Building Your Trigger

Posted by Ethan Stech on

Probably among the best books I’ve ever read is The Art of Learning: An Inner Journey to Optimal Performance by Josh Waitzkin.  As articulate as he is profound, Waitzkin really delves into the deep principles of performance psychology in an autobiographical way.  As he tells you the story of his life, he teaches the lessons he learned at each stage along the way.  Both the structure and message of this book are beautiful.

Earlier today I finished reading the chapter “Building Your Trigger” in which Josh describes the common phenomenon that occurs with competitors that are unable to consistently play their absolute best.  I have experienced this in my chess career quite frequently.  Sometimes I will get on to FICS and wipe the floor with 1800s.  Sometimes I’ll get on and be miserably savaged by 1500s.  It was frustrating that I could never find a way to always have that flow of inspiration that allowed me to defeat Class A players.  I won’t go into great detail, but Josh suggests setting up a routine before games in which you partake in activities in which you feel the most present and serene.  He mentioned an example: an athlete named Dennis with whom the above predicament was common.  Josh asked him that very question: in what activity do you have the most presence?  Dennis described that when he was playing catch with his son, it felt as though nothing else existed.  Josh told him to develop a routine in which he would eat a small snack, meditate, do stretching exercises, play catch with his son, and then listen to Bob Dylan (one of Dennis’ favorite musicians).  Dennis came back weeks later carrying on about the amazing results.

So I decided that I would do the same thing.  I divided a half an hour of preparation time as follows:

1.10 minutes of tactics puzzles on chesstempo.com

2.A 10 minute game of Super Smash Bros Brawl (yes, a video game, but this worked for me)

3.10 minutes of listening to Earthsuit’s song “Wheel”.

When the song was over, I sent out my seek for a 30 10 game on FICS.  A guy rated 1747 accepted my seek, and I had the black pieces.  The opening was a Scandinavian Defense, in which my opponent made some theoretical inaccuracies (this is where knowing opening theory comes in handy).  I ended up with a slight edge because of my opponent’s slightly misplaced pieces.  My entire army was active and ready.  On move 14, I realized I had a tactic that would win the exchange or a piece, depending on what he gave me.  I calculated some very long lines (my opponent had some interesting defenses, but none of them worked) and played the move with confidence.  My opponent took about five minutes on his next move, tried a complicated defense that I had calculated all the way through.  After I made my 15th move, I heard “Game Over” and looked at my computer screen to see that my opponent, an upper Class B player with an RD of approximately 23 (meaning his rating was super accurate), had resigned.

This is a real breakthrough for me.  I have never beaten someone with such a high rating so quickly.  Josh’s suggestions were simply revolutionary, and they propelled my rating back up to 1622.  If this continues, I will soon be a Class A player myself.  It seems so simple, but I had never thought of it before.  Just get your mind in shape before you start the game.

Josh’s book has really helped me, not only in my competitive life, but in my daily life as well.  If you ever see it in a bookstore, I’d pick it up.  You won’t regret it.

Update and Reflection

Posted by Ethan Stech on

Hi all.

It’s been awhile since I’ve made a post (nearly a year), but since some of my posts have recently received positive feedback, I thought I’d take up blogging again.

Over the past seven months or so I had basically dropped chess.  I have volunteer work at my church, which was taking up the majority of my time (not that I object), and school was taking up the other end.  So my focus really wasn’t on the sixty-four squares.  Thus my standard FICS rating dropped from around 1650 to 1570.  However, more recently, I think I’ve been breaking through a thick barrier.

I have been able to get exposed to a lot more pursuits, namely my volunteer work at church for the children’s worship team.  This has been pretty surreal, since I only a few years ago graduated from the children’s classes myself.  It’s a very interesting experience to see it from the other side.  The opportunity is well appreciated, and it has been an honor to serve God through my singing.  I believe it is God’s will that this be one of the biggest aspects of my life, priority-wise.

