One of the goals of the Christian life is to get to know God, to know and impregnate oneself with His character, to learn how to resemble to Him, to forge oneself to and become His image. A Christian person will have succeeded his life if he arrives to incarnate the characters of God.
Some say that all the religions lead to God, that they are only different ways to honour the same God. Of course there is (at most) one spiritual entity higher than all the others and which includes them all, al least with respect to our universe (or at least if there were several they would not contradict each other and would not dictate to men several contradictory religions). However, the evangelic Christians in particular, insist on the unique character of their own doctrines which would be, according to them, the only true way towards God, so that the God of Christians would be fundamentally distinguished from all the other gods: he is the biggest, the most supreme, the most transcendent, the holiest, the most just, true and more loving, in short, the most all what the heck you want.
The only practical means to distinguish the various religions from each other for their authenticity of their view of God, is to examine and compare their descriptions of God, as well as the practices and characters that their respective followers are brought to reflect, as being the characters of God, in their effort to resemble to their God. Thus, one can note that indeed, various religions differ by differences in their portraits of God and the characters which the followers apply to reflect in His service. Even if a religion, that speaks about God, does not "possess" God, it represents at least of it an image, a face. Thus is defined what one can to some extent call the character of its God (whether or not God is "present" there in person), who distinguishes it from that of other religions, even if that does not reflect the character of the real God or any other really existing entity.
Without seeking to make detailed comparisons, here are some of the broad outline of the characters of the Christian God, that in which evangelic Christians believe, which they endeavour to reflect by their life, and which, according to them, are those of the highest of all Gods.
The evangelic Christian believes deeply in the cowardice of God in
His manner of addressing to man. This cowardice is expressed by the
fact that God would have strong wills and requirements towards men, but
would not have courage to come to say to them in front. God does not
express us in front His will, because he respects our freedom
absolutely, and will never dare to disturb it. God requires we that we
choose with our own initative to invite Him in our life. However, for
that, it is certainly essential to wish His arrival ardently and in the exactly
correct way (only God knows what this means), but that
is not enough: if we are not absolutely ready and willing to receive
Him in our life, He will not come. If He does not come to reveal
himself to us in our life, it is because we do not want it at 100%, we
did not let him all the place. And as long as all the place will not
have been made to Him, He will not come because He would not feel 100%
comfortable in us. Do you think, are we truly ready for His arrival?
if He came and then something a little bit disturbing happens to Him in us, like
we were not totally ready at 100% for Him, it would be a disaster ! There would
likely be somewhere some shadow of an idea which would disturb us
in what He would reveal us, we would be somehow slightly ruffled
against Him, even if apart from this there could be full of other
things which would appear fantastic to us. And these some little
crumplings against Him would be completely unbearable by His Majesty,
especially insofar as, being still on earth, there would be still a
chance to report it to our fellow who would be likely to feel our
crumpling and to start thinking of some embarassing questions to His
Majesty. This is why, it is not enough to ardently beg him for all
the spiritual blessings which we hope for from Him. It is also
essential to take care not to leave any peel of impurity in our spirit,
so that nothing can disturb anyway at the time of a possible meeting.
In particular, we should not let trail in our spirit any idea different
from His ideas, but we must forge ourselves with His ideas and His will
by the reading of the Bible. We must preach ourselves all His
ideas in advance to not let him the pain of having to correct our beliefs any further
when He would come to our souls; ifever we make the fault of going astray with
ideas and projects different from His, it would be hopeless, He would
not come to correct us because he cannot, for fear of displeasing us,
and by His infinite kindness He will will let us fall on the way of eternal
damnation which we will have thus chosen. And this, even if we devote
all our life to seek God hopelessly: we will have missed the adoption
of His ideas and His will for the only reason that circumstances will
not have let us be informed about it, or that we did not have the
chance to be persuaded that it was really the word of God. Indeed,
whatever the circumstances, we will be always responsible for failing to
follow God's ideas, no matter how objectively absurd these ideas may have seemed.
As for those on the way of salvation, and thus who adopted by themselves
the ideas and projects in conformity with those of God, by assiduity to
the prayer and the biblical reading, God thus does not have any need to
correct them anyway, God does not need to make a special revelation
either, because they are already precisely on the way of salvation. The
knowledge that they have of their safety comes to them from the
conformity of the adopted ideas to those of the Bible (the necessary reference
for us to be able to make the difference, since
man is otherwise unable by himself to distinguish the truth from forgery) and of their
act of faith, which consists in choosing to believe without another
argument, and to accept like final certainty, that this same act of
faith is the guarantee of their safety and the proof that God acted in
their spirit. Since thus they accepted this certainty and that it comes
to them from God, God does not need either to appear there another way.
