To postulate God as an hypothesis is the first critical mistake the anti-Christ activist makes. (Though from his point of view, it is necessary.) The "shallow-rooted Christian" would probably not notice the activist is postulating God as if He were just another phenomenon of nature, just another entity in space and time, thus fully accessible to human observation, reason, and judgment in the first place.
Yet God is not subject to human reason. God created human reason. He also created space and time and matter. The master is not slave to that which he created. The categorical difference between the divine and the human is absolutely unbridgeable. All of human reason cannot bridge it.
Dearest sister in Christ, certainly you have aptly described the mentality of the anti-Christ position, and the techniques it uses to prevail in human discourse. But these "rules of engagement" are entirely false from the get-go. And I imagine that the person using such techniques is above all false to himself. That is, he does not grasp the essential point that he was made by God, in God's image.... And received the great divine gifts of reason and free will from God alone — which he then turns against his sublime benefactor....
So much of gratitude there!
I don't "hate" such people. I just find they aren't worth listening to. Beyond that, I pray God to fix whatever problem they have in their souls.... For the problem seems to be emanating from a soul that has lost its mooring in divine truth. For whatever reason.
JMHO FWIW
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your penetrating and astute observations!
Just one question, BB: a stranger tells you “I am God.” What do you do? Ask for proof or fall flat on your face?
Yet God is not subject to human reason. God created human reason. He also created space and time and matter. The master is not slave to that which he created. The categorical difference between the divine and the human is absolutely unbridgeable. All of human reason cannot bridge it.
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
And, all the more so . . . when . . .
the purported hyper-rationalist
so chronically and relentlessly irrationally
defines everything OTHER THAN their specific, unique and erratically wind-blown intellectual house of cards, as
irratioinal, unscientific, unKNOWable, and the like.
All the worse when their daffynitions—with which their vanity purports to discuss anything—also change with the wind.
It’s a bit like dragging someone into Walmart . . . taking them to the toy department . . . finding a package of little metal jacks and a ball . . . and declaring that all further discussions about COSMIC REALITY must be confined to those jacks and ball.
Then when the draggee sputters and begins to say . . . bbbbut there’s all kinds of other toys and balls and computer games and . . . and besides that, there’s a food dept and a parking lot and a larger community and a State and a Nation and an ocean and . . .
The dragger harumphs to the max and vainly, haughtily insists that ONLY the jacks and ball are reality. Further, that if the draggee has not the horse sense to KNOW that the jacks and ball are the only reality—and to relate accordingly, then the draggee is simply toooo ignorant, subjective and blind to have a discussion with.
Such tactics are sooooooooooooooooooooooo IMPRESSIVE.
/sat