I've got kingdom building work to do. That is why I believe in an explicitly Christian education (http://www.thejonescamp.com/providenceclassical.htm) for my children and for yours. That is why I believe Christians should be invading and infiltrating the culture, rather than mimicking it (especially in worship). We are on offense! We are more than conquerors! The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18) isn't just about evangelism. It's about discipling, baptizing, training, and culture conquering... and it starts with heads of households in their own homes.

Mike's red pill analogy put things in perspective for me. I was whining about how frustrating it is to see plain vanilla evangelicals at the shallow end (http://www.afterdarkness.blogspot.com/2002_12_22_afterdarkness_archive.html#AboutMyTheology) of the pool, refusing to dive into deeper waters. But, looking at my own journey down the Rabbit Hole - a decade long - I now realize I might need to jump back into that cage once in a while.

300

Polemicist responds to the name Jon Luker in the real world. He maintains a blog called Polemics (http://polemics.us) (n. the art or practice of disputation or controversy.) His modus operandi at Polemics is to toss it out there and engage in discussion. Many of the ideas posted at Polemics are still being worked out in Jon's mind (semper reformanda). He invites challenge, because it promotes learning all around. Iron, indeed, sharpens iron. Debate is healthy! It is a key ingredient of that lost art ... conversation.

300

TheologyWeb is very pleased to have Polemicist as one of our active members and for contributing this clever and insightful article. Please be sure to visit his homepage (http://polemics.us/) for further challenging reading.




300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[rocket]

Let me explain something to you. I am the Rocket. This has turned out to be some pea-brained idea of somebodies to promote Christian insanity...I will do this, I will give my time under a condition...and that is...calling yourself a "Christian" does not in any way shape or form make you right about anything...

[yxboom]

That was highly stimulating and for all intents and purposes a fantastic first post. However what does that have to do with the article??? :huh:

[brother vinny]

Today @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120939#post120939)
rocket:

Let me explain something to you. I am the Rocket.

Well, someone has some Freudian issues to work through.

:ahem:

Remember, Rocket, sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

:dufus:

[dizzle]

I, though not a Calvinist, thoroughly enjoyed this article and thought it was a fantastic analogy.

[Ryokan]

I am just confused by Rocket. Although I am not even a Christian, you have made the best Matrix/religion post so far, yx. Have a pearl!

[Polemicist]

I, though not a Calvinist, thoroughly enjoyed this article and thought it was a fantastic analogy.

Thanks Dee Dee. I had fun with it. The analogy really is in terms of spiritual journey, so I suppose it would apply to anyone who finds themselves suddenly finding that Rabbit Hole. I'm not talking conversion as much as that moment one finds there's enormous depth, complexity, wonder, and beauty in Scripture ... and that it applies to life in very real and concrete ways.

Was there a particular book (besides the Bible of course) that did this for you all?

[dizzle]

Polemicist, actually with Christian doctrine, I can relate to your view in that I felt that way in some ways in accepting orthodox preterism.

[Alien]

Would someone be good enough to tell me what "TULIP" means? I keep seeing it mentioned, and everyone seems to assume that the reader knows what it refers to. A link to a full explanation would be quite acceptable, maybe even best.

Thanks.

(Any joker that tells me its a flower will get one of those nasty smilies.)

(Polemicist, I also enjoyed the article, though I did find "I believe Christians should be invading and infiltrating the culture" and similar thoughts in that paragraph to be somewhat ..... disturbing?)

[Polemicist]

On the TULIP acrostic, try this (http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/).

(Polemicist, I also enjoyed the article, though I did find "I believe Christians should be invading and infiltrating the culture" and similar thoughts in that paragraph to be somewhat ..... disturbing?)

Why does it disturb you to hear that ideas might just have consequences? Though I was using hyperbolic (polemic?) language there in my concluding paragraphs, please don't read into this the common misunderstanding that I want to force my faith down everyone's throat. On the contrary. I want those who claim the Faith to take it seriously and get back to the business of building the Kingdom; not using the tools of the state and politics to accomplish it, but truly being faithful to the Word we claim to believe. Is that ultimately a threat to a secularist/atheist? Not in the sense of politics and power. The Kingdom is not built by coercion, but by obedience of its faithful to their true King.

