Eschatology
There's a belief in Adventism that in the last days a national Sunday law will be enacted. All Americans will be required to worship on Sunday, and worshipping on any other day will be a capital offense. The national Sunday law marks the close of probation* and the beginning of the time of trouble. It will also be a precursor to one world order and the institution of the mark of the beast.If you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?From a plaque in my childhood home
Adventists, of course, will be the prime candidates for persecution under this law, and every Adventist who remains true to their faith will not see death. They'll live until Jesus comes. The Sabbath, you see, is the seal of God, and those with the seal cannot be harmed.
There's more, including a whole genre of Adventist fiction about the last days (all of which I devotedly read growing up (The Appearing was my favorite)) and all the anti-Catholic bits which we don't like to talk about because in public we'd rather play nice with the rest of the Christian world.
You can imagine how this kind of eschatological thinking messes with the heads of young Adventists. Will I be ready? Will I be saved? What about my unconfessed sins? Could I be strong enough to keep the Sabbath in the face of persecution? Fear of the second coming invaded my dreams, and it was always fear. I was never good enough, and I was never ready, but the small black cloud drew inexorably closer.
Until one day I started wondering how a national Sunday law was ever going to get passed in a place like Saudi Arabia (for example). What about all the Buddhists? India seems like a particularly difficult problem. Japan likely wouldn't care, and Israel wouldn't be paying any attention at all.
It was a small, logical step. No one has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer.
*If you're not familiar with the jargon, some of this isn't going to make any sense at all. If you are, well...it still might not make sense.
32 comments:
Vera,
You bring up a very good question - one that I've wondered. One theory about bringing the Sunday Law to the US is that we would suffer another terrorist attack, thus catapulting the country into stripping all of our freedoms away, in exchange for personal security.
Problem is: who would be the ones terrorizing us - and wouldn't they, in theory, join with the United States in a Sunday law as well?
I'm not sure I've heard a good answer for that one, either.
Nevertheless, just because there is not a logical answer at this point, doesn't make the overall biblical idea any less true. I can't predict everything that will happen in the future and how it is going to exactly play out, but this doesn't negate the overall biblical witness to this idea.
And that a lot of Adventists have been scared because of this idea is sad, too. But, to quote one of my former professors about everything under the sun: Abuse of an idea doesn't negate legitimate use.
Pardon my ignorance Shawn but i didnot understand your questions completely.
1) How would sunday laws make the US safer?
2) Who are these "people" that would terrorize us and join the ES in sunday laws?
3) Why asume that the adventist idea is true by default and that is the biblical one? Why asume it to the extent that the fact that it is totally ilogical is glossed over? There are millions of christians who do not share your views. Are they wrong?
I remember how much the church harpied on the lisbon earthquake and the falling of the stars in the 1800's as proof of an inminent 2nd coming. Now nobody talks about it as proof of anything now (especially since nobody remember it). They had to reinterpret the passages. I remember how 666 was suposed to mean vicarius fili dei, but now it does not. I could go on an on.
Such a track record in advenstism leads to one conclusion. Truth, in my opinion, is not it.
Brigno,
Thanks for your questions. Let me try to answer them as quickly as I can.
1.) Wouldn't it be safer if all of us were one big happy family here in the US and decided to have a big, happy church service every Sunday (so goes the theory)?
Supposedly, in the wake of 9/11, some large percentage of Americans (like 70%) declared that they would be willing to give up their personal freedoms for the assurance of security. And I've seen people in Time magazine - which is definitely not a bastion of religious zeal - declare in an editorial that it would be beneficial if we all started to go to church on Sundays. That's just one voice, of course, but it gives you reason for pause when a secular publication writes this stuff.
2.) I am not saying that there would be people that terrorize us and then join us. That's my point: I was saying that this hypothesis doesn't make sense.
3.) Why do you assume that I just assume the Adventist view of eschatology? Is it just an assumption of mine, or do you think as a minister, I have actually studied out something I believe in and preach? The latter is true.