I have been doing a lot more in the way of chess as well.  I have been trying to work out an hour of tactics puzzles every day from Monday to Friday and have regrouped with Thomas Katsampes to have lessons every two weeks.  With this, I built a solid and consistent opening repertoire (which I will not reveal here, since the reader may be my next opponent :) ) that has won me several games on FICS.  My play has improved, and I brought my rating back up to 1599.  Let’s hope this time I really have made a breakthrough and will get to 1800 shortly.

With all this, I have some new ideas for the blog, one being to set up a “cafe” of sorts, in which all the dedicated readers (although there is no specific classification) can not only post feedback, but also chat with each other.  Let me know what you all think of this.  I am considering changing the template of the site in hopes that I can organize it better and give it a slightly different feel.  This will probably happen immediately, so I am open to feedback on that as well.

That concludes my update.  I aim to fill up the site with more posts in the future.  Hope you all are having a great season.  Thanks for taking the time to read my rambling. :)

Park51…any questions?

Posted by Ethan Stech on

Artist's rendition of the Ground Zero Mosque

Can the Ground Zero mosque movement get any worse?  Apparently it can.  The activists are now requesting that the government set aside five million dollars of tax money in order to fund their project.  This cuts pretty close to the peak of the long unanswered question, “How stupid can you get?”  Yet the project goes unhindered, and a great deal of America is unaware of just how idiotic this entire plan is.  Here are my questions for the aforementioned people:

Question 1: Why Ground Zero? Of all the places in the world, why are you so bent on the making of a mosque in Ground Zero?  It makes absolutely no sense; the only purpose is to mock the victims of 9/11 and shove it in our faces.  This is ridiculous to the point of being beyond words.

Question 2: Did you know that the building of a mosque often represents Islamic victory? The supporters of Park51 can pretend all they want, but this is obviously nothing but a victory dance on America’s head.  Some people are just too dimwitted to realize it.

Question 3: How is this in any way related to “freedom of religion”? The controversy on this issue has nothing to do with grudges toward Islam, but simply respect for the families who suffered loss at the hands of Islamic terrorists.  Let Muslims worship, pray, have fellowship, etc.  But it doesn’t have to be at Ground Zero.

Question 4: What do the people say? Polls show overwhelming dominance of Park51 opposition.  Official polls show that they win by a margin of 68%-29%, with a majority in every single political party.

Question 5: Where does the President stand in all this? Is he making an effort to honor the will of the people, of whom 68% oppose of building the mosque?  The idiocy of the decision is more than obvious, and yet no one really knows where President Obama stands in all this; whether he is for it or against it has remained something of a mystery.

Question 6: In what way will other countries or even other religions respond? Allowing the Muslims to build a mosque at Ground Zero essentially admits surrender to the Islamic Terrorists; this gives the impression that America is weak and easily beaten.  We are a nation of strong countrymen, and we do not accept defeat.

Question 7: Will it be worthwhile in the future? The location does not offer any apparent benefits; the Muslims who wish to build a mosque could easily do the same thing elsewhere, without any problems, controversies, or political arguments.  All it is serving to do at present is increase tension between the citizens of America.

Question 8: If the mosque is built, will it be a symbol of “freedom of religion”, or a sign of the superiority of Muslims? America was built on a Christian foundation, and the religion with a giant meeting place on reverenced grounds will tend to feel greater than the others.  Thus, even more tension results.

Question 9: Do five million dollars make a difference? You had better know it.  That amount of money will be a serious detraction from the major needs of the government.  The economy is already bad, spending five million dollars on a religious site will by no means help it.

Question 10: Who is ultimately going to decide whether or not the mosque is built? America has always been a country that bases their decisions on the will of the people, and as of now, the will of the people is that the mosque not be constructed.  Going ahead and doing so would go against the freedom this country was intended to have; and that freedom has always depended on the choice of the citizens.

