FOR 50 YEARS, cartoonist Charles Schulz gave us pictures of ourselves wrapped in a smile. One of the last strips I clipped from our Sunday paper showed Snoopy the dog sitting on top of his doghouse with a typewriter, writing about his life. He titled his story . . .

The Dog Who Never Did Anything
Snoopy remembers it this way, “You stay home now,” they said, “and be a good dog.”
So he stayed home and was a good dog.
Then he decided to be even a better dog. So he barked at everyone who went by. And he even chased the neighbor’s cats.
“What’s happened to you?” they said. “You used to be such a good dog.”
So he stopped barking and chasing cats, and everyone said, “You’re a good dog.”
The moral, as Snoopy typed it, is “Don’t do anything and you’ll be a good dog.”
As I turned the smile around in my mind, I noticed a quirk of the English language. Snoopy and God have something in common. They are related not only by alphabet (dog and god), but by what “creatures in the middle” expect of them. The idea intrigued me enough to try another version.

The God Who Never Did Anything
“You give me what I want now,” they said, “and be a good God.”
So He gave them what they wanted and He was a good God.
Then He decided to be an even better God.
He started knocking over the furniture of other gods, and He used pain to help people in ways they could not understand.
“What’s happened to You?” they said.
“You used to be such a good God.”
So He stopped knocking over the furniture of other gods, and He stopped using pain in ways that were beyond people’s ability to understand.
And everyone said, “You’re a good God.”
The moral, as angels might see it, “Stop acting like God and people will think You’re good.”

The God We Want
Many of us imagine God as we want Him to be. To our wishes we add expectation. We expect Him to encourage us when we are afraid, to comfort us when we’re hurt, to forgive us when we fail, and to give us what we think we need when we think we need it.
Yet, along the way, we keep stumbling into the awareness that the King of Heaven is more apt to come to us in His own style, time, and mystery. He is seldom as we imagine Him to be. He is more like the God who reveals Himself in the pages of His own history.
There He comes to us in the unexpected surprises of joy, in the unwanted nights of our misery, and in the solitary sounds of our own loneliness. He comes to us in the unexpected joys of Adam, in the numbed grief of Eve, in the inconsolable tears of the childless Hannah, in the murderous anger of Moses, and in the madness of a powerful Nebuchadnezzar.
But me? Until He responds, I’d rather have it my way. In the moments of my dissatisfaction, I don’t want to have to wait for what I want. I want it now. Now. I’ll pray. I’ll pay. I’ll bargain. I’ll crawl on my knees. But I want God to prove that He is good—right now.

The God Who Has Been Good
Even in our “maturity” we can be like 2- and 3-year-olds pulling at the pant leg of heaven. Our Father isn’t surprised. He knows how to raise physical, emotional, and spiritual toddlers. He knows how to run with us in our youth, and how to walk with us at 74, 84, and 94.
And for those who go further, He is still there, hearing once again our whimpers in the night, and reaching down with the affection of an adoring mother who carefully lifts her children from their crib to herself.
No, He has not always been the kind of parent we wanted Him to be. Yes, He has been good on His terms rather than on ours. He has not answered our prayers in the way we asked. Seldom has He allowed anything to play out according to our own expectations or childish demands. Yet His determination to lead us in the paths of His own choosing is what has made Him so good.

The God Who Will Be Good
The promise of tomorrow comes with the wrinkled snapshots of yesterday. Even though our memories are not as sharp as we’d like them to be, and even though the happy times are mixed with regret, our albums contain memories of a God who keeps reminding us that He is better than our expectations. He is better than our demands. He is better than anything this life has to offer.
If He allowed a relationship to be lost, He stayed with us to remind us that we weren’t made for one another as much as we were made for Him. As our bodies give way to time, they become painful reminders that we were not made for these bodies. We were made for the One who said from the top of a thundering, burning mountain—to a people huddled in the middle of a life-threatening wilderness—“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.”
This is the God who, because He is good, refuses to “stay home and do nothing.”
Father, thank You for a man named Charles Schulz who brought us elements of truth amid our smiles. Thank You for being God on Your terms rather than ours. May Your name be hallowed as we wait on You. May Your kingdom be reflected in our patience. May Your will be done in our disappointments. Please, give us this day our daily bread.

Any more copy/paste comments like this that don’t address the subject of the post or other comments will be considered spam. I am not here to enable your innate need for wildly off-topic mythology inspired ramblings.

Consider this your only warning.

It’s your site, I’m sure you reserve the right to delete any and all comments which are in direct philosophical and theological opposition to either the thread or the site. Delete away.