However, that does not mean I have all the details ironed out, no more than you have every detail of evolution ironed out. Am I not allowed to employ something as my default view without having every answer to every question? You allow yourself that privilege with evolution. Again, can you not grant me the same with my views?
There are millions of people in the world who do not agree with your views of evolution. Are they wrong? You would say "Yes." Am I not allowed to say the same of the biblical data if other people in this world don't agree with my analysis of it? Yes! I would say they're wrong, just as you would declare anyone in the scientific realm who doesn't agree with you is wrong.
Shawn said: "However, that does not mean I have all the details ironed out, no more than you have every detail of evolution ironed out."
I give you all my respects but you really have a knack for flawed analogies.
Shawn, evolution is science and that entails evidence. Being a minister and studying religion entails belief in spite of evidence or in absence of there of. There are ministers that have "studied" the same things you "studied" and don't see anything biblical about sunday laws as adventist present them (for now).
Saying (falsely) that evolution has no proof or incomplete data just as a religion or a Sunday law dogma, does not make your claim any more believable. Especially if we consider the fact that there is no evidence for any eschatology being true. Much less if they are compared to evolutionary science which has overwhelming mountains of evidence in its favor.
I will do a constructive criticism on such an "answer" you try to provide. Such an "answer" is a:
"tu quoque logical fallacy - which means “you too” and is the counter of a legitimate criticism with the claim that others (often the accuser) also suffers the same vice. This is irrelevant to the validity of the criticism". -Dr. Novella
I see this a lot in your posts. Such answers are not a defense, explanation or a justification for your beliefs or any belief. On the contrary, is an evasive that tells us nothing useful.
Are people who do not accept evolutionary science wrong? Sure. As wrong as the people who believe that the earth is flat or that gravity is nothing more than angels pushing stuff down. That is the good thing about science, it does not need to be politically correct. Science is about facts and empirical observation. In science opinions don't matter. There are no scientific theories based solely on "views" or sustained by "opinions". Science grows by a working consensus based on empirical (that can be tested) evidence. That is why it is our most useful tool for survival and betterment of society. Einstein could have a million opinions about how time and space work. Only when they were tested they became relevant. We don't see and will never see such a thing in religion. That is why religion always gets a beating when it tries to take on science.
Could we test any of the multiple end time beliefs? Where is the altar of Baal and the altar of YHWH? Where is the fire from heaven that gives empirical, unequivocal confirmation? Only in the pages of the Tanach. In the writings of mythology. One of many...
Can we have default views? Of course! it is a necessity if we are to make any consistent sense of the day to day world. But the default has to be more probable than any other alternative option for it to be useful. If we were to adopt as the default the least probable option in other situations, our life would be considerably shorter (if not consider the average lifespan of a suicide bomber). Most adopt the most probable defaults in our life endeavors, it is in religion where we make an unjustified exception. For me that is really sad. Tradition, upbringing, birthplace and societal pressures limits our understanding of the marvels of the universe. Makes us go for the highly improbable with no justification for it whatsoever.
About point 1:
I've read the opposite on a Time editorial as well. So what? There are many groups in society asking for different things. From homosexual marriage to a ban on abortion, just to name two. Putting emphasis on what purportedly supports our idea while ignoring contrary facts is called selection bias. If we take all positions into account that could count as possible means of promoting national security and "unity", sunday worship is one if not the most improbable of political hypothesis to achieve such goals.
It's been 164 years since 1844. How many more centuries are going to pass until we recognized the doctrine is not true? How much "cleaning" is there to be made?
End of times belief is a dangerous concept. It makes people accept the idea (with being aware of it) that only trough death and destruction can a better future be obtained. That the solution to the problems we face comes from the outside, from an inaccessible realm beyond that which is known. This is so sad since the truth is that only we can make a difference. There is no one out there that is going to come an magically fix our problems and gice us immortality. There is no one out there to give us any more meaning that the one we make for ourselves. End time belief distracts the masses from the only chance they have at living fully, at making a difference, at making the most of the only life they will have. It breeds people like John Hagee who see a silver lining in the mushrooms clouds of a nuclear bomb.