Thus as in the preceding case God does not act explicitly, but for very
different reasons: because He needs not to.
On the other hand, the day when we will switch to the other side and that thus we will have lost all our force and all our terrestrial reference marks and we will get without defense in the all-powerful hand of God, there His absolute power will be revealed and He will be without pity towards those who will not have adopted His ideas and followed His will, and He will give up them in hell, since they did not want to inculcate the ideas which are precisely those of God, which implies that they refuse God. It will not matter how much they will then shout against God, that will not have any importance because there will be nobody to hear them and put any questions, not even the saved in spite of the omniscience of God who will then be given to them, which divinely will then be immunized against any question. In the same way, on Earth, the fact that we do need to correctly pray the correct God in order to get His help or inspiration, which He would not provide otherwise, means this: God hides from all those who would be likely to be anyway surprised or ruffled by His ideas and commands, as a sure and reliable means to immunize Himself absolutely against this risk: these people, in this absence of God who fled any risk of crumpling, for lack of an absolute devotion, can without problem undergo all misfortunes and sufferings of the world and to cry to God with all their forces, that will not have any more importance for God who will be by no means affected and have no reason to help since, being absent from this drama for lack of an absolute power on the life and heart of its actors He remains irreproachable and pure of any responsibility.
There is no alternative. The adoption of ideas in conformity with those of God is already essential now for having a place with God on other side. And since it is also essential to the others, it is up to the Christian to try to persuade them by all the means. All the blows are allowed to reach that point, including throwing any care for truth to the bin, since one has already the truth (which by definition is the Gospel which does not need another complement nor checks) and that it is for the right cause: it is our eternal destiny which is concerned, which is much more significant than any nonsense such as another care for truth.
In fact, one of the best means to reach that point effectively, in
optimizing one's effect on others while preserving one's own faith,
is to adopt oneself the character of cowardice of God in matters of
dialectics.
On the one hand, to the person in the doubt and the pure naivety, who
does not claim anything, is in lack of certainty and thus is ready to
adopt yours, it is necessary to present to him the message of God with
the strongest tone of certainty, as being an unquestionable message,
radical, checked, absolutely reliable and of infinite importance, while
presenting yourself as a witness of these things and guarantor of their
truth.
On the other hand, with those who would start to present any embarassing
question or apparently solid objection against this
message, it is necessary to flee any dialectical confrontation by
rejecting it as vain and useless and to refuse to go further, calling
upon the absolute freedom left by God to each one to believe what one
likes, in the name of the unverifiable character of the aforesaid
assertions that God has let to not force us, as well as the fact that
the role of God in the life of Christians is too highly subtle and
spiritual to ever be able to really express its presence. Indeed, in
your preaching you had finally no another claim of demonstration but
those of the faith and the doctrines themselves which are enough to
make a good Christian. Because we are not meant to obtain evidence, in
order to exert our faith, because it is by faith alone that we are
saved. And then, the Bible being the only possible base of the truth
since it is the Word of God per definition, apart from this base there
cannot be a possible discussion since there is no other reference of
truth. To refuse this base is equivalent refusing any discussion, as if
one does not seek the truth sincerely: the only valid manner in the
eyes of God to be considered as sincerely seeking the truth, is by the
acceptance a priori of the Word of God. At the same time that saves to
us time while enabling us to devote our effort to teach those better
ready to accept our message.
Thus, as explained more in detail in this other text on the promises of God and the source of the true happiness, one makes great promises to new convert while presenting oneself to them as their friends in Christ, from the heart and for life, that God will be with them certainly, but if despite everything their efforts it happens that God does not come to their life, then one scorns them and one closes one's ears from their testimony opposed to what we like to hear, by regarding their experience as nonvalid, the one of a dishonest person, the result of a free treason against God (and thus unjustifiable by definition) because oneself's testimony of Christianity is different and positive and thus better and more valid. Thus I believed that since I did my best to trust the Christian's promises of life with God when one devotes oneself truly to His service, these promises could have a consistency, at least in the wisdoms of other Christians who, also living with God, would go with me all along the way of this search of God, in other words, that Christian testimonys of life with God would constitute a kind of guarantee that, surrounded by such people blessed and inspired by God, God would not give me up. Now that I noted by experience that Christianity was a mere swindle, and that I try to awake them and ask for their understanding and support in this dreadful experience, I only got from them total scorn and silence.
