@Principlex, I would agree with your first sentiment, except for your word choice. The word used is bondservant, since slavery works by dragging someone into service against their will. That’s not how Christianity (even that which holds to predestination) works. One is a bondservant to Christ, but not in the sense that we are beholden to someone’s interpretation of God. More on that in a moment.

You also make the claim that Christianity is not about thinking or reasoning, but instead all about feeling. You say that has been your experience with regards to people who believe in God. Now, I don’t doubt that last point; it’s your experience, after all. However, I would say that living based on one’s feeling is a very unstable way to live one’s life, and is entirely inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. The Lord doesn’t command that we rely on our feelings, which are about as impermanent as one can get. Rather, the Bible makes propositional statements, which we are to evaluate. Yes, logic and reason play a LARGE part in Christianity, or they OUGHT to. Modern evangelicalism has largely gotten away from this in the last several decades, and it’s a lamentable state of affairs, to be sure. It has not always been so, and should not be so today.

You said something I would like to quote:

“Every man has the capacity in some measure to look about him, ascertain the facts and pursue a purpose based on what he sees and deduces. To undermine this power with faith “enslaves” a person to others. He cannot avoid this result.”

Now, I would begin with your starting proposition, adding only that it is the Lord who has granted man the capacity for rational, empirical thought. Then I would add my wholehearted agreement. But when you immediately jump to the assumption that faith undermines this freedom to produce, of necessity, slavery. The problem with this line of thinking is in the assumption that there are no evidences for God or the veracity of the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth, to be honest. I never planned to produce a defense of Christianity in the scope of this post, or even in the comments, which followed, but this is some of what comes off the top of my head with regards to evidences.

First, I look around and see an infinitely complex environment, atmosphere, and systems within these larger systems. The immediate conclusion of such observation is “Someone infinitely intelligent created this.” It’s the “watchmaker” argument. You see a watch, piano, car, or any other piece of machinery, and you instantly can deduce that there is a creator. To believe something like this developed by chance takes far more of what you would term faith, than the deduction that all of this complexity was formed and put together by an infinitely intelligent creator. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that from nature, one can deduce the orderly, rational, and logical nature of our Creator.

The fact that what we possess of the Bible matches what archaeologists unearth is highly unlikely unless the hand of the Lord shepherds His word. The fact that the languages of Scripture fairly quickly became dead languages so they could not evolve much past the way such languages were understood when the books of the Bible were written over the centuries helps us to clearly understand the meaning of what is written.

Archaeologists continually prove the Bible to be accurate when it comes to historical digs, such as the account of Nineveh, which no one believed until archaeologists proved it…though it’s in the pages of Scripture.

The fact that Jesus fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament is mathematically impossible without the existence of God.

The fact that I am completely transformed, despite my efforts to “be a better person” before I became a Christian is anecdotal evidence for my own life.

However, evidence you will accept…that may be a different story. I accept that. I’m not trying to argue you into the Kingdom. I am merely trying to explain that there are evidences.

You are correct, though, in that feelings are not a reliable way to live one’s life. We don’t have to rely on our feelings. We have something as rock solid as the unchangeable word of God on which to base our beliefs. We can read it, think about what it says, and adhere to it. We don’t rely on how we feel about the Bible today, or at least we ought to strive against that.

The next argument is that of “interpretation” of the word of God, of course, and I’m not entirely sure I want to bother getting into that discussion, but suffice it to say that you do not need to interpret everything I’ve said thus far. Not in any way that changes the meanings of my words, without playing some form of intellectual Twister. As my favorite local radio host says, “Words mean things”. It is a concept fundamental to communication. It is why we can still read and enjoy Ayn Rand’s great novels. It is why we can read the newspaper (not to make a Wynand reference or anything). It is why we’re on the Internet, reading what others have written. The Bible is the same. It can be read, and it can be understood. What it presents may not be popular, but it can be read and examined on its own merit.