Fellow Americans, band together to oppose the Ground Zero mosque!

What about doctors?

Posted by Ethan Stech on

What about doctors?  This is a commonly disputed issue amongst Word of Faith Christians, as most of us are firm believers in healing.  Physicians are often held in low regard for this; the stereotype among a lot of people is the guy in a white lab coat standing beside you telling you your disease is incurable and, subsequently, how long you have to live.  But of course, as Christians, we have to have a specific Scripture for everything that we believe, and it holds true in this case as well.  In this post I hope to show what relevance doctors have in present time, with God well able to instantly heal whomever He so desires.

The one generally accepted belief in Word of Faith circles is this: the doctor is nothing but a distraction.  All I have to do is believe God for my healing.  While the latter sentence is true in that, yes, you do have to believe God for your healing, putting doctors aside without a chapter and verse immediately following is rash.  Jumping to such a conclusion can be dangerous.  In light of what I have just said, where exactly in the Bible does it not only refute the above statements, but also support my own?

Colossians 4:14 (King James Version)

Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

Mar 2:17 (King James Version)

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

These are two places in the scripture (and the King James Version, at that) in which Paul, an apostle of Jesus and writer of over half of the New Testament, and Jesus, the Son of God Himself, are quoted as saying only good things about doctors.  Luke, the writer of the third Gospel account and the man addressed in the first verse above, was a doctor.  Not only does Paul acknowledge this, but he also acknowledges his godly life and relationship with the Father.  Why did God not just give Luke a healing ministry as He did those like Peter (people laid their sick friends and family beside the streets so that Peter’s shadow could fall on them and they would be healed)?  This is a relatively simple question to answer.  God is very flexible; He will use many different channels to produce the same result.  If you want to think about it mathematically, God can use many different types of input (direct healing like Peter or Paul and medical healing like Luke), all to create the same output (the sick person being cured).  For example: if you were stuck in the desert with nothing but the clothes on your back, and you had not had even the smallest drop of water for two whole days, and someone offered you a cup of cold water, you would accept it no matter what the cup looked like, right?  You certainly wouldn’t say, “I don’t drink out of blue cups.  I only drink out of white ones.”  That would be the furthest thing from your mind!  “I’m sorry, but I only drink out of cups with handles.”  It’s pretty hard not to discern that such a thing is comical; no one would ever respond that way.  You would accept the water.  Who cares what the cup looks like?  It gets the same results, right?  Similarly, healing can be accepted from a variety of different sources (assuming they are all godly).  Doctors can administer healing, and so can guys like Peter who laid hands on the sick and they recovered.  This is NOT to say that the laying on of hands is restricted to certain people; any God fearing Christian can do it, provided they have enough faith.  However, certain people can be graced for medical work as well.  Obviously one such example is Luke, who, according to the Scripture above, was a godly, born again doctor.  Far from our stereotype I mentioned at the beginning of the post, isn’t it?

It doesn’t stop there; Jesus, God manifested in the flesh, says directly that if you are sick, then you need a doctor.  Used as an analogy of course, but had that statement not been true, the analogy would have been flawed.  A common mistake among Christians is to do what they call “believing in God” when they should be using wisdom.  A person who refuses to visit the doctor despite what God tells them on the grounds that they don’t need a doctor (they’re “believing in God for their healing”) is simply unintelligent and lacks common sense.  Not that God never tells a person to just trust in Him like we’ve mentioned above, but you’ve got to hear from God first.  You cannot simply scoff at the idea of a doctor without first knowing what God’s will is.  We get this lesson from the common example: a man’s house is flooded and the water is rising rapidly in his house.  First, a man in a boat rows up to him and tells him, “Come with me, and you’ll be safe.”  The man replies, “No, I’m waiting for God to rescue me.”  The same thing happens twice, once with a ship and then with a helicopter, until the man, who has died, asks God in heaven why He did not save him.  God replies, “What are you talking about?  I sent you a boat, a ship, and a helicopter!“

That about raps this post up; thanks for reading, please leave any comments or questions on the post.