[Alien]

Today @ 01:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121373#post121373)
Polemicist:
On the TULIP acrostic, try this (http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/).


Thank you. I now understand Calvinism a lot better than I did before.

Why does it disturb you to hear that ideas might just have consequences?

Because ideas have consequences. I have been unable to buy a beer on Sunday in too many places to believe that Christians might leave the rest of us alone if/when they obtain political power.

Though I was using hyperbolic (polemic?) language there in my concluding paragraphs, please don't read into this the common misunderstanding that I want to force my faith down everyone's throat. On the contrary. I want those who claim the Faith to take it seriously and get back to the business of building the Kingdom; not using the tools of the state and politics to accomplish it, but truly being faithful to the Word we claim to believe. Is that ultimately a threat to a secularist/atheist? Not in the sense of politics and power. The Kingdom is not built by coercion, but by obedience of its faithful to their true King.

That's fine by me. :)

[LGM]

But what does it mean to apply our faith to all of life? To me, it primarily means that the secular vs. sacred mindset has to go. The secular Matrix is a facade. All is sacred. Everything is under the reign of Christ (1 Cor. 15:25) and I must order my life in accord with that fact. Our Lord is in the process of putting "all His enemies under His feet" and I am his footsoldier. I've got kingdom building work to do. That is why I believe in an explicitly Christian education for my children and for yours. That is why I believe Christians should be invading and infiltrating the culture, rather than mimicking it (especially in worship). We are on offense! We are more than conquerors! The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18) isn't just about evangelism. It's about discipling, baptizing, training, and culture conquering... and it starts with heads of households in their own homes.

chilling... a Calvinist Fatwa :eek:

I'm curious, have you ever stopped to consider, for just the briefest of moments, that you have fallen into your self described Calvinist "Rabbit Hole". And that now you no longer experience the "real world", but are trapped in the Reformed Matrix ?
(yikes mixing Lewis Carroll and Wachowski brothers metaphors) :hrm:

Perhaps it is now you need to take the red pill? :rant:

Or perhaps you are "pre-destined" to live out your days in the "total depravity" of the reformed matrix?

Good luck with your Kingdom, don't forget the building permits...

-peace and love

LGM

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121436#post121436)
Alien:


Because ideas have consequences. I have been unable to buy a beer on Sunday in too many places to believe that Christians might leave the rest of us alone if/when they obtain political power.



I certainly hope not being able to buy beer on Sunday is the least if your concerns! (Have you considered buying twice as much on Saturday instead?)

[Alien]

Today @ 09:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=121993#post121993)
jpholding:
I certainly hope not being able to buy beer on Sunday is the least if your concerns! (Have you considered buying twice as much on Saturday instead?)

I do, I do!

But do you see the point? If atheists had gotten a law passed that made it illegal to wear crosses in public, and you complained about it on an atheist forum, how about if I said "Hey, that's not important, you can always wear them at home"?

[dizzle]

Ah, the myth of "neutrality"

[Alien]

Today @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122249#post122249)
Dee Dee Warren:

Ah, the myth of "neutrality"

Which is .... ?

[Suede]

:cheers:

Excellent article yxboom. Thoughts are shared on this matter. I cringed when I hear people say that the Matrix is like Buddhism. Huh? I finally read an article where they admitted to the Messianic current in it, but alas they still had to add on Buddhism. But with the second movie, which is deplorable in my opinion, hits a Calvinistic/Reformed stream indeed. Great observation, and thank God I'm not alone in that view.

[jpholding]

Yesterday @ 07:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122245#post122245)
Alien:



I do, I do!

But do you see the point? If atheists had gotten a law passed that made it illegal to wear crosses in public, and you complained about it on an atheist forum, how about if I said "Hey, that's not important, you can always wear them at home"?

