But I Don't Have A Religion!

                This is something I sometimes hear from people such as Atheists and Buddhists, or people who are unsure of the existence of a God. “I don’t HAVE a religion!” They say. “I don’t believe in any sort of God. I don’t have any practices or rituals. I just don’t practice or believe in religion.” They define religion as based on a belief in God or gods, something that involves specific practices or duties to perform. So therefore they have no religion. Yet, are they really right?

                Atheism is indeed a religion.  Religion is not defined as something involving God. Put simply, your religion is the set of beliefs (about things such as the origin of the world and the afterlife) which you hold common with other people. Atheists believe that there is no God. They believe in evolution.  They believe that the Bible holds no authority. These are all part of the set of beliefs that define an Atheist. They are not separate from a religion. They simply have one that rejects the idea of a God. It is not that they do not believe in my God.  It is that they do believe my God does not exist.  There is not an Atheist out there who can say that they believe in God, or that there might be a God. If they were to say this, they would not be an Atheist. To be an Atheist is to believe in certain truths and concepts. There are simply some things you simply cannot believe in. In fact Atheism itself basically means the belief in no God. The same is true for Christianity, there are certain beliefs you must hold to. There are some things you simply have to accept as true or false if you really believe what you profess to.  It is virtually impossible to not have a religion of some sort. There is not a man out there who believes in nothing at all. Everyone has an opinion on the creation of the world or the autonomy of man. Everyone can find a place to fit in among others who share their beliefs. Everyone can find others with which to agree and discuss the mysteries of the universe.

A Christian can lay down their beliefs about God and life easily. They have a specific set that is unique to them. The same goes for an Atheist, or a Buddhist, or a Utilitarian, or any other set of beliefs. We all have our own specific doctrine unique to us. It is true some groups may be larger than others, or more prevalent. And it is true that some have more tradition than others. But that does not mean that they do not belong to a religion. Each group has things only they believe. That is why we can debate and defend and discuss. If we did not know much about our own set of beliefs we could not make arguments for them. We could not make opinions or decisions on issues. And most importantly we could not defend them. We all have doctrine. We all have a religion or set of beliefs. And we all defend them and assert them as truth. So rather than denying your religion, accept it and learn about it. Become knowledgeable so you can crush the enemy, or at least withstand them, when they make an assault. But do not attempt to enter the fray if you do not acknowledge your own strategy.

-BlackFox

(580)

Atheism: A Luxury Of The Rich

 We have already discussed the implications presented by Atheism on the value of life. And I suspect many of you have the same response to my assertion. That life is given value by the experiences you have. That life is meaningful because of what you do in it. Which works perfectly fine if you can afford to have meaningful experiences. But what about those who barely scrape by day to day?

Consider a poor man living in the slums of a city. He has a low paying, long lasting, labor intensive job. He can barely keep his family from starving. His house is small and run down. He does not own a car nor a computer. His neighbors bear no sympathy because they suffer as well. He suffers from sickness and can do nothing about it. He watches his children cry from want and cannot help them. His wife looks upon their desolation and weeps, he has no way to console her. To him, he is a failure. Where then does the value of his life come from? This is not a heart warming success story. He is not going to claw his way up the ladder to happiness. He is going to die in poverty like the majority of his family and neighbors. To this man who lives in such conditions, Atheism is a horribly depressing concept. No one cares about his suffering. No one is going to help him in any useful sense. He is going to die and turn to dust and be forgotten. And then where will he be? Who will remember or care for his plight? The answer of course, is no one. So how then does his life have value? Where are the experiences to make it meaningful? His life is nothing but an endless cycle of failure and suffering. The rich man builds and travels and says “look what I have done! Look how I have made a meaningful contribution to be remembered! See how my life was not wasted!” The poor man barely exists from day to day. He sits in his drafty house and asks himself. “What have I done in my life? See how pointless and terrible it is! And in the end no one will remember it, or care.”