Re: Materialism and the Reality of God Part 2

Posted by Ethan Stech on

Continuing the previous post of the same name.

Theories that claim that the universe was an accidental occurrence are false, because there would have had to be something there in the beginning of time for the earth to be created, and there would have further had to be something there to create it. Furthermore, there is no scientific occurence that can create a mind or a conscience, much less a living, self-sufficient being.

I’m not sure I understand what these two thoughts have to do with each other, but I’ll address them one at a time as before.

You’re confusing your apologetics in the first sentence, mixing up an “accidental” universe with one that “comes from nothing.” Aside from the fact that the universe could have come from nothing (“nothing” as physicists use it being markedly different from the colloquial sense, however), just because our universe had a beginning doesn’t mean that there was “nothing” before that. It just would have been “something” that wasn’t our universe as we know it.

Also, there has very recently (like, last month) arisen at least one theory of cosmologywhich would indicate that the universe did not have a beginning and will not have an end. If this theory explains our observations of the universe better than Big Bang cosmology, the Big Bang could be discarded.

What evidence do you have that such ideas are false, other than a simple argument from incredulity?

I agree that I started screwing up at this point.  I mixed up a lot of stuff there and it didn’t come out like I had hoped.  So allow me to restate that.  The first thing to realize is that the universe actually exists, and thus something has to have created it.  Cosmology will tell you that the universe created itself; for instance, the Big Bang Theory you mentioned cites that it began in a very hot, dense state that expanded to what it is now.  But any really sensible person will ask you, “Why was it hot?  Why was it dense?”  Everything that exists or has existed had to have a beginning, and the only way to truly explain that is with one ultra-powerful being that never began (being omnipotent, it couldn’t have had a beginning) and that created everything we view as reality, a.k.a., God.

To your second point, I first want to point out that you’re using “scientific” incorrectly. Science is a process by which we examine and understand the world in front of us. You probably mean a natural process, and evolution is a natural process that produces living, self-sufficient beings. So you are incorrect in your assertion that no such process exists.

Evolution falls to the comments above.  Do you really think that chance could produce something as intricate as a person?  Imagine if one single aspect of the human body functioned incorrectly.  Your whole system would be thrown completely haywire.  Another thing I could mention is the placement of the earth relative to the sun; can you imagine luck creating a plethora of other planets that aren’t able in the slightest to support life and at the same time creating one single planet that is exactly in the right place, rotating exactly at the right speed, etc?  I could name dozens of other systems in the world like that; everything is so detailed, so accurate, so specific, that it doesn’t make sense to say that chance or evolution caused it.

But how did God begin, you ask? God did not begin-He is an eternal, forever existing entity that “was and is and is to come”.

If God is allowed to exist eternally, why not the universe? And what evidence do you have to support your claim? This is special pleading. You haven’t even demonstrated that your God exists, and now you’re making excuses for how he exists in a way that nothing else is allowed to exist. This is just special pleading.

The universe is not a God.  Those two things can’t be compared because they are so radically different.

That, of course, is scientifically illogical, but neither God nor anything supernatural or spiritual is scientific to begin with.

This is pretty much the only sentence in your entire post that is both completely accurate and completely coherent.

The ideals involved in Materialism, however, are scientific, and thus they, being scientifically illogical, are impossible.

Followed by your least accurate and least coherent sentence. I really don’t know what you’re trying to say here. It’s scientific and therefore unscientific? Huh? And what do you mean “ideals”?

You’re right, that was a big error.

I have heard other claims that the mass murders of thousands of innocent people at the hands of individuals such as Hitler or Stalin proves the either nonexistence or unjustness of God. This is entirely untrue.