Brigno,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate you pointing out the "tu quoque logical fallacy" that you thought I made. But I don't think it applies here. The point I was making with my argument is that there are millions of people who have a default view, who cannot explain every little nuance of that view. Simply because a person cannot explain every little nuance of their default view does not make their view necessarily erroneous per se. This is the case with my eschatological views. Simply because I cannot explain every little nuance does not mean I have to throw the whole thing out - as you seemed to imply.
You wrote that "the default has to be more probable than any other alternative option for it to be useful." I hope that you can respect the fact that my "default view" is not simply some arbitrary idea that I have conjured up. I have studied the biblical data and, insofar as I can see, it is "more probable" than any alternative option.
How can I be so sure of future events that have not even taken place yet? Simple. The same way a scientist makes a hypothesis based on past observation and data and then predicts what should happen in the future. I look at the biblical data - data that has been validated by archaeological and historical records - see that biblical prophecy in the past has been fulfilled (the four kingdoms in Daniel, as well as the 70 weeks in chapter 9, and Isaiah's prediction about Cyrus, etc.), and conclude that prophecy in the future will play out as well. Does this mean I have every little nuance about the future figured out? Of course not!
Of course, the skeptic comes along and tries to poke holes in the Bible's credibility. Because he/she naturally has no belief in the Bible, he/she starts making claims that Daniel and Isaiah were really written in the 2nd century BC., that the Gospel accounts are historically contradictory, that Jesus didn't even exist, etc. Such objections hold very little water though, and when one studies the historical and archaeological data, it becomes evident that the Bible is one of the most historically accurate documents we have. None of the other historical documents we have are as verified as the Bible.
Lastly, you wrote that "End of times belief is a dangerous concept" and then pointed to John Hagee. If you want to start naming names and being selective about it, then we can start naming names of people who have accomplished a lot of "good" in the name of their ideology. That there have been terrible things done in the name of religion (and, specifically, Christianity) there is little doubt. However, I would beg to say that in the last 200+ years, the greatest accomplishments for humankind have been led by those with deep religious convictions - and, specifically those with a Christian worldview. In all sincerity, can you name one atheist who has really, truly accomplished as much good as the most highly accomplished Christians? People like Martin Luther King, Jr., Teresa of Calcutta, Nelson Mandela, William Wilberforce, etc.
Such an exercise is purely subjective, of course, and I realize that each worldview - both a theistic and an atheistic worldview - have their good people and their bad people. But I would argue that a theistic worldview inherently has the potential to motivate a person to do a lot higher good than those with an atheistic worldview (which naturally forces a person to only care about themselves). Such is evidenced by the reality that in the last 200+ years, Christianity's most accomplished and celebrated adherents - MLK, Teresa, etc. - have done a lot more good for humankind than atheism's most "accomplished" adherents (Hitler, Stalin, etc.).
In closing, to quote C. S. Lewis: "If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. . . . In the same way, we shall never save civilisation as long as civilisation is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more."
If you will allow me, I think I may be done discussing some of these issues with you for a little while. Nothing personal. I think we probably both understand where we're coming from already! Thank you for the discussion. It has been stimulating.
Thanks for your time Shawn. Really appreciate it. Take care.
Now, some parting comments for readers who could stumble on this really interesting discussion:
Shaun:
I have studied the biblical data and, insofar as I can see, it is "more probable" than any alternative option.
Me:
What about non-biblical evidence based data? How can we say that a biblical understanding of reality is more probable than a evidence based, naturalistic alternative if we don't even consider it? Constraining reality to a personal or sectarian biblical understanding is the most improbable option of all.
Shawn:
"and when one studies the historical and archaeological data, it becomes evident that the Bible is one of the most historically accurate documents we have"
Me:
Spider-man comics are extremely accurate in their description of New York and Manhattan. Still this fact does not make Spider-man real.
Homer is very accurate as well, but cyclops don't exists.