Nicely done, Steve. Not only have you deliberately ignored my reasoning, but you’ve also supposed, without any inclination from me, that I will delete comments for simply being in opposition to me.

So again, for your understanding… cut/paste comments that don’t address the subject of the post or other comments will be considered spam. And if I were to adhere to the comment policy of deleting those in opposition to what I think, then your first comment on this post (and others) would not have stayed. I even did some edits and made it easier to read.

Please don’t come on here throwing your ideology around without any context or forethought.

Ahhh, old times… I am certainly happy to allow and engage in real discussion on the topics I post about here. But I will not entertain the kind of discussion that you are - at least in my mind - famous for.

I am well aware that the world in its wisdom knows not God ( 1 Corinthians 1:21 ) but considers the word of the cross to be foolish.

Should that deter me? No.

I have a presuppositional starting point, but so do you. While it is easy for me to say Let God be found true, but every man a liar! I understand for you that is a strawman. But then again, maybe I’m must “Pearl Casting.”

So, yes, I do agree that everyone has a presuppositional starting point. By nature we are ALL created equal: We ALL hate God and cannot find our way to Him on our own. Everyone of us love the darkness as opposed to God’s light. Everything is relative to God’s starting point and his enlightening us to who He really is. You have stated my views correctly.

If that’s true, then what’s the point of exploring the possible answers to any of your questions? Or asking the questions to begin with? Let’s assume it is true, for argument’s sake. By your reasoning there is no point. It’s a waiting game.

And in that case, your “presupposition” is not a presupposition at all. It is merely the conclusion that’s been shown to you, but a conclusion that you can’t show to anybody else. You only use it as a presupposition when exploring the questions to which others (impatiently) feel they need to find an answer. It’s a thinly veiled effort to mask what you “know” (or have been shown) as a logical and rational conclusion that has been reached through intellectual discourse, when, in fact, it’s nothing of the sort. In the process you commit unavoidable and unending logical fallacies that only serve to undermine your attempt to explain it rationally.

Now… watching this tortured process, as someone who “has not been shown the way”, is truly a sight to behold. Given that Tom can make the same claim as you about Jupiter doing this for him, Dick can claim that Aliens from outer space have shown him the same “way”, and Harry can claim that Prometheus (the Saviour of Man) has done the same through Hesiodus (Paul, in your version), you can begin to understand the skepticism of the rational human being.

But what you refuse to do is understand the similarity, in story and consequence, between your “presupposition” and the supposed presupposition of millions before you who subscribed to different gods, saviors, apostles, and books. There is absolutely nothing that separates you from them other than the names of those involved. You are simply offering your story because it has satisfied you as an explanation of the world.

Not So Chris! Since when did any of the great discoveries rule out God’s existence? So many of the major discoveries down through the ages where made by men of God who loved nothing more than to learn, search and discover what God had created. It is true, however, that they presupposed the God of Scripture as the God of Creation. I do not deny that, but did it hinder their discoveries? No. There will always be a small contingent of the religious that think God will be nullified with new discoveries.

Chris says:
If that’s true, then what’s the point of exploring the possible answers to any of your questions? Or asking the questions to begin with? Let’s assume it is true, for argument’s sake. By your reasoning there is no point. It’s a waiting game.

There’s plenty of point Chris. Why should we stop searching every nook and cranny of our world and our universe because we presuppose God the Creator. God has given us minds and bodies to search out His creation, but He created us chiefly to Glorify, worship and serve Him. If we fail in the latter what good does the former do for us in the end? What is it like to “assume” a creator and that His word might be true? I’m always curious to ask that question although I am not sure you can sufficiently answer it. What do you say we are waiting for? New discoveries, whether or not God will be found to be who He said He was all along? We are all waiting and we are all dying as we wait are we not—ever second of every day? Why is there “no point?” Why must we presuppose God’s non-existence to explore? Did Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and others sit around and wait? I happen to think it frees us even more to search out His marvelous creation in its proper context. These great discovers that went before us thought the same! I am NEVER afraid of anything that will be found either here on ( or under ) this earth or in the larger universe. I disagree that you think my points are “thinly veiled” efforts by myself, but I would NOT argue that they are veiled by God Himself. Bear with me on this even if I have to post scripture:
2 Corinthians 4:3-5 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing, but the fact is we are ALL perishing every second of every day. You would be right that I have been “shown” this truth and the truth of it is that I cannot “show” it to you. Only God can make that truth known to you. It is my prayer that He does—in time—do that. It will always be irrational to the fallen mind because scripture tells us that we are all at “enmity” with God. Creation is fallen, just as our minds are fallen. Intellect and I.Q do NOT come into play with an all powerful, all Holy God. If He created us, He is not impressed with our audacity that implies we are smater than He is! You talk about Tom and Jupiter and Harry claiming Prometheus the Savior of Man. You must admit that Scripture gives a much better historical account for fact checking here Chris. I would ask you why is there something rather than nothing. Some may actually say something came from nothing. Others may state that something is here because of impersonal spirit or energy. And many believe matter is eternal. What do you say is rational here? Second, How do you explain human nature? Frequently people will say we are born as blank slates, neither good nor evil. Another popular response is that we are born good, but society causes us to behave otherwise. Third, What happens to a person at death? Many will say that a person’s death is just the disorganization of matter. Increasingly people in our culture are saying that death brings reincarnation or realization of oneness. What do you think is sane and rational. Fourth, How do you determine what is right and wrong? Often we hear it said that ethics are relative or situational. Others assert that we have no free choice since we are entirely determined. Some simply derive “oughts” from what “is.” And of course history has shown us the tragic results of a “might makes right” answer. Fifth, How do you know that you know? Some say that the mind is the center of our source of knowledge. Things are only known deductively. Others claim that knowledge is only found in the senses. We know only what is perceived. Sixth, What is the meaning of history? One answer is that history is determined as part of a mechanistic universe. Another answer is that history is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect but without purpose. Yet another answer. Christianity recognizes that these answers are lacking, contrary to his beliefs.