Wouldn't bug me a bit. If anything I'd thank you for keeping me clean of cheap costume jewelry. It's NOT important. :smile:

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 04:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122382#post122382)
Alien:



Which is .... ?

That something which is not overtly influenced by "religion" is neutral. To use your example (which is not something though that I would make a big deal out of), the decision to sell beer on Sundays is not a neutral decision. It is legislating morality, just on the other end. All worldviews seek to do what Polemicists here was expressing. It is a myth and sleight of hand to say that they are not. Why is then what he said so shocking? It isn't.

[LGM]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122686#post122686)
Dee Dee Warren:

That something which is not overtly influenced by "religion" is neutral. To use your example (which is not something though that I would make a big deal out of), the decision to sell beer on Sundays is not a neutral decision. It is legislating morality, just on the other end. All worldviews seek to do what Polemicists here was expressing. It is a myth and sleight of hand to say that they are not. Why is then what he said so shocking? It isn't.

Dee,

"Something" (i.e. a law in this case) which is not overtly influenced by religion(s) is "secular" not "neutral". Its secular or religious "moral" implications are a separate matter. Perhaps you and polemicist are not aware that you live in a "secular" country or "matrix" as he calls it. We have this great law called “the first amendment" that says the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
:yipee:

So when the government passes a law that says the sale of alcohol is "legal" (whatever the moral implications) it should give the people the right to buy it and consume it without regard to some "religious respect" (i.e. people should be singing hymns to the Christian god on Sunday morning instead of buying beer).

Note this does not restrict your right to "not" buy and consume alcohol on Sunday (except maybe during communion), or at all, if it is against your religious beliefs. It also does not restrict the rights of a Christian store owner to close his store on Sunday and any other time he doesn't beleive people should be buying alcohol. You also have the right to petition your government that the sale and consumption of alcohol is not "moral" and is a destructive practice based on the obvious "secular" arguments. This was accomplished in the 1920s during prohibition. It was repealed for obvious reasons.

It is no different than the recently converted Muslim woman in Florida who claims the taking of her "un-veiled" picture for her driver license is not a "neutral" or "moral" law for her. Imagine the next logical step, where a heavily Muslim community wanted to prohibit the sale of "food" during the daylight hours of Ramadan.

I am all for the freedom to practice whatever form of radical Reformed theology you want, and to send your children to private religious schools where they will be taught likewise. You can also attempt to "conquer" the culture with your ideas and persuasion, but fortunately your "conquering" must stop short of the establishment of laws that respect it.

-peace and love

LGM

[Polemicist]

"Something" (i.e. a law in this case) which is not overtly influenced by religion(s) is "secular" not "nuetral". Its secular or religious "moral" implications are a separate matter. Perhaps you and polemicist are not aware that you live in a "secular" country or "matrix" as he calls it.

I think you're misreading what Dee Dee has stated. She is saying that neutrality is a myth. Law assumes a morality, whether that be an atheistic notion of the secular (man as the highest authority) or a transcendant notion of our accountability to God. An atheist would obviously hold that our current reality is secular, because he refuses to accept an accountability to a Creator. As a Christian, I accept a reality in which I am accountable to that Creator.

Now, my beef is with Christians (e.g. civil religionists in the political scene) who try to accommodate an atheistic view and a Christian view simultaneously. There aren't two realities (secular and sacred) and our Faith isn't something that can be compartmentalized.

By the way, you cite the First Amendment as a protection and I applaud this protection. Another founding document establishes from whence this protection comes.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[LGM]

Today @ 01:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122876#post122876)
Polemicist:

I think you're misreading what Dee Dee has stated. She is saying that neutrality is a myth.

Didn't misread it at all, perhaps you misread my reply and the examples I cited?

The fact that their are laws (whether moral or amoral) that people don't "like", for any number of reasons, is well understood. Many motorcyclists don't believe helmet laws are "neutral". The fact that we have a first amendment means our legislatures are not allowed to pass laws with respect to, or restricting a specific religion. This is as close to "nuetral" as we can be. It is not an "atheist" view, we do not pass laws that somehow "favor" an "atheist" view (there is no such thing as an atheist “view”)


Law assumes a morality, whether that be an atheistic notion of the secular (man as the highest authority) or a transcendant notion of our accountability to God. An atheist would obviously hold that our current reality is secular, because he refuses to accept an accountability to a Creator. As a Christian, I accept a reality in which I am accountable to that Creator.