I do not have to rely on the interpretation of some man of the Word of God. I don’t just go to church and blindly listen to what my Pastor says. I’ve disagreed with him before, and I’m quite likely to do it again. That being said, I have little disagreement with him on the basic tenets of the Christian faith. We have done the work to evaluate the claims and propositions the Bible puts forth, and happen to be in agreement.

Before anyone points to the diversity of belief in the church, I’d like to point out that just because the Bible is clear in its main truths does not mean that man won’t seek to twist or pervert it. Just because the Bible is clear that mankind ought not murder one another doesn’t stop a crazy person from killing an abortion doctor, or entire nations to go to war in the Crusades. Ultimately, these common scapegoats for why people don’t have to examine the Word of God for themselves can be clearly shown to be against the clear teachings of Scripture. What’s more those who engage in such acts don’t usually even try to justify themselves using the Word of God. Yes, abortion doctors are clearly in the wrong….where does that justify killing them? The Bible does not. Yes, the religion of Islam means that people are going to hell. Where does that justify making war on them? Oh yeah, it doesn’t. The actions of fallen man do not invalidate the veracity of the Bible. The Bible does not claim that men, once they’ve read it, will stop doing wrong.

This response is already over-long, I feel, and I apologize. Principlex, you wrote such a good response to my post, that I felt your post deserved an equally meaningful response. (It’s the basis for all dialogue.) :)

Finally, I would say that I did not intend for these comments to turn into a religious debate. I did not set out to “prove” Christianity in my post, just as the Bible does not set out to “prove” the existence of God. In the beginning, God….assumes His existence, and goes from there. That is not to say, however, that there are not proofs for the existence of God.

I also apologize for my inadequate presentation of evidences. This is all done off the top of my head, and aside from the research I’ve done in the past, I have not had any time to do any research for this comment. I wanted to tell you that I felt you had the definition of Christianity as a religion for felling without thought was incorrect. Sadly, it’s NOT incorrect for so much of those who would call themselves Christians out there, but remember that just because someone claims to be a Christian, it doesn’t mean they are one. Lots of people do horrible things in God’s name. That should not sully the name of God. It should cause us to realize that pure man is anything but.

Now THAT may be your definition of slavery…the assertion that mankind is evil. That may be our fundamental sticking point. I don’t know what to say other than “look around”. How anyone can look at the world and assume that mankind is ultimately pure and good is beyond me. Having said that, even those of us thinking people (nowhere near the majority of mankind, and I think you, Ayn Rand, and myself would agree on THAT point) are slaves to sin. That is our condition, and it’s not created by the assertion, itself. The reality of our slavery to sin is inescapable, and the only way by which we can be free is through Christ, who graciously provides a way out of destruction.

Also, that my comment might not be devoid of a presentation of the Gospel, you and I are both sinners. All that God demands is acknowledgement of your sin in the form of repentance, or a turning away from your sin, and trusting in Him for your salvation. Don’t take my word for it, though…that definitely is slavery. Take a look for yourself. Read the gospel of John, and let’s discuss it, if you like. Examine the Bible’s propositions for yourself. Reason them out. For extra-Biblical proofs of the existence of God, I highly recommend that you check out Joshua McDowell’s book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (Maybe the new version is New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.) Then examine each of his claims on your own…don’t take his word for it, either. Another book that I’ve not read, but have heard some good things about is Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ. Lee Strobel was an investigative journalist who set out to disprove Christianity, and ended up as a Christian. I can’t verify that it’s entirely accurate, as I’ve not had the chance to read him, but I’ve heard decent things about it. Ultimately, my plea to you is to not take what you’ve heard or what you see in other Christians and assume that’s all it means to be a Christian. For what it’s worth, I have little respect for much of what passes for Christianity among my brethren today. Most of it is subjective nonsense that disrespects God and His word. If that were the only experience I had of God, I think I’d probably wholeheartedly agree with you. Thank you again for your comment.