Christian Theism, I believe, has better answers:
Question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Answer: There is an infinite-personal God who has created the universe out of nothing.
Question: How do you explain human nature? Answer: Man was originally created good in God’s image, but chose to sin and thus infected all of humanity with what is called a “sin nature.” So man has been endowed with value by his creator, but his negative behavior is in league with his nature.
Question: What happens to a person at death? Answer: Death is either the gate to life with God or to eternal separation from Him. The destination is dependent upon the response we give to God’s provision for our sinfulness, realizing all the while His sovereign choice is above our individual choices. If He does NOT choose for us, we will never choose for Him.
Question: How do you determine what is right and wrong? Answer: The guidelines for conduct are revealed by God.
Question: How do you know that you know? Answer: Reason and experience can be legitimate teachers, but a transcendent source is necessary. We know some things only because we are told by God through the Bible.
Question: What is the meaning of history? Answer: History is a linear and meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God’s purposes for man.
Christian Theism had a long history in Western culture. This does not mean that all individuals who have lived in Western culture have been Christians. It simply means that this worldview was dominant; it was the most influential. And this was true

Also, perhaps you could explain why you said I stated your views correctly, but then when I restated them, you said, “Not So Chris!”

Surely you understand what I mean when I talk about true knowledge. To use the men you used in your examples… There is a difference between what Newton discovered/knew about how motion works and why it works that way. The former is a matter of scientific research, while the latter would have been answered, in his mind, by his faith.

On the flip side, Galileo, who was widely regarded as an atheist in a time when outwardly declaring such a thing would warrant being skinned alive, also discovered/knew about how the planets and stars and other solar bodies worked. But would have come up with an entirely different reason than Newton as to why they work that way.

In other words, how and why are two different aspects of true knowledge. And when everyone has this so-called presuppositional starting point that you like to talk about, how is this true knowledge ever possible?

I know you like to venture in the arena of nihilism whenever I mention something about anything being pointless, but I was merely trying to show the ramifications of your reasoning.

To answer your question concerning how true knowledge is ever possible. How do you think true knowledge was different for Kepler, Galileo and the others? Certainly their presuppositional starting point included God. They found and discovered plenty of “how(s)” and presuppositionally accepted the “why” from scripture because they never saw a problem with the two being mutually exclusive or disagreeing with each other. Assuming someone such as God or your FSM set the Universe in motion why would there be a problem with GOD or the FSM making Himself known?

Ah, but again, notice that here in lies the Rub. The FSM hasn’t left us much of a paper trail. He could have, but where is it? We have one in Islam, but it basterdizes much of the Jewish O.T. history, denies the deity of the very one who claims “no man can come to the father except through the one they deny.” On top of this we have a clear word in the Judeo/Christian account that states “not all will come” and that the message is veiled for a reason. Assuming I am right and you are wrong, what is it someone such as yourself says to an ALL Sovereign God when He stands before Him concerning his fate? Would it be similiar to Bertrand Russells account that God could have been “clearer”?

Russell conceded in his later years that the quest for certainty is a failure. His brilliance was never in doubt; he was a talented and intelligent man. But to what avail? Did He have a defensible alternative from which to launch his attacks? Not at all. He could not give an account of reality and knowing which–on the grounds of, and according to the criteria of, his own autonomous reasoning–was cogent, reasonable and sure. He could not say, just as you cannot, with certainty what was true about reality and knowledge, but nevertheless he was firmly convinced that Christianity was false! If Russell was firing an unloaded gun what is it your firing?