The bible is pretty precise some of its archeology, but still donkeys don't have the ability (brain power or vocal cord ability) to talk. E could go on for hours...
Shawn:
biblical prophecy in the past has been fulfilled (the four kingdoms in Daniel, as well as the 70 weeks in chapter 9, and Isaiah's prediction about Cyrus, etc.)
Me:
If we take into account that Daniel was written after the facts it describes with the notions that there are multiple interpretations of the 70 weeks in Daniel 7, there is no reasonable way of saying a prophecy has been fulfilled. Sorry.
Shawn:
"Christianity's most accomplished and celebrated adherents - MLK, Teresa, etc. - have done a lot more good for humankind than atheism's most "accomplished" adherents (Hitler, Stalin, etc.)."
Me:
Another flawed analogy based on dubious history.
This is a great example of Godwin's law, but i wont go into that here.
I'm going to rephrase the comment to make some historical clarifications:
"Atheism most most accomplished and celebrated adherents - Richard Dawkins, Super philanthropists Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, etc. - have done a lot more good for humankind that christianities most "acomplished" adherents (Jim Jones, David Koresh and Hitler).
Yes, Hitler was no atheist. He was a catholic. BTW i recommend the book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. You'd be surprised. And MLK uses to associate closely with communists. So what? Saying that a belief is less worse than another does not make it good by default.
Truth is that saying Stalin, Mao and other atheist dictators represent atheism in action is a myth. A baseless myth, just like the one that states that Hitler was an atheist.
Sam Harris said it best:
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
Q.E.D.
There is no way to equate atheism (a lack of belief) with genocide or fascism. None at all. This is the most annoying and inane historical misrepresentation religion makes. Now i could fill books on how Christian thought is the base of European antisemitism, but that is another topic for another day.
I enjoy discussing this topics a lot, as they serve to shed a light on the historical and scientific misunderstandings that plague religious thought.
I didn't grow up in Adventism, but in the early weeks or months following my baptism, along with reading E.G. White's "Last Days' Events", I fell into a black hole of depression. Even now, all of what you mentioned, plus the Investigative Judgement doctrine still messes with my head. Scary!
Interesting, thought-provoking phrase - "genre of Adventist fiction."
Shawn, it wasn't the fear that made me wonder about something I'd believed all my life. I can't say that it stopped making sense, because it doesn't make sense in the first place. But I did stop believing it when I asked the question.
Thanks for the dialogue, guys.
Scary stuff indeed, LTTLG. And "genre of Adventist fiction" is a mind-bending phrase for the initiated.
This is fascinating -- I've never before been exposed to SDA eschatology.
But it's interesting, isn't it, how eschatology gets recycled? Jesus dies, the world doesn't end on the timetable that Jesus foretold, so his followers -- particularly St. Paul -- use the concept of his resurrection to sell the idea that the "end time" is already here, in process, and that Jesus was the first fruit of a age of redemption that has already begun and is ongoing.
Fast forward to 1844 (is that the date?). The end times fail to arrive on schedule, so a new myth is invented to redefine the failed prediction of an event as the accurate prediction of an indefinite duration of time during which reality must be regarded as altered in some important way.
Brilliant marketing, ya gotta admit.
Yes, October 22, 1844 was the last (I think) date given by William Miller for the second coming (the date is also known as the Great Disappointment).
While the Sunday law interpretation has its roots in the GD*, it was really the doctrine of the investigative judgment that saved the Adventist (at least the ones who later became Seventh-day Adventists) day.
Never heard of it? That's because among all Christian denominations, only SDAs have it.
I like this selection from Wikipedia on the IJ:
"Donald Barnhouse denounced the doctrine as "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history". Likewise, religion scholar Anthony Hoekema stated that the doctrine was "simply a way out of an embarrassing predicament" and therefore "a doctrine built on a mistake"."
I have sat in high school and college classrooms, Sabbath School classes, and evangelistic meetings where teachers, professors, and evangelists have thoroughly and clearly explained it, to the point that I understood and agreed with it.