@Robert, Well, since I don’t adhere to the idea that truth and knowledge can be gotten by means of merely believing without question the words of other men, your argument does not apply. Looks to me like you read the subject of my post and nothing else.

@all, I accept much of Objectivism. I think individual liberty from a governmental standpoint ought to be what we strive for. I do not think that any man has the right to impose his system of belief upon anyone else, and that our country was founded upon such liberty. Where I feel Objectivism fails is the way in which I perceive it denigrates service for service’s sake. Our thoughts ought not be for the approval of others, but the approval of God, whose demands for perfection are unswerving. If slavery is obedience to rules and laws, then we have a definition problem on our hands. I believe there is such a thing as just laws. When Roark dynamited the building, he was in the wrong, I feel. I understand with and agree with his reasoning, but he was still in the wrong.

Objectivism starts with the rejection of the existence of God, and then reasons that any of His rules must actually be man’s rules, and thus no one has the right to say it’s right for anyone else. Where I disagree is the fact that God DOES exist, and His laws and rules are perfectly just and ARE the right path for all. Within that path, there is tremendous freedom, however. Finally, where Objectivism and I meet up again is when we both conclude that no man has the right to impose anyone’s rules upon another, and especially when it comes to government imposition. I have the freedom to call sin, sin….and you have the freedom to disagree. I do not, however, have the authority to force you to behave in a certain manner, unless it is to stop you from infringing upon the liberties of another in a quantifiable manner. I can preach the gospel to you, and you are free to listen or not. If you agree, then the only rule you end up binding yourself to is not man’s rule, but God’s. A just, merciful God, Who knows with what you struggle, and provides the only truly pure mercy. However, I may not bind you to His rules.

In a great many ways, I agree with Objectivism…ultimately, as a cohesive whole, I cannot agree, however, and that was the point of my post.

Every man has the capacity in some measure to look about him, ascertain the facts and pursue a purpose based on what he sees and deduces. To undermine this power with faith “enslaves” a person to others. He cannot avoid this result.

An independent mind is one that lives as though he were the first born man. He is always looking about, noting what he sees and relating to it through his purposes. He can hear others conclusions, but he draws his own before he makes a decision about something. The person who is grounded in faith doesn’t operate this way.

And, in my experience, this proves to be true. Most of the people I know who believe in God don’t make their mind/consciousness fundamentally important in their lives. Their emphasis is often on other people and they do what they feel is right.

“Feel” is the operative word. Feelings are not one’s means of cognition. Knowledge of one’s feelings is not knowledge of the world. Although feelings may be compelling, as one gets grounded in reason, that goes away or isn’t as important as it once was. Feelings give a person valuable information, but it is about himself, not the world. And the world simply doesn’t care about one’s feelings or about what one thinks. It responds when one grasps what is going on and institutes an action that causes a situation to produce a particular result.

A person who takes something on faith cannot consistently live on that faith. Reality requires a higher standard. One has to know how things work and then do what he must in order to produce the result he is looking for. In those areas, fath is meaningless.

All Rand is saying in so many words is “Choose reason and rationality and you can live not only consistently, but build that power into a a magnificent life.”

Dust Bowl brews are the product of Don Oliver, and he’s produced a couple of great ones. You can find him on Facebook under Dust Bowl Brewing Co., and you can let him know what you think about it, there.

Thank you for the comment.

While there are a whole bunch of nickel and dime action and adventure fantasy writers out there, only a few take the time to develop people, place, nations, political systems, and a believable and realized world like Jordan took 20 years to do! Hats off to you Mr. Jordan.. I pray you know the Lord. Would be an interesting discussion in eternity! :)

I hope that Sanderson can make the final book-trilogy worth the wait and can piece it together as Mr. Jordan would have.. at least in a believable and well written manner. I wait with some doubt and much excitement for the complete to the Randland series! lol

Although Sunday on the way home from church, I had my visor lifted just a little for ventilation, and got a bug right through the slit under the visor. Glad it wasn’t a bee. :)