Well, to be fair, it’s only a valid argument against a god who is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. A being lacking one or more of these attributes is perfectly compatible with the existence of evil. But a being who has all three attributes would not be.

he Destroyer is the one working through the willing vessels to do evil. God gave everyone a free will, and a person can choose to give in to evil thoughts and temptations and be used of the Devil. Thus it is not God causing such destruction-only the enemy comes to steal, kill, and destroy.

But God could stop him, right?

Why doesn’t he? The chess set again?

God violates human free will all the time in the Bible, and people die every day without anyone seeming to consider that a violation of free will. God couldn’t just give Hitler a heart attack before he worked his Holocaust? Whenever someone dies you hear people saying it was “their time.” God taking a life does not in any way seem to clash with the notion of free will. Why would he let genocidal dictators live and his chosen people die?

And again, what of natural disasters? What did free will have to do with the Haiti earthquake?

There is a wealth of information behind this, but let’s check out a few Scriptures to see some answers:

Luke 13:1-9

1There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

 2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?

 3I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

 5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 6He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

 7Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

 8And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

 9And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

The question is not why terrible things happen to “innocent” people.  The question is why it hasn’t already happened to all of us.  God’s mercy is the only thing preventing disasters like that from happening all the time.  Romans 3:23 says that “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, so there is really no one who is a “good, moral person”.  Unless a person repents, they’re just as susceptible to this kind of thing as the next guy.

Read the book “Think a Second Time” by Dennis Prager and check out his chapter on the Holocaust.  That should explain it more clearly.

So, in light of all this, it is foolish to hold to the claim that God does not exist.

You haven’t demonstrated that there is any reason to think that any god does exist. You’ve listed off supposed attributes and behaviors of said deity, but that doesn’t make it real. I can talk about attributes of Zeus or Thor or Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker or the dark lord Sauron all day long, but that doesn’t mean that they exist. You have to demonstrate that the entity exists, and then we can talk about its attributes. It doesn’t work the other way. Without evidence of existence, we’re just arguing over mythology.

Also, atheism is not a claim that God does not exist. It is only a rejection of the claim that a god does exist, due to lack of evidence. “I don’t believe you” is not a claim, it’s an invitation to prove your point. Which I’m sorry to inform you, you haven’t done.

It is quite obvious that Materialism of any kind is impossible.

Not only is this sentence unrelated to the previous one, it’s nonsense. Are you honestly saying you don’t believe in the existence of the material, physical world? That all of this exists only in your mind? That’s called solipsism, and if you consider yourself a solipsist then that’s your prerogative, but take note that solipsism is incompatible with theism. If everything exists solely in your mind, that necessarily includes God. So unless “Materialism” of some kind is true, then it’s theism of any kind that is logically impossible.

And again, you haven’t demonstrated that Materialism is impossible, or even unlikely. You haven’t even managed to properly define or address it. All you’ve done is make a series of claims about an undemonstrated being which is not only compatible with a material universe, but contingent on a material universe. As a “refutation,” it fails completely.

I commend you for your willingness to engage in these conversations and take an interest in discussing fairly complicated ideas. I encourage you to do a bit more research on the topics, particularly outside of your preferred theological viewpoint. You may not agree with the alternative viewpoint, but if you can at least come to a better understanding of it, you will be better equipped to articulate why you believe it is insufficient.

I agree, the original post was lacking.  Hopefully these two are better.

Re: Materialism and the Reality of God Part 1

Posted by Ethan Stech on

Most of those reading my site probably noticed my post on “Materialism and the Reality of God” (written over half a year ago).  Upon meeting a fellow blogger who happened to be an Atheist named Michael “Dorkman” Scott, I directed him to that as a “counter” to one of his religion posts.  This is intended to be a response to a response, so to speak.

Here’s another SS post that I began back at the beginning of the year and which subsequently lay fallow until now. A young man named Ethan posted this comment on my post about the YouTube apologist murder-suicide:

Hello, Mr. Dorkman. I recently happened upon the RvD videos on Youtube and they are very nicely done. Through a chain of events, I found your blog.

