response

this post seems messy and disjointed because it is in response to several responses to a previous post.

i think i get what ryan means about kierkegaard and christianity being real for you.

my goal is to prove or disprove god, using reason. if god is proven to exist, although i presently say i will dutifully submit to logic and give god due credit, i must admit i will struggle with making god real in my life; what difference will god's being make on a persons life in real terms, especially if they were a strong practitioner of, as ryan mentioned, human, secular love?

and another can of worms: it will be difficult reconciling several aspects of christianity such as god's jealousy and pride and insistence on sending non believers to eternal damnation.

in the light of all this, does the duty to logic still hold? im leaning towards yes.

***

about proof for god: one should not and indeed cannot take the bible as a starting point to prove the bible: the argument becomes circular, ie 'the bible is true because the bible, which is true, tells me the bible is true".

we need to step out of the bubble, out of the truth framework the bible has constructed. the premise for god needs to come from a source that Doesnt claim gods presence in the first place.

its like the matrix. or plato's cave. one needs to step out of the matrix/cave to gain a clearer picture of reality, before making a sound and reasoned judgement on the nature of the universe. (apologies, i know plato's cave is slightly out of context here)

***

about love, sin and free will: is free choice to believe really a free choice? granted, we have the choice when we are here on earth, but with eternal damnation in a lake of fire and brimstone, "in the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched", as a disincentive, id say we arent really free are we.

also, there is a lack of proof supplied by god in the first place. why does he hide in the shadows, when he could just give evidence of his existence, and let people choose from there whether they want to be his? is un-informed choice really free choice?

does god love us so much that he is prepared to look beyond us not worshipping him, and spare us from hell? or does he love himself more? he says clearly that non believers will burn. even though he sent jesus to die for us.

what about sin? i will say, the concept of sin has probably done a lot of good for human behaviour insofar as it governs human-human relations. when you reach the greatest commandment, "worship the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might", and you consider that, i paraphrase, "all work for man should be for god", and also consider the generational sin of adam and eve, it gets really tricky.

if i do not live my life to glorify god but to glorify valuable human life, is that sin? in gods eyes, yes, it is. so sinful a travesty is it, in fact, that one could spend eternity in fire and brimstone for it.

this is not an atheist rant. im searching, and i admit i struggle with the above, but the duty to logic still holds. this is a real issue about people that needs to be seriously addressed, not brushed off with the sunday school answer of: "for my ways are higher than your ways".

the entire basis of faith is that it is built on nothing at all

i was on my flight back a week ago and was suffering from killer insomnia, and so decided to pick up Sophies World and flip to kierkegaard. (yes, i know sophies world probably barely scratches the surface but the bonafide kierkegaard book could cure even my killer insomnia)

so this is how i understand kierkegaard's ideas:

there are two possibilities to reaching god: objectivity or faith. looking closer, because man cannot grasp god objectively, man must have faith if he is gonna be a good christian. man suffers a loss of religious fervour and passion if he is purely an "objective" christian with no faith, because he would not really have made a choice to glorify god; he would not have made the leap.

faith therefore, is the only way to believe in god, and religiousity is so overwhelming that it is an either/or. one can only either take it, or leave it. no half-measures like believing in god because you have found proof for him. either throw yourself into the abyss like god desires, or youre not really a believer.

i know im only a xiao gin na but it goes further than that doesnt it? if the decision on religion is so huge, all measures (such as an objective pursuit of god) should be taken to reach the right conclusion.

that raises the question: can there ever be enough proof for god? if there was a god, will he want to be proven to exist ? obviously not or he would have let that happen a long time ago. the whole point is that god, if he is there, wants us to take the leap of faith, or not believe at all.

but thats just not good enough for me. some will say that im missing the point of christianity, that belief has to be part of a leap of faith. but i cant bring myself to take that leap. why is this notional god's ego so huge that he has to have people stake their entire life on a jump into the dark?

itd be easy to say "i choose/reject christianity because i choose/refuse to take the leap of faith" but that would be a massive cop-out to myself. in the absence of any other order, objectivity stands: the only way i will worship god is if i can be objectively certain that the bible is true.

shades of raving atheism there, but im no atheist; i want to look for the truth in the most practical way, not in a blind leap into nothing.

there are always more questions: have i considered other religions? what if "god" was just a pantheistic impulse that did not have a consciousness and an ego like the god of the bible, yet was the first mover behind the wonder of life? what if life is itself the first mover, and itself holy? what if life just is? why do these questions even matter?

people need people

i was in rome on one of my romantic weekends for one, at that most thriving and bustling of places, the spanish steps. i was sitting down, looking at the masses of people (and the babes) and suddenly travelling alone seemed a bit hollow. i had always enjoyed the distance, the isolation from everyone else, but that night the old song "people need people" seemed to ring truer than ever.

that night i concluded that humankind and humanity has got to be the first imperative in life. smiles, sympathy, compassion, good company, and the value of the human life and human happiness are what i shall hold truest. please dont say that sounded gay, its true.

what has been on my mind lately is this: i saw st. peter's basilica and barcelona's familia sagrada church and while they are absolutely magnificent, whats the point? i mean, why devote copious amounts of energy to worship an entity that never seems to respond, never seems to change anything, when you can devote that energy to the reality of humanity?

i can think of two reasons; firstly, that people are so lost in emotion that they wont stop till they get enough, (sorry too much 80's music recently) or secondly, that they have, like kierkegaard, jumped into the abyss of faith's seventy thousand fathoms, and feel duty bound to worship that which gave us life and made life so special.

if i could be absolutely convinced god is real, and thats a huge if, i will bite the bullet and worship that which gave humans life- because the source of life is special and demands that attention, regardless whether attempting to relate to it is like attempting to relate to a brick wall or not.

i guess the point of this post is to say that i am first a humanist, but i would be a committed christian if i could know god existed. which is where it gets difficult: how can i be convinced god is real? blind leap into the abyss? objective proof? i quote fox mulder: the truth is out there. more on the nature of faith soon

ps: please feedback.