However, the moment I walked out the door, I could not have explained it to anyone else. I can give a broad outline of it, but explain it from the Bible? Way too complicated. I'm much better with the Sabbath and the state of the dead.
To be fair, the IJ has fallen out of favor over the last decades (which is a mild way of glossing over a complex and turbulent period of Adventist history), and many academics, pastors, and lay members have publicly or privately separated themselves from it. But its legacy is ongoing and far-reaching.
*What's the connection between the IJ and the Sunday law? The Sunday law begins when the IJ ends. The end of the IJ is also called "the close of probation," because at that point the eternal fate of every human (dead or alive) has been determined. Everyone has had a chance to hear the (SDA) gospel and to either accept it or reject it.
A similar thing happened with the Jehovah Witnesses and their belief in the 2nd coming if Jesus in 1914.
Since it did not happened, Jesus still came (the new interpretation states) only in an invisible way only discernable to those with spiritual eyes. 1914 was used as the starting point date from which Matthew 24:34 was top be fulfilled. The verse reads: this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
The generation of 1914 has almost dissapeared. As expected the interpretation has changed.
Both movements came out of the Millerites. So in a way they are cousins.
SDA's and JW's do not accept biological evolution, but their religious interpretations have done alot of evolving in themselves trought out the years.
In my opinion, the Catholic/Protestant split is nothing more than the European version of Sunni vs. Shia. Fortunately, the hostilities have cooled off considerably since the Enlightenment. That we have been fighting one another over the "correct" interpretation of a ridiculous fable for 500 years is a hideous blight on our species. The switch from sword to pen as the weapon of choice, while welcome, does not mitigate the utter foolishness of the whole argument.
Madness.
I hate to jump in amidst such experts and wisdom, but here are a few ideas:
1. Experts have been proven very wrong in retrospect. Pick your subject and look back. I'd include many views on religion, and especially eschatology among them. Cliche, but hindsight is 20/20.
2. Small point, but "national" law is not the same as "international" law. And that point is fairly mute, as it's *already* nearly impossible for one to exercise freedom of religion (of any stripe other than mainstream) in many countries of the world. In which side of the ditch is the crash fatal? The left or the right?
3. The weight of teaching from core sources (like the Bible, and EGW, if one is so inclined) is NOT about "what's gonna happen and how." It just is not. There is some, and in nearly every case it's brief and sparse. But there have always been, and always will be, speculators about it -- most who have been very wrong. Most folks miss that the bulk of prophecy (including Jesus' own prediction of his resurrection) were misunderstood until viewed in hindsight. Maybe, just maybe, we're there again… or would that be "still"?
~ The Stenbakken Family ~:
1. True.
2. Also true. But who is prophecy for? The United States alone? What relevance (other than the second coming) does it have for the rest of the world?
3. Also true, but it played a large role in part of my life. A recent reader comment sparked the memory.
And welcome.
"Most folks miss that the bulk of prophecy (including Jesus' own prediction of his resurrection) were misunderstood until viewed in hindsight."
I wouldn't call that prophecy at all. If this is the case then, what is the point of prophecy? How can it be differentiated from a creative argument made to fit particular facts after they happened?.
A non-specific, misunderstood, vague and cryptic prophecy has no real value. It gives no new information we didn't have before. It is just another way for people to "prove" their preconceived notions by unjustified, after the fact, interpretations.
Astrologers make big bucks doing this all the time.
A true prophecy should be clear and specific. None have been found yet.
Brigno:
As a fellow infidel, I agree that no true prophecy has yet been found. But clarity and specificity are insufficient. What if it was just a reasonable prediction? Or self-fulfilling? Or lucky? Or "fulfillable," that is, someone could decide to fulfill it?
I would add to clarity and specificity the condition that the prophecy be totally incomprehensible to the person/people who produced it. For example, a text convincingly dated to Jesus' time which reads, "In the late 20th century, a global network of computers will be established which will be called the internet." That would be impressive.
Anyway, what says the room?
Hi zach:
I totally agree with you. Clarity and specificity would be necesary but not the only criteria needed.
