OVER THINK TANK

Dear weblog community of generally pubescent kidos and a sprinkling of cerebrum-wielding intellectuals,

I hereby consider my xanga project DONE. Supernaturalism has been chased out of the temple and hovers at the edge of the universe, somewhere inside of .1 nanometer or outside of 13 billion light-years. There are other equally-involving yet progressively-complex topics out there worth writing about, particularly anything that can produce a body of evidence or significant statistical correlations, or any sensory experience at all.

What began as the personal journey out of a firm religious identity rooted in Southern Baptist, Literalist, Young Earth Creationist, and Immanent Eschatological views, has since transformed into a series of curious observations and critiques of religion from a distance. No longer revisiting Christian apologetics and having long since thoroughly examined the relevant texts for their own internally-coherent views for disjunctions with the sciences and histories, I harbor no particularly strong interest in keeping up the arms race of arguments and do not feel qualified to maintain a blog dedicated to the material. I leave that job to War on Error, who never seems to tire from some apparent latent humor in examining old beliefs.

Instead, I'll have a more diverse, modern, and relevant running ticker titled Over Think Tank. I have betrayed the xanga sandbox after six years and have switched to blogger.

OVER THINK TANK

Perhaps you were expecting to read here of the scientific faux pas of the book of Genesis, or sensible criticisms of the crude in-group out-group ethical standards of the Hebrew law, or scathing reviews of the use of Hebrew scripture by Christian authors attempting to fit Jesus into Jewish expectations, or maybe just a few embarrassing quotes from the early Christians who thought the natural and political orders of the earth were about to be completely transformed in their own lifetimes.

But that has all been done, and is quite easy for any layman to perform, with but a mustard seed of reason. It is always the greater challenge of sharper minds to embrace and apply a given alternate perspective, as freely donned as any before so rigorously built and displayed with all pride of accomplishment. Thusly there can be found here my blog's own shortcomings, as I have uncovered them with the same reason which uncovers all things whether of one nature or another.

1. ATTACKS Upon The SUPERSTRUCTURE
If it could be said, the first error of my ways on this blog in the past 6 years has been that of an insensitivity. To attack the structures which support the value systems of a people, is to appear to them as attacking the values themselves. For the clear and dispassionate thinker, it is possible to question the special creation of man or the resurrection of Jesus, without directing a blow upon the motivation for a civil society, or the reason for keeping one's computer free of illegal mp3s. The conscience continues its existence in the biological programming of the species, as it does in many others, regardless of whether or not in our minds a Jewish messianic figure managed to cheat death. Indeed, it is not the actions of another, but the act of loving itself that is redemptive power. We lend to the Bible all that we are, especially if we lend only to that source of ideas, but it, as a product of humanity, can neither add nor detract from the whole of what it is to be human, as it is a mirror for the eyes to see the heart that beats without smoke and mirrors.

2. ARGUMENTS With COARSENESS
I have made no strong effort to hide my picking at the bones of God, so to speak, and having so given reason its free reign, it could only be likely that some Christians have come away insulted rather than stricken with deeper questions concerning whether they are living fully responsible lives both intellectually and spiritually. Like Simon on American Idol, I tell it like it is, but sparing no expense of time and effort.

3. LACK Of EXAMPLE
It would seem that to convince a Christian of anything in this center of exchange, one must have more than the superior argument and the often superior knowledge of scripture. One must also have the superior form of greeting and presentation, conscientiousness and grace. For if I am the first example of atheism these individuals have faced, then they will have no strong inclination to be the more similar to me, if all I have shown to do is knock the feet from beneath them.

4. LACK Of VISION
While this blog has never lacked purpose, it has lacked the vision of a time when traditional theists may feel less threatened by the changes ahead, and could know peace in the realization that there is no eternal torment for anyone they have known, no inevitable conflict between science and religion, and no supernatural force negligent in their lives and in those across the globe in isolation of the gospel.

THE PREDICAMENT OF SELF-INCRIMINATING SCRIPTURE

"The game is up" comes to mind.
Before examining the striking inadvertent admissions hinted at, the first order of business is to reach a model for determining which party, man or God, holds the onus of responsibility for assigning eternal residence. The deity's sovereignty is often contrasted with some necessity of human free will. Given that both elements of free will and predestination are represented in scripture [hence the cause for debate] these should not be contrasted but instead synthesized into a single model.

We know that the deity is the only being with true free will on account of its omniscience, omnipotence, and amoral sovereignty. Humans, however, have heavily constrained wills in terms of know-how, strength, and personal/ethical considerations. Humans also have cognitive breaking points, at which the force of inevitable reason obliterates doubt. It is not difficult to see how the immanent deity can conquer the paltry human "free will" by directing our reasoning pathways to lead to inescapable conclusions. Consider, for instance, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. This was a man who had chosen his path, for we are told that in his last days as an unbeliever he was eagerly persecuting the saints. The Judeo-Christian deity did not accept this man's use of his "free will" and so intervened with a supernatural vision, whose force of inevitable reason instantly converted Saul to Christianity.
Yet no one, to my knowledge, has ever considered Saul a forced convert, or that any infraction of his "free will" perceived here is an infraction of his god's will for the particular style of human conversion it views necessary. In such a way does the deity's absolute sovereignty encompass the limited free will of humans.

So I pose to the readership these obvious questions:

If the the deity's sovereignty is as absolute as any other of his superior qualities, on what grounds may we conclude that souls inhabit hell by their own responsible hand? For here we see in the case of Saul of Tarsus—a man who hated Christ in action as greatly as any individual could—a clear demonstration that private (or nearly so) miraculous visions are sufficient to overwhelm the disbeliever's cognitive breaking point! Why then did the Judeo-Christian deity fail to convert the rest of the lot, if it was so stunningly easy and advantageous to snag the self-titled Pharisee of Pharisees?

Yet not only did a veteran saint-persecutor convert, but by Jesus' own surprising admission, some entire cities of the worst of Biblical history—Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom—would have converted had the Hebrew deity so loved them enough to direct their reasoning with a public display of miracles [Matthew 11:21-23]!

What have you to say, readership? If the agent with the greatest infusion of knowledge and power fails to respect the responsibility that comes with it, yet worse, actively damns the souls he knows well how to save (even admitting so in the very same book), shall he also be worshipped for his benevolence towards humanity, so ineffectually conceived as it is? And if he should be worshipped, does this not malign the moral and intellectual integrity of the worshipper, in forcing him to ignore the issue or else invent creative excuses for why the subject of his adulation behaves incredibly far worse than he would if he were in that same position of power?