Now, my beef is with Christians (e.g. civil religionists in the political scene) who try to accommodate an atheistic view and a Christian view simultaneously. There aren't two realities (secular and sacred) and our Faith isn't something that can be compartmentalized.

hmmmm..., another abstract concept here that you may not grasp is that there aren't only exactly two "views" (however you're defining that ambigous term), "Christian" and "atheist". Perhaps you should go back to re-read your original post to ponder why you left the Baptist church... I wonder if "all" Christians have agreed to "your view" yet?. Since I am not an atheist, I cannot speak for them, but I'm pretty sure there is not a "single" view held by them either. And I've also read about some other "marginal" religious views that people in this country have. Perhaps I should list a few?

btw, I'm very happy you are accountable to your god, and as long as your being accountable does not break our "secular laws" (i.e. like say, stoning a blasphemer to death), by all means knock yourself out.

I am however still perplexed by your lack of understanding of atheism? Atheists simply lack a god belief. There is no other "creed" or "view" that is required. They don't:

"refuse to accept an accountability to a Creator"

any more than you refuse to accept an accountability to Baal, or the tooth fairy.


By the way, you cite the First Amendment as a protection and I applaud this protection. Another founding document establishes from whence this protection comes.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


ahhh yes. You see my "creator(s)" were my parents, and I am extremely grateful to them for "creating" me in this great country, that was founded on the timeless political intellect and courage of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Perhaps you are not aware of the history behind the first amendment? And the fact that religious freedom was not always guaranteed in this country. Perhaps your "beef" with the "civil religionists" is that you want them to return us to a country which:

•Established a loyalty oath for legislators and government employees, requiring them to believe in the Trinity, and/or the divine inspiration of the Bible.
•Prohibited clergy from holding office.
•Required legislators to be Protestant Christians.
•Permitted the state to support the Christian religion from general tax revenue.
•Granted religious and other human rights only to Christians, or only to theists.
•Specified "The Protestant Religion" (whatever that meant) to be the established religion of the state.
•Required citizens to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day.

All these laws existed in the original U.S. states before the first amendment. If your quest is reestablishing laws like these, or something that more closely fits your beliefs, please come out and state it clearly and don’t hide behind code phrases like “civil religionists” and “compartmentalization”.

If it is your quest, it will most likely only occur by summoning the power of your god to wipe out those that stand in your way, much like he did to the Canaanites, but perhaps this is the plan?

-peace and understanding

LGM
(a fool who despises the wisdom of the self righteous)

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122487#post122487)
jpholding:
Wouldn't bug me a bit. If anything I'd thank you for keeping me clean of cheap costume jewelry. It's NOT important. :smile:

That's interesting, JP. I'll agree that the ability to buy or not buy beer on Sunday is not exactly at the top of my list of concerns (though it does irritate me when I go to another state and get bitten by yet another variation on these restrictions; I'm used to the local ones).

Nevertheless, your response points up a big gap between your thinking and mine. So let me ask you: At what point in the progressive restriction of your right to express your religious beliefs would you move from "not important" to "important"? And when these fictional atheists are putting you in jail for being a Christian, might you wish that you had joined the protest against the "cross" legislation?

(If you had, you would probably have met me in the crowd.) :smile:

Dee Dee, LGM seems to have made my response for me .... :smile:

[Polemicist]

The fact that their are laws (whether moral or amoral) that people don't "like", for any number of reasons, is well understood.

What exactly would an amoral law be? :huh:

hmmmm..., another abstract concept here that you may not grasp is that there aren't only exactly two "views" (however you're defining that ambigous term), "Christian" and "atheist".