Vera,
I am an adventist who has also struggled with these kinds of questions. Here is my take to some of your comments:
>Adventists, of course, will be the prime candidates for persecution under this law...The Sabbath, you see, is the seal of God, and those with the seal cannot be harmed.
According to the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit is the Seal of God (see 2 Corinthians 1:21,22; Ephesians 1:13, 14; Ephesians 4:30). Regarding the "cannot be harmed" part...I wouldn't count on it since many (or most?) of the prophets and apostle's died a martyr's death.
>You can imagine how this kind of eschatological thinking messes with the heads of young Adventists. Will I be ready? Will I be saved? What about my unconfessed sins? Could I be strong enough to keep the Sabbath in the face of persecution? Fear of the second coming invaded my dreams, and it was always fear. I was never good enough, and I was never ready, but the small black cloud drew inexorably closer.
And you never will be "good enough". Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. It is a gift from God. See Romans 3:20-24; Ephesians 2:8,9; Galatians 3:26. No amount of "Sabbath-keeping" will save anyone. The Pharisee's were pretty strict about Sabbath-keeping, yet Jesus had some pretty harsh words for them (Matthew 23). If we could be saved by keeping the Sabbath, Jesus need not have died.
Regarding the investigative judgement...I have known people who have left the SDA church because of this particular doctrine. I used to struggle with it as well, but no longer. If you believe in Christ's second coming, it makes sense that there would be a pre-advent judgement, and a strong case can be made for this from the Bible. But I am not longer afraid because I am not depending on my feeble works (including Sabbath-keeping) to earn my salvation, but depend totally on what Christ has done on my behalf.
>Until one day I started wondering how a national Sunday law was ever going to get passed...
I have often wondered that myself. I don't know how it is all going to unfold, or if end-time events will have anything at all to do with the Sabbath, but I do believe this world will come to an end. It is hard for me to believe that mankind will make it through the 21st century. I only hope that Jesus comes in time to save us from ourselves!
"It is hard for me to believe that mankind will make it through the 21st century. I only hope that Jesus comes in time to save us from ourselves!"
This is exactly the typical adventist mindset i was referring to when i wrote the following on this same thread...
"End of times belief is a dangerous concept. It makes people accept the idea (with being aware of it) that only trough death and destruction can a better future be obtained. That the solution to the problems we face comes from the outside, from an inaccessible realm beyond that which is known. This is so sad since the truth is that only we can make a difference. There is no one out there that is going to come an magically fix our problems and give us immortality. There is no one out there to give us any more meaning that the one we make for ourselves. End time belief distracts the masses from the only chance they have at living fully, at making a difference, at making the most of the only life they will have. It breeds people like John Hagee who see a silver lining in the mushrooms clouds of a nuclear bomb."
It's interesting that SDAs will take a roundabout way to saying that the Sabbath is the seal of God when the Bible clearly says in at least two places that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God.
I'm a bit iffy on the whole salvation thing at the moment, so being "good enough" has an entirely different meaning for me these days.
Vera, a question inspired by the title of your blog. Do you want Christianity to be true? If so, why?
Do I want it to be true?
My life would certainly be more convenient if I believed it to be true. So on that level, yes, I want it to be true.
But I haven't been able to make myself believe that any of it is true.
In the before days, I didn't want my Adventism to be such a big part of my identity, but I couldn't make it go away. Then—poof!—in a week's time it was gone, rendered meaningless.
And I was a new person.
Vera and Zach,
The bottom line is, human beings desperately want something to hope in. We want to know that there is something beyond the here and now. I don't care how staunch an atheist you are - or whether you're name is Richard Dawkins - when you are at death's door, you want to feel the comfort of knowing that there is something more to existence than the three score and ten we have had.
I don't know how atheism can get around that basic yearning of the human heart - inherent in every human being.
Shawn, I happen to like living. A lot. Totally beats dying, or being dead.
However, believing in an afterlife doesn't make it true. I'd love to live forever. Here-and-now life is way too short to do everything and learn everything I'd like to know.