His 1903 article entitled “A Free Man’s Worship,” concluded: “Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.”

Now, there is TRUE NIHILISM and ethical subjectivism. Russell nevertheless called men to the invigoration of the free man’s worship: “to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance…”

I ask…what else is there to “presuppose” if we presuppose chance and uncertainty to the claims of Christianity which are clear and cogent enough–to at least dig deeper into them?

For holy Mary mother of god’s sake, just answer the question directly!

Chris
So somehow, everything is relative to a person’s presupposition, yet true knowledge is still possible?
Steve: Absolutely. Your use of “yet” belies the fact that you belittle that God Himself is True Knowledge, but there again, I understand what your saying here. I believe I answered this one already. You just didn’t like my answer.
Chris:
Surely you understand what I mean when I talk about true knowledge.
Steve: Sure. Your more interested in the “how” and not the “why” that faith answers. I believe I answered this.
Chris:
To use the men you used in your examples… There is a difference between what Newton discovered/knew about how motion works and why it works that way. The former is a matter of scientific research, while the latter would have been answered, in his mind, by his faith.
Steve: No disagreement here.

Chris
On the flip side, Galileo, who was widely regarded as an atheist in a time when outwardly declaring such a thing would warrant being skinned alive, also discovered/knew about how the planets and stars and other solar bodies worked. But would have come up with an entirely different reason than Newton as to why they work that way.
Steve: Where is it regarded that Galileo was an atheist? He was certainly a defender of science as can be seen here:
To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them to not see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover.*
He believed it was a greater heresy to deny the obvious: “It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved” and “It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”
I have no problem with that statement, none whatsoever. Rather I think the problem was that it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Show me your sources that state that Galileo was an atheist.
Letter to Madame Christina
In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, “Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science.”[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo’s view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth — whenever its true meaning is understood.”[10]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: “He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood”.[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
“And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: ‘If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there’”[12]
The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.

Atheism believes in education. It believes in telling the facts of life, in revealing the truths as they are discovered, regardless of whom it shocks. It is ever ready and willing to accept the new and discard the old. Atheism does not believe that man’s mission on earth is to love and glorify God, but it does believe in living this life, so that when you pass on, the world will be better for your having lived.

That is the ideal that now inspires more hearts to help humanity in its upward march, than ever before in the history of the human race. That is the ideal that inspired Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus; that inspired Voltaire, Humboldt, and Garibaldi; that inspired Mark Twain, John Burroughs, and Luther Burbank. That is the ideal that inspired Eva and Pierre Curie the discoverers of radium, Henri Durant the founder of The Red Cross, Albert Einstein, and Thomas A. Edison.

This is why I mentioned that he did what he did in a time when he would’ve have been skinned alive for not appearing to adhere to christian faith.

But Galileo’s actual faith is not the point. The point was simply to illustrate what your presuppositional position means. As far as true complete knowledge is concerned, I, nor anyone else, can be more concerned with how than why. And simply because your faith provides an answer that satisfies you does not make it right or true.

You said that my use of “yet” belies the fact that I belittle that God Himself is True Knowledge. But you have nothing but your circular reasoning to offer. This is why I gave you the examples of Tom, Dick, and Harry. It’s not that I didn’t like your answer, it’s that your “answers” did nothing more than repeat the facet of your faith that I was asking you to explain, thus not really answering the question.

For example, your use of your God belittles the fact that Prometheus is the Savior of Man, and the fact that you can only gain true knowledge through him.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

Given this fact, I’m sure you wonder why I bother.

Why do you, or why does anyone, bother when these presuppositions are all relative, and negate true knowledge altogether?

I have always wished you well Chris, prayed for your well being, your family and for your life in general. I appreciate tenacity and a sharp mind, but I understand those are sometimes gifts, sometimes liabilites. I say what I am saying with all sincerity. With that said, you may have the last word or word(s). I haven’t come here to try to provoke you so much as to let you know that I am still praying for you. I will not make myself a daily thorn in your flesh.

I wish you and yours peace, health, happiness, and a long full life. Hopefully in that span or dash that marks our beginning and end on our tombstones, you will find the peace that passes all understanding

I can always appreciate a theist who’s willing to engage in conversation about their beliefs without forcing those beliefs on others. And like I said in my first conversation with you, it is, at the very least, an entertaining endeavor. Even though you probably think I’m (currently) destined for hell, it’s nice that you don’t make that part of the overriding tone of your posts.

You are welcome to post here whenever you like, even though you might require some steering from time to time.