Perhaps "view" is too ambiguous, since it led down the rabbit trail about differing sects with Christian orthodoxy which disagree on points. That's not what I was expressing. Jesus Christ puts it this way, "He who is not with Me is against Me..." (Matthew 12:30). By the way, it pains me to hear our president use similar messianic language as if our nation had some divine right, but that's another topic. Anyway, from a biblical standpoint, there is no neutrality... God leaves no wiggle room in the middle.

Atheists simply lack a god belief. There is no other "creed" or "view" that is required. They don't: "refuse to accept an accountability to a Creator"

This sounds rather muddled. Atheists assert there is no Creator/God. By claiming there is no God, they dismiss Him as an authority and claim to be an authority unto themselves.

Perhaps your "beef" with the "civil religionists" is that you want them to return us to a country which ... (bulleted list)

Yikes! No! You might just be surprised to find out that I am a minarchist (keep the state to a minimum) politically. The mistake the Puritans made was that they began to see the state as their means to build the Kingdom, which is a recipe for oppression. Many thought Christ was a political savior and were sorely disappointed. My "beef" is with the Falwells, Robertsons, Bauers, etc. who keep trudging down that same statist path.

I believe Christ's Kingdom will ultimately prevail, not by means of a coercive state, but by means of transforming obedience of His people to His word. You may not believe that and I'll defend your right to. It won't keep me from praying for the truth to penetrate your heart and mind though.

Now where'd that bottle of Guinness go? :cheers:

[LGM]

This sounds rather muddled. Atheists assert there is no Creator/God. By claiming there is no God, they dismiss Him as an authority and claim to be an authority unto themselves.

:hrm: No actually it's your thinking that's rather muddled. But I'm not surprised, my understanding of the inner most workings and rituals of Calvinist Reformed theology is also weak.

So let me see if I can help you. Its really quite simple:

Atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason.

To assume that atheism involves more than the absence of theism is an error. Atheists are not necessarily Communists (though some are). Atheists are not necessarily immoral or "wicked" (though some are). Atheists do not necessarily assert that "no gods exist" (though some do). Atheism is but one component of an atheist's larger philosophical outlook and can influence that outlook, but atheism is never itself that primary outlook.

Some atheists simply lack belief. Others such as infants or the mentally ill or retarded lack awareness. While still others on this planet have yet to be exposed to your or anyone else's theology. But not to worry, from what I understand of your beliefs, all these people simply aren't "the chosen ones", and will be recycled in the lake of fire.

Now certainly there are atheists who have carefully considered the various claims and have either found them unconvincing or have flat-out rejected them as pure falsehood. Even if a person has never heard someone claim that a god or gods exist, that person lacks theism and is therefore, technically, an atheist. Nevertheless, most atheists would probably convert to theism if presented with a convincing argument. (perhaps you have one for your theology?) Be they people who have yet to encounter claims for the existence of gods, or be they people who have honestly and carefully considered and rejected those claims that they have encountered.

So for example, I would expect many atheists would convert to your theology if the moon had visible writing on it that said "Jesus Rulz!". On the other had I think Islam would have become more popular if molecular biologists discovered the human genome contained a gene that had "made by Allah" on it.

One very important feature of the atheistic position is the fact that we are dealing entirely with claims -- claims that various deities exist. In discussing claims, it is always the person making the claim who is responsible for providing evidence and strong argument. The person listening to the claim need not make any argument at all. And the listener does not need to disprove a claim in order to reject it or the specific "god" it refers to. If the person making the claim fails to make a convincing case, the listener rightly rejects the claim as falsehood (or suspends judgment, based upon the strength of the claim). In either event, the listener ends up lacking a belief in the object of the claim.

So here's where it get's interesting, you Jon Luker are "mono- theistic", that is you lack a belief in the theology of all the hundreds of other gods, current and past, except your own. And as much as you might try and deny it, with your pithy quote from the author of "matthew's gospel, I would guess you deny any other Christian theology (ie. Mormon or Heaven's Gate) that does not meet your litmus test of orthodoxy.

So it's a very simple exercise. When you come to understand why you lack a belief in all other theologies but your own, you'll also come to understand why atheists lack a belief in yours.