The Christian has vocation to incarnate the ambivalence of his God
by calling "good news" the proclamation of eternal perdition for all
those who do not think like him. And also, to make great statements of
his good intentions to the service of God for the good of humanity,
while refusing to make common mission with those who do not share his
religion, and even sometimes while refusing to support projects useful
and beneficial with humanity for the only reason that "that does not
further the glory of Jesus", even that it is not necessary to seek to
eradicate human misery because it "has a sense" or that it is
inevitable, or that it is wanted by God for else He would have made
things differently: God makes us suffer because He loves us, and who do
we think we are if we pretend to change God's plans for us ? How can
Christians bear this situation, of "loving" others while believing in
the capital necessity that they become different than they are, by
believing that if they do not convert in this life (and there is in
fact almost no chance that they convert no matter what you do), they
will go in hell ? This should be an obsession, shouldn't it ? An
impossible desire? But how is this really love, whereas the
understanding of others is thus masked, killed by this desire that they
become different ? How such a love can be serene and thus sincere and
deep ?
Would not this be completely unbeareable to truly loving people, so
that is is necessary to be heartless to bear this Christian belief of
hell for non-believer ?
| On the person of God, the question of irritability is almost without object, insofar as God would, by definition, be never mistaken. At least in the field of knowledge, because in the field of works it is quite difficult to find true reason for satisfaction towards Him for what surrounds us. Only could one discuss the question of the patience of God vis-a-vis our errors, and try to know up to what point our errors can affect him or on the contrary be benign. | |
| Let us point out the mechanism
of human irritability. In short, it
is to be upset when receiving a criticism. More precisely, it is the
error which consists in making the confusion between oneself, and what
one thinks or the acts one makes, so that a criticism against what one
thinks or against our acts is interpreted as a personal criticism
against our deep being. Isn't it difficult anyway to act in a way that
cannot be criticised ! It is interpreting criticism, either as aiming our deep spiritual being, thus a form of spite under pretext of another thing, or as at least a wounding thing even if the cause is different. It is the attitude which consists in believing the other willingly silly or malicious because he criticizes oneself. Silly because he thinks something else than one thinks, whereas one believes to be right, since by definition, if one did not think of being right one would think differently. But how could one hope for one day to improve if any attempt to analyze the causes of our errors and to learn from it is continuously stopped by the fear to be devalued ? |
On the other hand, in the work
of incarnation of the character
of God by the Christian, irritability takes a new meaning. The
irritability of the Christian in his effort to reflect God, it is to
be upset on behalf of God, or portray God as upset, when someone makes
a criticism against this God he believes in.
More precisely, it is the error which consists in confusing God with
what one thinks oneself of Him and the acts that one thinks that He
made, so that a criticism against what one thinks of Him or against
what one
thinks that He did, is interpreted as a personal criticism
against God. How difficult however to find nothing regrettable in
this world that God made ! It is to interpret criticism, either as aiming God and being thus connected with lack of piety under pretext of another thing, or as at least a thing wounding against God even if the cause is different. It is the attitude which consists in believing the other silly and malicious against God because he criticizes the image which one has of God. Silly because he thinks another thing than God (the God that one believes in), whereas one thinks of being right since one believes to think like God and that by definition, God is never mistaken. But how could one hope for one day to cure the misery of the world or get a better idea about God, if any attempt to analyze the causes of miseries and to work out solutions, or criticise the present ideas, is at every moment stopped by the fear to be criticizing the work or ideas of God? |
| The irritable person has an obsessional fear against any understanding to be wrong, because, somehow, he believes that his own opinion is already forged for eternity, since it conforms, if not with to truth, at least to the universe of what he happens to understand and cannot consider to leave, so that ifever it were wrong, the value of the judgements which he is able to have, and the very confidence in his own thinking, would be destroyed. He simply cannot consider, and even rejects, the possibility to think one day a different way than what he thinks at the moment considered, not being able to conceive that can occur a new event, argument, intuitition, experiment or any other training, able to give him a new understanding that is lacking now, calling in question his present ideas, or that would be a terrible thing since it would mean that he is still wrong now. | The Christian has an obsessional fear to be wrong about God as if it were about saying that God is wrong, because, somehow, he believes that his own opinion about God is already forged for eternity since it conforms, if not with the truth of God, at least to the biblical universe which is the only means at its disposal that he plans to understand. Ifever this biblical message were wrong, not only the value of the judgements he usually makes on the biblical basis would be destroyed, but, since he believes that it is God who guided him to Chrisitanity in response to his prayers (by giving him the Bible and by leading