I am a Christian, and as such disagree with this. I think you might be interested in my blog post on Materialism. Feel free to check it out and any other parts of the blog if you so desire. Nice to have met you. The link is below:

http://edsnotofthisworld.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/materialism-and-the-reality-of-god/

 Take care,
Ethan Stech

As you’ll see, I commented on his post at the time and intended to post a response here…and then didn’t. I started writing one but never got the chance to finish.

So here’s me finishing. We have to grant that the original post is over seven months old at this point, and written by quite a young man. It may no longer represent his level of rhetorical skill or, in fact, his actual opinions. But I promised a response and here it is.

I’ve seen too many talented, intelligent, and graced individuals who deny the existence of God to pass up the opportunity to write a refutation to their materialistic viewpoints in hopes of helping them come to the knowledge of God.

Okay then. Let’s hear it.

If Materialism (or any other set of beliefs that claims the nonexistence of the supernatural) is correct and fully able to be proven, then there is no true Right or Wrong in this world, there is no meaning to life, and the entire human race is worthless. How can this be true?

Whoo, that’s a heck of an opener. It’s also complete nonsense. Let’s take it piece by piece.

So first, the issue of right and wrong. Tell me something: hypothetically speaking, if you found out for a fact that God did not exist, would you really abandon your entire sense of right and wrong? Is the belief in a supernatural carrot/stick really the only thing keeping you from raping babies and murdering random strangers?

My point there, while expressed sloppily, is to propose the question, “Where do you get your moral ideas?”  Without a God or supernatural being of some sort, you can say “It’s wrong to kill” as much as you like, and yet you don’t have any reason to believe it.

If you genuinely need to believe that there’s a God to keep you from going on a psychotic rampage, then you go right on believing. In fact, I want you to believe twice as much, just so the people around you are safe. But you should know that you’re not actually a good or moral person. A good and moral person does what’s right because it’s right, not because he’s afraid of what will happen if he does wrong.

Also, tell me this: do you really think you get your sense of right and wrong from the Bible? Do you believe that genocide is acceptable? Plagues and famine? Do you condone the enslavement of human beings? Because the Bible says all of those things are hunky-dory with God.

I know that you don’t think these things are okay. In another blog post about the Haiti earthquake, which was happening at the same time that you wrote this initial post, you wrote:

It is worth mentioning that God did not do this. God is not the God of destruction or confusion of any kind.

As you self-identify as a Christian, I can only assume that you believe in the Bible, and this statement flatly contradicts many, many occasions in the Bible, including but not limited to:

  • The destruction of the entire world by the Flood
  • The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
  • The twelve plagues of Egypt
  • The destruction of Jericho
  • Confusing the languages of the builders of the Tower of Babel

I could go on (I’m not even out of the Pentateuch, here) but I think you get the point. Even within your own mythology, the argument you’re making doesn’t hold up.

And yet you made it, because the idea that your God should be a God of destruction or confusion makes you uncomfortable. The idea that God should be responsible for death and suffering is unacceptable to you, even though it’s acceptable to God. This means that youdo not derive your sense of right and wrong from the decrees of a deity, but from another source: yourself. You are far more moral than the god you claim to follow.

Right and wrong are moving targets — the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was right, even though we know today it is wrong. Hitler thought what he was doing was right but there’s no argument that it was wrong. Right and wrong are subjective and they change over time, but maintain themselves generally within the notion of reciprocity, sometimes called the Golden Rule — I won’t do anything to someone else I wouldn’t want to happen to me.

If there are no gods, then there have never been any gods, and yet we know for a fact that humans do have a sense of right and wrong. In the absence of gods, the only explanation is that we must have come upon it ourselves. The non-existence of Yahweh would not make human morality disappear any more than the non-existence of Zeus made lightning disappear. All that changed was our perception of where it came from.