I hope this exercise has been helpful.

As far as "claiming to be an authority on to myself", I guess I would have to plead guilty, although I also submit to the authority of my government, my employer and most importantly my wife.(i'm very "non-biblical" in that respect :lol:)

I suspect in reality, you too are also an authority on to yourself. I'm wondering if your god physically manifests himself to help you decide when the drive thru clerk asks if you want to "Super Size" your order? If he does, this would be a perfect opportunity to convince more atheists of your theology. :idea:


I believe Christ's Kingdom will ultimately prevail, not by means of a coercive state, but by means of transforming obedience of His people to His word. You may not believe that and I'll defend your right to. It won't keep me from praying for the truth to penetrate your heart and mind though.

Well if you truly mean "not by means of a coercive state", then I am relieved, and I retract my first amendment babbling in my earlier posts.

Alas, I'm still confused by your specific brand of theology though, aren't "His people" already "chosen"? Don't they already hold the eternal life lottery ticket? Can "unchosen" people get "chosen" if they "transform and are obedient" to "his word"? Are the "chosen" the same ones who have their names in that book mentioned in revelations???
I'm so confused...

-peace and understanding
LGM
I'm more a Bass Ale man... :cheers:

[jpholding]

Yo Alien,

That's interesting, JP. I'll agree that the ability to buy or not buy beer on Sunday is not exactly at the top of my list of concerns

Glad to hear that! :brow:

(though it does irritate me when I go to another state and get bitten by yet another variation on these restrictions

You probably should do an online search for the restrictions before travelling. I surely would! (Just search "blue laws" and the state name, I'd guess.)

At what point in the progressive restriction of your right to express your religious beliefs would you move from "not important" to "important"?

When:
1) What you threaten as response is more than an inconvenience. 2) When it threatens elemental rights on matters of core doctrine -- i.e., you can prohibit the jewelry, but prohibit evangelization and you'll have some problems from me.

And when these fictional atheists are putting you in jail for being a Christian, might you wish that you had joined the protest against the "cross" legislation?

Depends on who the atheists are and what else they do and whether we are still having free elections. Petty persons who would outlaw jewelry are likely to do other stupid stuff that will get them thrown out of office next election. Of course that assumes we're under a republican (little R) form of government with free elections -- if we're under a totalitarian system I'd probably have been dead for other reasons long ago.

[Alien]

Today @ 10:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124451#post124451)
jpholding:

At what point in the progressive restriction of your right to express your religious beliefs would you move from "not important" to "important"?

When:
1) What you threaten as response is more than an inconvenience. 2) When it threatens elemental rights on matters of core doctrine -- i.e., you can prohibit the jewelry, but prohibit evangelization and you'll have some problems from me.

Well, good. Obviously your "irritation level" is a lot higher than mine, but you do have a limit. :smile:


Depends on who the atheists are and what else they do and whether we are still having free elections. Petty persons who would outlaw jewelry are likely to do other stupid stuff that will get them thrown out of office next election. Of course that assumes we're under a republican (little R) form of government with free elections -- if we're under a totalitarian system I'd probably have been dead for other reasons long ago.

Petty persons that outlawed drinking on Sunday didn't get thrown out of office as far as I can tell, but whatever.

I guess you're saying "don't sweat the small stuff" and I can acknowledge the sense in that.

(Looks for an appropriate smily to sum it all up. Ahh ...)

:cheers:

[jpholding]

Hi ho, Alien-o,

Well, good. Obviously your "irritation level" is a lot higher than mine, but you do have a limit. :smile:

ven then I would call it more a matter of offended sense of justice than irritation. :brow:

Petty persons that outlawed drinking on Sunday didn't get thrown out of office as far as I can tell, but whatever.

Don't blue laws usually find allies in teetotalers who are not even of religious persuasion?

[Alien]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124570#post124570)
jpholding:
Hi ho, Alien-o,


And Hi to ye, Mr JP!

