Heiromonk Seraphim Rose
“Atheism, true ‘existential’ atheism burning with hatred of a seemingly unjust or unmerciful God, is a spiritual state; it is a real attempt to grapple with the true God Whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men, and it has more than once been known to end in a blinding vision of Him Whom the real atheist truly seeks. It is Christ Who works in these souls. The Antichrist is not to be found primarily in the great deniers, but in the small affirmers, whose Christ is only on the lips. Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ….”
Fr Seraphim Rose, with a tip of the hat to the Idler
If you don’t believe in God, you can’t hate Him.
And that’s that.
A very good point, Toad, and splendid of you to précis Fr Seraphim’s argument.
There is tremendous insight in Fr Seraphim’s words above.
“God(,) Whose ways are so inexplicable even to the most believing of men,....”
Something we have been discussing and trying to explain to our more sceptical friends for a long long time on CP&S.
It is Toad’s metier to precis the arguments of Bountifully Bearded Sages, Raven. That’s why I’m paid The Big Bucks, and you’re not.
No! Just kidding, Afmm! It’s a joke! A joke! A joke! Ask your friends, they’ll explain!
But, when the Hirstute Old Heiromonk has the brass neck to assert that, “Nietzsche, in calling himself Antichrist, proved thereby his intense hunger for Christ….” he is, or was, talking – how shall we most kindly put it – total balderdash.
What The Great Fred said – and what he meant – was that in the past, most people believed in God – so, therefore, He existed.
When they stopped believing, God stopped existing. Perfectly simple. And not unbelievable. Thinks Toad. It may, or may not, not be true, but so what?
For those who still believe in God, he still exists. Until they stop.
And if anyone can see any scintilla of a hint of a…proof of an intense hunger for Christ, snuggled away in there, well bleeding good luck.
And, as to the “proof” of it – well, Cripes! How is the hapless Hairymonk ever going to “prove”such a fanciful thing, when he can’t even prove he’d look a lot less silly with a decent shave? (Can we imagine the snitty, and “amusing” comments on CP&S, if Dawkins grew a beard like that? Toad can! )
And you don’t have to beat out your brains trying to explain to Toad how God is incomprehensible, Kathleen. He (Toad, that is, not God) started posting on here to look into that very thing for himself. And, as of now, has got exactly nowhere. It’s just not good enough!
God can be as inexplicable as He likes. That’s His business. But I’m having none of it without a bit of assistance from Above.
Neither should any of you, I suggest.
Of course, God could also be as explicable as he likes, if He liked..
But, for some inexplicable reason, He chooses not to be.
Phew, that was a bit of a rant.
Put rather more plainly, It is not a good philosophical idea to state, “Possibly God exists, “ for that then presupposes His existence. Better to say, “There might well be a being which exists, and which, for want of a better word, we might call God.” Frege talking, I think.
There. Fixed that. Maybe.
Has someone has been ‘trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored’? 🙂
Toad, it’s God’s ways that could be seen to be inexplicable sometimes… or to some people, not His existence!
If the existence of God were not a matter of Faith, belief in Him would have no merit. It would mean that we were forced to believe, instead of it being a choice, the result of a search, a decision, and the only ultimate happiness for man’s restless heart.
And don’t forget: Faith and Reason go together, but you need to empty your mind of pre-conceived ideas and grudges to see it.
Sometimes I think I’d like to be a secondhad car salesman, with customers like my friends on CP&S.( insert smiley.)
Anyway, I can see the several reasons for believing in God, mainly, as Unamuno says, (in “The Tragic Sense of Life” the yearning for immortality. Also the yearning for ultimate justice. And the yearning to impart some meaningful sort of meaning to the “apparent” meaninglessnes of life.
But yearning does not necessarily make it so. Unfortunately.
If wishes were horses, we’d all be on Frankel. Thinks Toad.
But enough frivolity! Which cathecism should I get, Kathleen?
(…and apologies for being so rude to poor old Hieromonk. Not his fault. The word “existential,” is to Toad – like the word “sausage,” to his dog, Tim. Pavlovian.).
Oh dear, I hadn’t relised there were various editions of the Catechism, Toad! I haven’t got my own well-worn copy (that was published in the eighties) with me at the moment – I’m not at home, but using my portable laptop – so perhaps one of my pals and colleagues on CP&S could give you the answer. Or else I’ll find out and answer you at a later date.
I also do have a Baltimore Catechism, which is very good, but that one you might find a bit old fashioned in its language, and it is not as complete as the one in general use today.
No hurry Kathleen, at least I don’t think there is. (But one never know, do one?)