But as long as I have it, it's what I've got, and I intend, in my own way, to make the most of it.
Hi Vera,
I agree with you that belief doesn't make something true. However, I was responding to the "wishing" part of your blog title, though perhaps I shouldn't have!!
The other point I was trying to make is that atheism/evolution can't address the basic existential questions and yearnings that every human being has. Instead, they say that to address such questions - which are inherent to every human - is to show weakness. Such "poor souls" just haven't been enlightened enough to realize that life is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
It is somehow perceived to be stronger to believe that this life is all we have (because, in the end, such an idea is also just a belief as well, since we do not have any empirical evidence, telling us what happens in the future).
Belief that evolution is true doesn't necessarily mean one is an atheist (personal experience notwithstanding). I have to mention that one every time it comes up. You can be a Christian (and even an SDA, I'm told) and also believe that evolution is true. Evolution ≠ atheism.
Wouldn't you agree that whatever a person believes—atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.—life is what you make of it? We are each tiny dots in the universe, but down where I live, life has incredible meaning, lived out in my family, my friends, my work. Both—the insignificance and the deep meaning, the macro and the micro—are fully true.
True, I could believe that my life is ultimately meaningless, and yours, too. But I don't.
Shawn,
Atheism, at least in the weak sense (my own position), does not imply nihilism. I think we share a common enemy in atheists of the Nietchze variety. And you are right that religion has powerful emotional appeal. I just wish we could go about satisfying our spiritual needs in a more reasonable manner. The world could use a lot more quiet romanticism.
Cheers!
Brigno: "End of times belief is a dangerous concept..."
My belief isn't that through death and destruction can a better future be obtained, per se'. But I do believe that the solution to our problems must come from outside, largely because I have no faith in the human race to fix them. Humans are utterly corrupt. As a race we care only for ourselves but not each other nor the planet in which we live. We treat the earth as our garbage dump. We are poisoning our food and water supplies, and we will soon face overpopulation. And it seems just a matter of time before the nuclear bomb (or some other WMD) falls into the wrong hands. We will destroy ourselves, either through destroying the environment, our economy, or by war and violence (but probably all the above). In spite of my end-time beliefs (which do NOT prevent me from living fully), I strongly believe we should all try to make a positive difference, to do what we can to make the world a better place. This would come naturally from following God's law of love - nothing dangerous there.
Zach,
I recognize that atheism doesn't necessarily equate with nihilism. I know that there are (probably) a lot of atheists who enjoy a fairly fulfilling life. But, I would still contend that there is probably still a void that cannot be filled apart from God.
Yes, we do share a "common enemy" in nihilists. I would say we also share a common enemy in unloving Christians!
Vera, it seems as though I did equate evolutionists with atheists. I often do that and that is probably a mistake. Though I personally believe that it impossible to reconcile God with evolution, I am not going to ostracize you for believing such a thing.
I am deeply discouraged that someone could maintain this - and I obviously believe that putting the two ideas together is oxymoronic - but, again, I will not go so far as other Adventists who say you have to leave the church!
Steve:
I do believe in humanity. We have made our own problems and only we can solve them. While there is no evidence of any god willing to fix our problems, I do have evidence of how human progress can make the world better (look at medicine, solar energy, psychology, etc.) I agree that love can propel us forward. You say it comes from god, but in reality it all comes from ourselves. We are capable of bad things but also of great things. End time belief is unnecessarily negative. This negativity fosters or justifies the extremes taken by the few who are devout enough to take action to bring end times about.
"I would still contend that there is probably still a void that cannot be filled apart from God."
-I think this is a mistaken generalization that has no base in reality. Specially if one considers how many Christians live their lives with a void in them as well (Mother Theresa's letters anyone?)
Contending such non-sequiturs may make the believer feel better with themselves, but that is it.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
While it might be discouraging for you, it's not so much for me.
I don't know how people can be Christian and believe that evolution is true at the same time, either. But there seem to be plenty (even of the non-Catholic sort) who can. They've figured it out.
Maybe we can, too.
Post a Comment