[Even] then I would call it more a matter of offended sense of justice than irritation. :brow:

That's exactly what it is of course. And when my sense of justice is offended I find it really irritating! :smile:

Don't blue laws usually find allies in teetotalers who are not even of religious persuasion?

I don't know. I'm sure the desire to run others' lives is not totally the province of religious folks. :wink: On the other hand, wouldn't they want to apply restrictions across the board? Its the "Sunday" thing that gives it away.

On a slight tangent, there seems to be a category of human activity where legal prohibition just makes the situation worse. Obvious candidates are drinking alcohol, drug taking, gambling and prostitution. The common factors seem to be a strong desire (need?) for the "product", a perception on the part of the "criminal" that what he does is a personal choice and none of society's business and an element of addiction. I think we (as a society) need to be careful that we don't create a "cigarette mafia" if we go much further making the lives of smokers uncomfortable.

[jpholding]

Hiya hiya,

I don't know. I'm sure the desire to run others' lives is not totally the province of religious folks. :wink: On the other hand, wouldn't they want to apply restrictions across the board? Its the "Sunday" thing that gives it away.

Not sure. I imagine some would take what they can get. Sunday now, then the other six days when they can until we get Prohibition back.

On a slight tangent, there seems to be a category of human activity where legal prohibition just makes the situation worse.

One of these days I'll need to do a study on the effects of Prohibition. While I understand it led to underground activity, I also understand that it reduced alcohol consumption considerably.

think we (as a society) need to be careful that we don't create a "cigarette mafia" if we go much further making the lives of smokers uncomfortable.

What would you think of taxes on cigarettes going directly to a fund to pay for medical care for smoking-related illnesses, and such persons as get those illnesses not being paid for Medicare, etc? It does rather gall me to pay for the bad habits of someone who made their own choice. :smile:

[Alien]

Today @ 08:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125446#post125446)
jpholding:
Not sure. I imagine some would take what they can get. Sunday now, then the other six days when they can until we get Prohibition back.

That sounds depressingly likely.

One of these days I'll need to do a study on the effects of Prohibition. While I understand it led to underground activity, I also understand that it reduced alcohol consumption considerably.

That would be interesting. I wonder, though, if the decrease was in consumption by "moderate" drinkers, who weren't the (perceived) problem anyway? An alcoholic isn't going to be put off by a mere law.

What would you think of taxes on cigarettes going directly to a fund to pay for medical care for smoking-related illnesses, and such persons as get those illnesses not being paid for Medicare, etc? It does rather gall me to pay for the bad habits of someone who made their own choice. :smile:

Its an emotionally attractive idea, certainly. I see two problems, though.

First, the tax on cigarettes is already being used for other essential (ahem) government purposes, so we would then have to pay extra taxes anyway. Or were you thinking of levying more taxes on tobacco to pay for this?

Second, where do you stop with this line of action? Alcohol and drug related diseases have to be included in the interest of fairness. How about overweight people? Should we have to pay for the bad habits of those that overeat? What about people that indulge in extreme sports? Or those that don't fasten their seatbelts? People that don't exercise ought to be included, maybe?

You probably didn't want that serious a response. Sorry.

:ahem:

[Belteshazzar]

Thanks for a great post yxboom, after reading your article I made the choice to step out of lurk mode and registered on the site. Did I take the red pill?

Also, is it possible that a photon fired in my brain splitting into a series of multi-dimension choice matrices at the time when I made the choice? Is it possible there are an infinite number of universes existing and some of them contain a different departure from that moment of choice singularity? Some of the universes contain me joining theology web, some other universes contain me not joining theology web, and still other universes where this choice never existed?

And if you're willing to explore that Rabbit Hole, then isn't God the infinite God of all of these infinite universes? Does God see me as joined in theology web, or not joined? Or does God see all of infinity?

[jpholding]

Hey ho, Alien-o,

That would be interesting. I wonder, though, if the decrease was in consumption by "moderate" drinkers, who weren't the (perceived) problem anyway? An alcoholic isn't going to be put off by a mere law.

I wonder too. It would be worth a study.