It is perfectly easy to say there is no God. It is perfectly easy to say life is what you make of it. It is perfectly easy to do all these things when you are comfortable and have money. But take away your prosperity. Take away what your fathers gave you and what you have that is your own. Sit in the desolation and despair of poverty with no hope of escape or sympathy. Exist in this way and then say that you have no need of God. Proclaim the value of your life as you have made it and the experiences of it have shown for you. The poor man turns to God because he understands that there his comfort lies. That there he is not forsaken and a failure. For it is only with the aid of God that he does not turn to bitterness and anger at the injustice of the world. Do not merely say that you would certainly feel the same regardless. Do not merely say that you would find something of value to be glad for. For you speak still from your comfort and prosperity. Only when you leave it behind and have no hope of its return can you say these things with authority. Then and only then can you reject the comfort of God. Only then can you denounce the one person in existence who remembers and cares for your suffering. And who gives you meaning when you can perceive none.

-BlackFox

(632)

Mythology vs Video Games

 An interesting question was posed to me lately. The person asked if people viewed traditional mythology as negatively as say, a video game. This actually is pretty interesting to me. Logically you would think that if people denounce the plot and concepts of video games as pagan, something that is actually pagan would have just as much of an effect. In fact, one might even expect a stronger reaction. But how do people normally react?

Surprisingly enough, I have actually noticed less of a reaction to traditional mythology. The same parents who refuse to allow their child near a Pokemon game, are perfectly happy to let them read fairy tales and learn about Zeus. Now obviously there are still some parents who wont allow either, yet more often than naught, they tend to not mind the latter. So why is this? Why does a parent who balks at the idea of their child fighting dragons, tell them the story of a night who does just that? What is the difference between Harry Potter and Merlin? Many parents might say that they are just stories. That it is not that much of a concern because it is only fairy tales. I must point out I could say the same thing about video games. That they are in essence, merely stories to play out. Those who fret over the child who plays DND losing their faith, should not smile fondly at the child who reads King Arthur. “But wait!” yell the parents. “Greek mythology and King Arthur are part of our history! It is educational to read them! And fairy tales have life lessons for our children to learn!” I would like to remind them that there are many things in our history that are not very Christian. That there are many things in the past that can be dangerous to faith if not handled well. And as for the life lessons, those are present often in the TV shows and games you reject. Sadly, parents often ignore this contradiction and continue on in their ways. The main thing they maintain in all of this is that a fairy tale is just a story. That reading about the daring young knight will not have any lasting affect. Yet they reject this reason as advocating for video games. So why the contradiction? Why one and not the other?

I think the main reason people support mythology is that they grew up with it. They all heard about Red Riding Hood and they all learned about the Greek gods. They are familiar with it. To them it is not some dangerous unknown thing that is lurking to snap up their children. It is a harmless classic and essential part of childhood. Dungeons and Dragons is alien to them. Digimon is new and unknown. They do not necessarily dismiss these concepts because of what they teach, but because they are shadowy figures in the dark. My mother for instance, used to be very careful what she let us watch. Eventually, after watching the shows and games herself, she came to understand that they were really no different than those old fairy tales. She realized that they had the same potential merits and faults. That fairy tale could be as dangerous as a video game. That a TV show could be just as useful as a classic story. I think that a lot of parents would understand this if they gave these things more of a chance. In the end, it is not about which story is better or worse. It is about which ones you want to be told.

-BlackFox

(607)

Churches And Dragons

Many people, especially concerned parents, are worried about the effect things can have on children. This can go double for conservative parents who worry about their child’s faith. The T.V. show where people fight with monsters, the book series where kids use magic and fight demons, parents become alarmed that anything connected to violence or fiction will corrupt their little one. Yet, is their concern justified?

