|
|
Perhaps all people would agree that an accurate and valid definition of a (clinically-defined) INSANE person (and we are not simply talking about malicious and hateful slanderers who defame Trump the President) is three-fold:
(1) those who claim that whatever is around them in their environment (e.g. stop signs, traffic lights, speed-limit signs, highway lane markings, pedestrians, and the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible) does not exist.
(2) claiming that what does not exist according to those liars but what instead actually does exist (e.g. stop signs, traffic lights, speed-limit signs, highway lane markings, pedestrians, and the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible) - which they probably, while absurdly and hypocritically, act and behave as though such entities do exist and even (again, hypocritically) acknowledging the existence of entities they hypocritically name as not existing - has no meaning.
(3) claiming that what does not exist to them - at least what they claim so - (see 1 and 2 above) does not need to be accommodated to but instead completely ignored and (dangerously!) disregarded.
Obviously, if an atheist claiming that nothing exists frequently or usually or sometimes adjusts himself or herself to what they claim does not exist (see 1 and 2 above for sample specified entities), they are clearly being ridiculously hypocritical.
Let's suggest a scenario that a few such insane fools, claiming that what exists does not exist, are blind and will never see what exists but what they claim does not exist.
When told by someone - anyone - that entities in 1 and 2 above really do exist - should the insane blind-atheist fools believe that which is told them about the existence of 1 and 2 above? What happens if there are dire consequences to and against such insane atheist fools not believing nor giving credence to what is truthfully told them about the existence of 1 and 2 above?
Should a person, even on his or her death-bed, say that the contents of the Holy Bible are true and valid . . . or instead arrogantly and defiantly blatter that the contents of the Holy Bible are wrong, false, and a silly childish lie?
One or the other. No wavering. No indecision. No elaboration. No nitpicking nor beating around the bush.
Instead, a straight call - one way or the other. If the Bible is true, and no one has proven that the overall contents are not compatible with environmental reality, an affirmative instead of negative response will be of obvious benefit as to whether their essential beings and substance thereof resides in Paradise or Hades, Heaven or Hell . . .forever.
It is THE Ultimate Gamble, with the Highest Stakes involved.
What should they base their simple "Yes" (the Bible essentially is logically true) or "No" (the Bible is, for the most part, one big laughable, sad, and obnoxiously-disgusting lie) answer on?
Have the contents of the Holy Bible correctly and reliably (for the most part, at least) related properly to phenomena in their environment around them all throughout their lifetimes?
Have the scholarly-approved astronomical and who-can-verifiably-discredit-them historical accounts of both the Old and New Testaments, plus perceptive and workable precepts, advice, observations, and commands in the Old Testament book of Proverbs, for example, been obviously pertinent, applicable, and successfully applied in their interpersonal relationships with other humans all throughout their lives?
Is there any provable (that is, consistently-valid-when-constantly-tested) true-science validation (not merely naysaying prejudicial anti-Scripture theory and speculated conjecture without five-senses-verified substantiation) that the description of creation recorded in the beginning chapters of the Old-Testament book of Genesis is not credible?
Mere presumptive declarations (without substantial or even meager photographic or at least hieroglyphic or other publicly-observable and universally-tested proof) of supposed big bang . . . alleged lava not water covering Earth, Sun and Moon and stars created before Earth coming into being instead of Earth being created first . . . and animals purportedly evolving from sea slime instead of animals being formed from the ground then being deluged in a worldwide Flood . . . are no grounds for belief, nor to state a definitive assertion that the Bible contents overall are invalid instead of valid.
So, the question remains:
'Yes,' OR instead 'no' -- pertaining to the existence, meaning, and validity of stop signs, traffic lights, speed-limit signs, highway lane markings, pedestrians, and the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible?
Some might consider a 'Yes' answer to be a "leap of faith" while a 'No' answer then understandably be termed a "leap of faithlessness".
But before answering the question either way, consider what you plan to be doing in trustingly putting your feet out of bed and onto the floor beneath such feet while you assume (not presume) that the floor is going to hold you up without you falling through it, and "faith" that the ceiling above you is not going to collapse on your head and thus at least seriously injure if not hideously kill you.
While we're at it, consider you automatically having faith that the water coming out of the faucet to wash your face with will not instead be potent acid and
painfully burn your skin, that the toilet plunger will reseat properly after you flush it without it suddenly and non-expectantly overflowing to flood your
bathroom floor, that the light switch in the kitchen which you flip will not cause the light it is connected with to lethally explode and fatally disassemble
your body parts.
Are we talking "Twilight Zone" possibilities here? Thanks, Rod Serling and Alfred Hitchcock: thanks for nothing.
Moreover, it behooves the reader to promptly and honestly answer the Ultimate-Gamble Question above before alighting into their vehicle, inserting the ignition key into the slot, then turning the key therein (all of which behooves them to believe exists instead of not existing) before they shift gears as they put their foot on what they assume is a working brake and then onto the accelerator pedal (which, again, behooves them to believe exists before they proceed down their driveway and onto the neighborhood street on which watchful police in squad cars are waiting -- all of which, again, behooves them to believe really do exist).