First, the tax on cigarettes is already being used for other essential (ahem) government purposes, so we would then have to pay extra taxes anyway. Or were you thinking of levying more taxes on tobacco to pay for this?

I was thinking of slashing government spending on crap like tha Helium Reserve so that the tobacco tax could be allotted to that purpose I have in mind. Ever read one of those books that lists government waste? There were a couple by Martin Someoneorother, I had them in the prison library I ran and I loved to read them over and over.

Second, where do you stop with this line of action? Alcohol and drug related diseases have to be included in the interest of fairness. How about overweight people? Should we have to pay for the bad habits of those that overeat?

Nope. Food tax! :smile: On Twinkies, donuts, etc.

What about people that indulge in extreme sports?

Make 'em carry insurance or else not beg for help when they wreck. If they do wreck and hurt themselves they get a bare-bones survival job and no eating out, long vacactions to Tahiti, etc.

Or those that don't fasten their seatbelts?

Ditto. (And I don't mean "Rush" ditto. My politics are mixed but I'm heavy on personal responsibility.)

[Alien]

Today @ 10:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128771#post128771)
jpholding:
I was thinking of slashing government spending on crap like tha Helium Reserve ....

They're stockpiling helium???

.... so that the tobacco tax could be allotted to that purpose I have in mind. Ever read one of those books that lists government waste? There were a couple by Martin Someoneorother, I had them in the prison library I ran and I loved to read them over and over.

Nope. Bet its funny and depressing at the same time.

Nope. Food tax! :smile: On Twinkies, donuts, etc.

Hey! Lay off chocolate peanuts, will ya!

.....I'm heavy on personal responsibility.

Me too. Lawyers have ruined this country in my opinion ..... mutter mutter, grumble, grumble .... :rant:

[jpholding]

OK!

The books were by Martin Gross. Probably out of date now but you can bet not all the waste has been cut. Very funny and depressing, yes. Search Amazon for that author -- yep, just did. Government Racket they were called, and it looks like he has a newer version, too.

Yes, they are or were stockpiling helium.

[Cherith]

Jon's jouney sounded very much like my own! Even down to the Last Days Madness epiphany.:smile:

I surfed over looking for a place to post this link and now this seems the perfect spot.

RECOMMENDED READING:
Notes On John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied By Dr. King Counts
This is an excellent study - well worth reading. Highly Recommended

http://www.mvpca.com/redeem.htm

Hank HANEGRAAFF got my ire up yesterday with his last call of the day. He told a Calvinist that while he respected the Calvinist position, a Calvinist could never tell an unbeliever that Christ died for his sins [exactly!] "when the Bible clearly states that Christ died for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"!

I ask you, where in the NT do the apostles tell unbelievers that Christ died for their sins without qualifying the necessity for them to FIRST repent and believe the Good News!?!

And what, substantially, is the difference between Hank's "class election"/Barthian view and that of the Universalists?!?

QUESTION: Did Christ die for all men without distinction?

[dizzle]

Cherith!!! Funny you show up... I was going to call you next phone bill cycle.... (my bill is astronomical this month), and I have two of your books to return..... PM me your address again please!

[hospitaller]

"An alcoholic isn't going to be put off by a mere law."

I have to agree Alien - although replacing "An alcoholic" with "someone who wants to get out of their heads". My Muslim friend Saeed once told me of the situation in the Arab states where alochol is prohibited by severe legal penalties, yet people make and drink it "behind curtains" as he put it, or else resort to sniffing petroleum based shoe polish.

I live in Ireland where all pubs close for 24 hours on Good Friday. This results in the frenzied purchase of alcohol on Holy Thursday (mainly by people who wouldn't usually drink that much on a Friday!), and its equally frenzied consumption on Good Friday.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy has lost its grip on the running of secular affairs here more and more over the last few decades, and I have to say it has had good and bad consequences (nothing is black and white). However, I agree in principle with a secular state which does not side with any creed, tolerating all (and casting a wary eye on the activities of any creed whose aim it is to eventually include that state in dar-es-salaam or other such).

"My kingdom is not of this world."
John 18:36