Just because something does not profess the word of God blatantly or mirror our own lives, does not make it damning or evil. Not everything has to be sanitized and covered in plastic. Parents often express concern that such media as listed above makes their son or daughter more violent. That children act out things that they “wouldn’t” have acted out, before being exposed to violence in the media. Most of the time it is merely harmless fun for the child to play or watch these things. They understand that it is not real and that it is just a story. If you are truly concerned they may think otherwise - say for reasons of age - then speak with them. Explain to them the things you are concerned they will not conclude on their own. In the end it will still simply be a game to them. Billy may pretend to be a superhero, but chances are he is not going to beat someone up because he watched a Spiderman cartoon. Children are going to fight each other. They are going to play rough. This is not because of T.V., it is human nature. Children do not need to be taught to fight and play war. They will do that all on their own. Parents who profess to never give their child a toy weapon, do not take into account that a broom handle can become a rifle. You are not a failure as a parent if Billy saves Lois Lane by beating the bad guys. It is completely naive to assume you can prevent a child from ever displaying violence in play or practice. Sometimes play is really just play, and your little darling will grow up perfectly normal. Watching or reading about violence is not going to alter them permanently. The truth is that violence and danger is everywhere in our own world. They will see it everywhere they go, not just on T.V. And the honest truth is they are going to imitate it. But this does not mean they are lost to you. Your kids are smarter than you give them credit for. They will adapt. They will cope. They will overcome.

Another concern often voiced is that things associated with magic or monsters or demons, will pull their child away from God. Speaking as a very committed Christian, I can tell you this is not so. I grew up with Pokémon and Digimon. I pretended to use magic and fight demons. And did this lead me any further away from God? Am I sacrificing the nearest virgin to the Dark Lord Xenu? No, I am not. I am not drifting away from God. I am not turning to the Devil. Because I understand that it is fiction. That it is just a story for fun and games. That it does not mean anything in regards to real-life. Trying to cut a child off from this world is seldom going to be affective. If you ban the program they will watch it without your knowledge. If you push too hard they will merely wait until they are old enough to do what they want. What you want to do is let them experience this world and God’s. Give them a chance to know that they are not given a choice between believing in God and anything else. That it is not overbearing and off-putting to be a believer. If you are really concerned with their spirituality, then speak with them. Teach them about the Bible. Read with them, explain to them, and spend time with them devoted solely to this. Do not just ban them from experiencing the world they live in. Like it or not monsters and demons are everywhere. Teach them how to experience it, while still possessing a full knowledge of God’s Word.

-BlackFox

(708)

Yay For Politics!

Yes, yes I know. I said I was going to talk about religion and not politics. But I have to have fun SOMEWHERE you know. I did technically say I would occasionally make random posts. Besides, I am making fun of politics here. With a very cleverly crafted metaphor I might add. See? Do you not feel sorry for those poor people who skipped this one?

Today we are going to talk about Obama's acceptance speech. You can stop the boos and (or) cheering now. We are not going to get into his views here. We are merely going to look at his presentation. Many people have already pointed out that Obama is merely saying the same things he said before, the difference being that he is asking for more time to show results. He has not admitted any mistake on his part. He has no given any proof that this time will be any different. He is simply blaming the lack of time and outside circumstances. Now I noticed an interesting parallel. You know that kid in class? The one who never meets the due date ever? You know how he begs and begs for more time to get it done? That is this speech. I mean think about it. Consider the following exchange:

Teacher: You did not turn in your paper on time. I entered it as a “zero”.

Student: No wait! I just need a little more time to do it! There were like, extenuating circumstances and stuff!

Teacher: Look, I am going to be honest with you. I have not seen any progress with this paper. At all. What exactly were these circumstances?

Student: Well, there really was not a lot of time to do this. And like, I had other engagements and problems to deal with besides this paper.

Teacher: And that means you can just ignore your responsibility to this class and to me?

Student: No! Ok, I know it looks really bad right now. I promise I have made progress, it just might not look like it. But I swear it will get done by the next due date! I just like, need a little more time!

Striking, isn't it?

Now if you were the teacher, what would you say? Would you honestly give him more time to work on this paper? Please feel free to comment on this, I would love to know. Especially from a teachers point of view. Personally, I would tell him that actions, and lack thereof, have consequences and he needs to deal with them. Note the use of the “He” pronoun. In both cases. Clearly a girl would never act like this. More evidence of female superiority.

-BlackFox

(453)

Doomed Brotherhood

Everyone knows what socialism is. The idea of living together as one. Everyone sharing the work and everyone looking out for everyone else. No one is selfish or cruel. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Yet every time we have tried to implement it, it fails miserably. So why is this? It sounds solid enough. It sounds like it would be the perfect life. Why does it fail?