Just for fun, I’ll also point out that God is not the source of right and wrong even within the Bible. Adam and Eve had to steal the knowledge of right and wrong, and were punished for it. God didn’t give us the knowledge and he got ticked when we attained it.

So that’s right and wrong. I’ll actually address your other two points together — “life is meaningless and the human race is worthless.”

What “meaning” and “worth” is conferred upon life and/or the human race by the existence of a deity? It seems to me that the notion that there’s another, better, longer life after this one only serves to demean this one, causing people to sacrifice their happiness and precious time trying to make sure they’ve reserved their seat.

The notion of an all-powerful being who creates everyone as part of an intricate and incomprehensible “plan” resembles nothing so much as a big game of chess. I notice that you play chess yourself — how much meaning and worth do you give the pieces on the board, outside of their part in the game? Do you “love” the chess pieces? Do you desire a “relationship with” your chess pieces?

It seems to me that life is more meaningful and worth more when we can make our own decisions of what we value, rather than being told what to think, say, and do (“or else!”).

That’s just in general, theism vs. atheism. Let’s talk about Christianity in particular. Christianity devalues human life by saying that no one is worthy of God’s grace. The entire point of Christianity is that human beings are worthless and sinful creatures who God has kindly deigned to love anyway. All the notions of hell and salvation and all of that are predicated on demeaning and devaluing humanity and leaching out all its inherent worth. We are better off without it.

Last point: even if we grant for the sake of argument that these three assertions are correct — there is no right and wrong, life is meaningless and humanity is worthless — that doesn’t make them untrue. “Fact” is not defined as “whatever makes you happiest.” You could just as easily say “If I have not won the lottery, then I am not a millionaire, and I will have to get a job to support myself. How can this be true?”

The truth can be and often is unpleasant. So the notion that the nonexistence of god would be unpleasant — aside from being untrue, as I’ve pointed out here — is not in itself an argument for the existence of god.

This is a huge chunk of information, but I’ll try to cover everything.  The first thing you talk about here “the safety of the people  around me”.  But this begs the question, why is safety important?  What is the point in living if there is no God to live for?  If what you’re saying is true, then we may as well all commit suicide since nothing we do in this life will be of any use, anyway.

In regards to the Haiti earthquake, you mention a variety of “destructions” in the Bible that seem to say that God caused them, which He did not.  In all of the cases you list, the receiver of the destruction has disobeyed God in some form or another (the Flood was a result of everyone living at the time except for Noah having turned from God, Sodom and Gomorrah are well-known for being one of the most wicked cities of the day, Egypt was holding God’s people captive and refusing to heed Moses, who, by God’s command, warned them of coming plagues, Jericho was a city in Cannan, which was also a very godless country, and the Tower of Babel was made as a desire of human power to reach the Heavens and become as great as God).  However, that aside, God is never the one who personally destroys human beings; He releases His protection from them and allows Satan to destroy.  It is against His nature to stop it because God is just, and, according to the Bible, the wages of sin is death.  As for why it was specifically Haiti that got that earthquake, I’m not in a place to say.

How can you really say what’s right and what’s not?  Morality and lightning are apples and oranges; scientists have actually discovered the true source of lightning, something we haven’t done with the moral sense we as people are raised with.

The chess comparison: actually your point here, while untrue, is interesting; the difference is that we aren’t chess pieces.  If we were all love robots who God controlled and forced to do what He wanted, what would the point in that be?  Man was created specially above animals because they can understand and obey their creator at will.

Humans were never originally worthless, sinful creatures.  God created them as his sons who were to dominate the earth.  Man fell through Adam’s sin and thus we are all born into that bloodline with a nature that wants to sin, which is what the Bible commonly refers to as “the flesh”.  Jesus came to earth to die and rise again so we didn’t have to be worthless; that’s the real point of Christianity.  There is no such thing as a “sinner saved by grace” because anyone who has been saved by grace is not deemed a sinner any more.  This, however, shouldn’t be translated into humanism, which makes a deity out of a person, but it certainly isn’t meant to lower the worth of a human.