him to believe in it - since finally, not knowing why he believes, his faith in it is a mystery for him, therefore a miracle), the very idea that God could take care on our eternal destiny (idea still reduced to our terrestrial destiny and the idea that God guides our beliefs here on His ways) would be destroyed. He simply cannot consider being able to think one day God differently than what he thinks of Him at this time, being unable to conceive that can occur in this world or the other a new event, argument, intuitition, experiment or any other training, able to give him a new understanding of God he is missing, calling in question the ideas that he now has about Him. Since, if ever this happen, it would mean that he is now in error; but if he cannot even trust God for letting him safe from error now, then how the hell can he ever trust God to let him any reliable hope of a safe heaven in the universe ? |
|
The irritable person can raise a defense against criticism
of his mistakes, by saying that the error and problem comes from
the other, who confuses him with his error and did not take enough
patience to explain him things nicely and patiently. Or even, he could
accuse the other to
interpret things in the wrong way, accusing him of errors which are not
his, but errors of others or of the world for not conforming to his
ideas and expectations. He can accuse criticism to harm the
evaluation of his good willing and deep being, that intends to do the
best and to believe only what is true, and that therefore does not deserve
to be said to be doing or thinking in the wrong way: the possible wrong
consequences of our deeds or of our thoughts do not reflect our deep
intents. |
Another excuse is to keep pretending that, almost if the universe contradicts the Bible then it is the universe's fault. That if science refuted creationism then scientists are wrong, and if Christian faith failed to reach expected results in people's life then it is people's faults rather than the doctrine's fault. |
|
However, it
happens that one is almost constrained to confuse somebody with his
error and to scorn him for that, because of his obstinacy to
reject every attempt of analysis which would be necessary to
precisely be able to respect the person and to help him to leave his
error. Because one cannot help somebody against his will and
if he insults us because of our good intentions towards him. He
absolutely insists
to be identified with his error, he decided
to put all the weight of his person in the balance to say that he is
right. Therefore, it is humanly impossible for the
others to respect him, since by his insistence and his obstinacy in the
error he forces the others to personally confuse him with this error;
and by doing this, since the others were clearly conscious of
the fact that he is wrong, he mechanically forces the others,
for rejecting this error, to reject him personally too. |
However, it happens that
one is almost constrained to confuse God with the lamentable image that
the Christians work to reflect of Him and to scorn Him for that, by the
obstinacy of Christians to reject any attempt of understanding between
God and what they tell of Him, which would
be necessary to precisely be able to respect God and the person of
Christians, helping the latter to leave their errors. Because one
cannot help someone unless he accepts it and does not insult us
because of our good intentions towards him. Christians are absolutely
sticked
to their errors, they decided to put the weight
of God in the balance to make us agree with them, as their duty in
front of God. Consequently, it is
humanly impossible for the others to respect God. Indeed, since by
their insistence and their obstinacy in the error and their own example
showing that being so devoted to God and to the scrupulous respect of
His thoughts and His will, Christians continue to follow this error,
they oblige others to personally confuse God with this error.
By doing so, since the others are clearly aware of this error, the
result of this Christian work is to mechanically force the others
rejecting this error, to reject personally God too. |
Overheard today: A person describing their faith in God saying God allows us to get to the very bottom of our circumstances "so that he can raise us back up again."My comment : After my deconversion I realized that such claims are almost trivially true and thus unfalsifiable, just able to give the illusion to be verified by experience no matter what the experience really is, so that is is mistaken as a deep truth while it is a waste of time to mention. Mathematically, this claim just means that any continuous function on an interval has a minimal element. The problem with this claim is that at any time we cannot know whether we already reached "the bottom" or if we shall still go lower later. And what was "the bottom" for someone can be at a very different level to what it was for someone else. One may believe that one already reached "the bottom" because it would be insulting God to suspect him of going to still drive us lower later, and then have many bad surprises finding that one still goes lower and lower, to levels that other Christians don't figure out and will just say "I'm sure if you go to God he will help you" but one already went to God and no help came.
This is so problematic. On the one hand people's faith in God can make them hope for a better day. They depend on God but they still act to improve their circumstances. I've seen it happen in the most unlikely of circumstances.
On the other hand, a God who would do this�allow us to hit rock bottom�just to aggrandize himself as the "savior" or teach us absolute dependence (when did absolutely dependence become a good thing?) is sick and cruel.
Exterior links:
Why the Christian God is Impossible: see in particular sections "The Freewill Argument" - "All-good God knowingly creates future suffering" - "Infinite punishment for finite sins" - "Belief more important than action" - "Perfection's imperfect revelation" and its subsections.
Even If I Did Believe...