The problem with socialism is the assumption it makes. You may have heard of the classic argument of nature vs nurture. The question of what shapes our behavior more: our intrinsic traits or our extrinsic environment? Socialism takes the side of nurture. They believe that man is corrupted by his environment. Therefore, they believe to fix his behavior you need only fix the manner in which he is raised. So they create an ideal society. This society is a place where everyone shares the work and looks out for the good of the community. The problem they face is that this society has one fatal flaw. It is dependent on its members to uphold these ideals and concepts. They need people to agree to not seek their own interests and look out for the good of all. To quote Vulcan saying, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” This is the philosophy people need to submit to. The problem is they will not agree to do so. Carl is perfectly willing to contribute to the many so long as he is not the few. He is perfectly willing to share the work as long as it benefits him. But if he himself is threatened, then Carl will retaliate. He is not overly concerned with the majority when his minority is in peril. And in the end, Carl will pursue his own interests.

People are by nature sinful and selfish. The problem with socialism is that it attempts to change man by changing his environment. They say that by removing perceived basis's of conflict, such as property, all conflict will cease. That by teaching children to live for their community, they will grow up to do nothing else. And that laws to protect the common good will be effective in enforcing it. But the problem is not the environment, the problem is man. Man is by nature sinful. He is by nature selfish and cruel and narcissistic. He serves the common good only so long as it serves him. It does not matter how he is raised, he will always be a sinful creature. That is why socialism fails. It attempts to conform man into a form he cannot possibly hope to fit. It sets a goal that is impossible to reach. No matter what rule you enact. No matter what doctrine you teach. Man will still ultimately be man. The few will not go quietly into the night.

-BlackFox

(485)

Rearranging Molecules

Murder is universally considered wrong. Everyone, regardless of belief or place of birth, cannot condone senseless killing. Human life has value and meaning, we have no right to snuff it out prematurely. However, this commonly held truth is not necessarily compatible with all systems of belief. Many people today reject the idea of God and creation. Theories that give a semantic explanation of our existence are becoming more and more common. What people do not admit is the implications these ideas have on the concept of humanity and life.

The Big Bang is the most common theory accepted by atheists, so it is this theory we will use for our purposes. The Big Bang theory operates on the assumption that the world, and by extension all life on it, was created by an act of chance. Supposedly a large explosion set into motion a chain of events creating everything we know today. This includes all organisms and life forms, which are said to have evolved over time to their present state. Consider the following question: If humans are merely randomly arranged particles thanks to chance, what makes human life valuable? If we are truly nothing but products of chance then murder is not a crime. Is the offender not simply rearranging molecules that were randomly connected in the first place? Where is the intrinsic value? If a scientist breaks apart chemical bonds we do not arrest him. When a farmer kills a cow for food we do not declare him a murderer. Yet if we are nothing but objects who evolved over time, there is no difference between us and those things. A human is nothing but a more complex animal according to evolution. A lion kills the cubs that threaten his place of power in the pride. A king kills the people who threaten his throne. Wolves fight each other over food and power. Men are no different.

As a Christian I can state that human life has value beyond atoms because we were made in the image of God. I can say that our creator made us for a purpose and gave us value. And that killing is a crime because of that value and because he forbids it. This is my justification. But to one who does not believe in God, where does the justification of value come from? Some say it is because we are self aware and intelligent. However, this does not explain why we would have more value than any other animal on earth. Sentience does not mean importance. In the end we would still simply be very self-important molecules. Is man so full of his own importance that he simply asserts it because he believes it to be true? We are far from objectively considering our own worth. The universe does not revolve around man. It does not stop when he suffers or dies. Time leaves him behind, and would happily continue if he were to vanish. The only things that care about his well being are other men and God. Being “more advanced” than everything else on earth means nothing. If we were to find life more advanced than us in thought or technology are we less valuable than them? Would we be any different to them than a dog or a cat is to us? In truth, if humans are nothing but an act of chance, a random sequence of DNA, then life has no discernible value. 

-BlackFox

(558)