I’ll respond to your other comments in another post.

Foundation, Not Addition-Part 8: Sowing and Reaping…Judgement?

Posted by Ethan Stech on

Matthew 7

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Most all those following prosperity theology are familiar with Luke 6:38, “Give and it shall be given unto you, a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over shall men give unto your bosom.”  The aforementioned verse comes from Dr. Luke’s account of this same sermon, part of which is not recorded by Matthew.  But it is amusing how rarely we consider the preceding saying concerning the sowing and reaping of judgement.  Relatively little has been learned in this area in the body of prosperity ideals when compared to such things as healing and confession.  I intend to guide the reader to a basic understanding of these verses and perhaps a different viewpoint than has been pondered as of yet.

First of all, consider the word “judgement”.  What does your subconcious mind picture at first hearing of this word?  For some, it may refer to casual punishment for sins.  For others, it may refer to the White Throne Judgement at the end of the Rapture and Tribulation.  But it is literally interpreted by dictionaries as “the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from the circumstances presented to the mind”.  The kind of judgement the Bible refers to is the unsound forming of an opinion, specifically about another individual based on one’s currnet knowledge of their situations.  This is undoubtedly going to lead to distorted ideas concerning said individual, because not a single person is capable of fully understanding everything in a person’s life (which they have not even experienced), let alone their thoughts or intentions.  What is the point I am trying to get across?

God only holds a person accountable for what they know; that is, if one makes a mistake unknowingly, he is not guilty of sin in God’s eyes (this is only natural, since declaring an unbeknownst individual a sinner can easily be dismissed as a crude use of authority).  However, Jesus once said, “By your words you have been aqcuited, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:37)”  Thus it is only logical to conclude that the main Scripture means that when you judge your fellow man in a condemning manner, you are essentially claiming to have knowledge on the subject.  God will only judge the individual by what they see and know; but you, having said with your mouth that you saw and knew more than they did, will be judged according to that.  This is the basic principle of theses verses.

Take an everday example: say a close friend unexpectedly decides to move into a more luxurious house after carefully saving up the funds to do so.  After his mental selection process, he takes residence in a house near a very busy street with irritating traffic when it would have appeared more reasonable to stay elsewhere.  When this happens you immediately find yourself discussing the matter with your other friends, quickly making sure that they are quite aware of your opinions of what this individual should have done; and you make sure that they agree with you, too.

Who are you to judge him with the knowledge you have?  You are in no way, shape, or form worthy to deem him foolish without having inside information.  It may have been something as trivial as the numerous annoying pets in the alternative neighborhood, or it may have been something as serious as a lower crime rate in the selected house.  It is not your place to evaluate the sound or faulty logic of his decision.  The moral of the story is to bite your tongue when you catch yourself about to make this mistake.

While we are on this topic, we should not ignore the psychological ideas that are to be seen here as well as the spiritual ones.  It pays not only to look at the mistake, but the chain of thoughts and emotions that lead to the mistake.  What is so satisfying about putting a finger on another’s assumed “errors”?  This is a concept I have dubbed “superiority religion”, which is taken up by those who like to wallow in the joy of admiration by others.  One person makes a mistake and you are right there to correct it, supposedly knowing off hand the solution to the problem.  Such wisdom!  Such spirituality!  But we often fail to realize that judgement is a boomerang.  The first moment you are throwing it at someone else, and the next it is coming straight back at you, only to knock you off your feet.  It is then that you and everyone around you realize that perhaps you weren’t so wise after all.  Never has the Scripture, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble,” been so true.

In short, you are not the judge; the Lord is the only good and righteous Judge, Whose declarations are always correct because He sees beyond the outside and into a person’s heart and soul.  Because such insight is out of our depth, it is a good idea for us to leave such things up to a higher power.