First, man only worshipped God. Then we taught— or rather the Greeks taught us— that God is actually identical with reason; more properly, we renamed God. At this point logic had already replaced the Almighty on His throne. Finally, we no longer needed the name of God, not even as a mask. Already, Spinoza could write, "what altar would you build if you denigrate the Majesty of reason?" And just like that, the very entity that was supposed to defend God against the most terrible accusations (of His own creatures, ghastly enough), replaced Him as the absolute monarch. For, after all, if God needs reason to defend Himself, while reason has no requirement of such kind, this can only mean one thing— logic is superior to God.

How do I acquire an objective knowledge regarding God? Do I do it simply by using my rational faculty? That would be precarious to say the least, for I would be using a fallible organ to make definitive truth claims describing the Divinity. Do I get the objective knowledge through revelation? That, too, would be problematic, since revelation is merely a phenomenon, and as such, fails to tell me what God is IN HIMSELF. This answer would also suffer another objection, since revelation requires the one who receives it to have faith in the revelation. Now wouldn't it be a splendid thing if I acquired an objective knowledge of God, BY FAITH— arguably the most subjective passion there is? This is a trick only the theologian can conjure, and it seems to me that I rather ought to be humble enough to settle and be satisfied with a subjective knowledge of the Almighty.

The same Leibniz who attacks Spinoza for rendering the Almighty bereft of will sees no issue with believing that God has no particular will. This, of course, means that- as far as the individual (who by the way is supposed to be God's unit of interest) is concerned- God has no will.

Just finished reading Russell's "Why I am not a Christian?" and I feel like I have lost 50 IQ points for doing it.

This man literally believes that the Catholic Church burned "millions of witches" and that "Jesus never existed" lol.

It is really a pity that this form of bizarrely dishonest and pedantic atheists became the norm rather than the likes of Nietzsche or even Camus.

Read my admittedly critical review of Simone de Beauvoir's feminist book, "The Second Sex."

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/9039816147

The tyranny reason enjoys over theology is so pervasive that, often, it is not even noticed. Take a look at Plantinga's "Does God Have a Nature?" for instance. After a bizarrely prolix amount of syllogisms, premises, and inferences, all aimed at reconciling the sovereignty of God with the universality of "the eternal truths," what we finally end up with is this rather inapposite dilemma; "the conflict is between two intuitions: the intuition that some propositions are impossible and the intuition that if God is genuinely sovereign, then everything is possible." That the latter side of this dilemma is not an intuition but a statement of passionate belief, that the real conflict is not between two intuitions, but between faith and reason, that this project of "reconciling" itself is already a presumptuous concession and an admittance of defeat; none of this is even considered for a moment. So when Plantinga concurs with the Greek philosophers to conclude that Omnipotence is logically impossible, one would do well to look past the paganism of it all and see the comical aspect; for I could have concluded that from the ghastly world I live in, and simply have no need for an entire treatise.

Currently on a reading journey of the Old Testament, and God, there are so many wonderful stories that make reading the Bible enjoyable, even if you were irreligious. The first 15 chapters from the Book of Judges alone have given me much more than many of the books I have read this year.

https://substack.com/@bellacerah/note/p-219322704?r=8mwxjb

Lol, the attitude a lot of modern women have toward relationships is simply strange. Read, for example, this post by a woman, who describes the guy she broke up with as "intentional, pure, hardworking, loves children, consistent, accountable, patient, loved by everyone, godliest man I have ever met etc." She goes on to have this bizarrely prolonged rant to justify her decision, and ultimately leaves us with no clear or coherent reasoning that gives any intelligible information whatsoever.

But notice the final points she raises; these are important because it seems like she genuinely believes they are appropriate objections against the marriage, and proper reasons for breakup. These are her own words;

"Sometimes it felt like I was dating a 70-year-old businessman"

"Sometimes it felt like an arranged marriage"

"Why was I too calm? Almost bored?"

"Why did it sometimes feel like I was attending a business meeting instead of going on a date?"

"Why was I so serious?"

It doesn't take a bright mind to notice a pattern here, one that unfortunately is very common. This woman effectively thinks through her emotions. Her "feeling something" isn't an inner emotional state that has no necessary connexion with the outside world; it's a factual, and maybe even the only, measure of reality. The fact that she "felt like she was dating a business man," for example, is not something that betrays the quality and kind of relationships she had been pursuing in the past. It is an almost indisputable proof that there is something wrong with the man she is currently with.

The crazy thing is that I have heard this same thing happen to a lot of men in the past few years, including 2 instances from close friends. Scripture tells us to despair of achieving something by our own, and that only then can we come to receive it from God. Well, I have to admit— these women are making the first step way easier than it has ever been. Bar a supernatural intervention, it is highly unlikely that a healthy Christian marriage can be salvaged from this disaster modern relationships have evolved into.

The most harmful effect of apologetics is that instead of emphasizing Christianity as the indescribably necessary and invaluable way to salvation, without which man stands absolutely condemned before the terrifying justice of God, instead of underlining that the Gospel is a call which the individual has no choice but to answer if he is to win eternal life for himself, instead of repeating that relentless cry of our Lord ("repent or perish"), instead of doing and teaching thus, apologetics retorts to reducing Christianity to a pitiable dogma that requires the defence of arguments and syllogisms. As if the question of eternal life isn't that vital to begin with, as if one lost sight of the fact that the Gospel's warning is so urgent that really there is no time for such abstract nonsense, as if we forgot that, at any moment, God is fully capable of saying, "you fool this very night, your soul will be required of you."

‎What's worse, by our very attempt at "defending Christianity," the unbeliever is slowly trained to think of himself as a judge, and simply forgets that he is a nonentity before God and a nobody destined for hell fire without Christ's work on the cross. So now "God and His apostle have to stand outside the door and wait until our lofty scholar is done «studying the evidence.»"

‎Why is this? Because eternal life has been abstracted. Because in attempting to "objectively" prove eternal life, we have allowed the unbeliever to forget that he has a personal stake in the matter. Because, through our Pagan tactics, the Kingdom of God has lost its personality and has ceased to be something "for the individual."

Khalil Gibran's "Jesus, the son of man" is a masterpiece. So beautifully written; reading it for the third time and it is still as loveable and as novel as the first.

So, I can't do my assignment using AI, but the teacher can grade it using AI? #Nice #Hypocrisy #ፈሪሳዊነት

Exhibit gazillion that women "get the ick" for the most random reasons lol