Really – Believing or Rejecting an Eternal Sovereign an Act of the Will

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Oct 29, 2020 at 16:25

Really – Believing or Rejecting an Eternal Sovereign an Act of the Will
In this day and age of apostate and agnostic assertions, some say that religion has no modern business in peoples' lives, and seems driven to provide a sense of relief that one can pursue a course of life in which there are no consequences for whatever one thinks they can get away with, like the actions of out of control mobs intent in leaving civilized society behind. In the arena where religion and anti-religious contenders circle around arguments of what is life really about, this modern business of whether there is or is not a Eternal Sovereign (a God) is a question that has been the bane of philosophical reasoning (modern arguments coming from an age of 'reason') which has yet to declare a winner in the mortal context of human reasoning.
What is the central issue of contention? Once again, a lawyers' answer: that depends. Should one believe; or not believe, depending upon what one is taught or compelled by external compulsion of controversial influences? How do mere mortals contend with something that obviously has a death grip on humanity; that while many arguments can be made about how one should lead life, it ultimately results in a terminal condition: then what?
The history of humanity has been told in so many different ways, yet there has always been, even in this modern day and age, the sense that humanity has had a connection to forces and powers that are not seen nor heard in the mortal sense, but in manifestations of the mind. In matter of fact, this is a part of being human, being mortal; even in this, mankind has been subjected to contamination of thoughts, some self-inflicted, some inflicted by others whose perceptions of life appear to be out of their personal sphere of control, yet they are unable to wrest that control for themselves.
The idea that personal control of life as an obtainable objective to keep a focus on what is personally desirable, is an ages old perception; yet history tells of individual narratives where some that were so driven, did so for reasons of pride; that they were in charge of more than their own sphere of control, but they were able to compel others, by indirect compulsion or by force of threat and harm to submit and be ruled by powers that took on religious overtones. Most ancient empires were a manifestation of such religious imperatives; this is shown throughout history. Records show that their beginning features demanded absolute obeisance, but later there were indications this was easily overthrown by successor empires as weaknesses of their power were observed and successive attempts of domination occurred, though lesser authority of such power became the handicap. Then came republics; then came democracies.
Some records show that an underlying source of determining how such manifestations of empire were in response to an unseen power, one of uncontested strength of will, but in such contention, a battle of wills were apparent; such appeared to be underlying the main stream of history during which throne after throne rose, then were toppled. It betrayed the sense that mankind, which was once thought to be in some form, 'divine,' 'immortal;' but this turned out to be delusional and called to question the true sense of what is was to be mortal. Mankind could not, in and of itself, declare its own divinity, neither could a mere mortal be a 'god.' The implication was, and still is, a supreme and supernatural being, a 'God,' must exist. And to that effect, one of the historical records does make that claim. Further, mankind had been given access to that record, along with the caveat: belief leads to life; rebellion (rejection by human will) to belief leads to eternal death.
Now, there is a place that exists, to this day, accessible by limited means, that underscores the issue of belief: did a Jewish carpenter turned rabbi named Yeshua (Jesus), confronting the religious establishment on how a loving God, Who determined mankind was worth saving and sent this rabbi to be the Messiah, actually get crucified at this place, then died and was buried, later resurrected and ascended, in front of hundreds of witnesses: did He not turn a world on its head and leave that witness for all the world today; that believing Him and in Him would bring eternal life to those who chose in their own will, to believe. Many have believed, asking Him into their heart; many more will act on their own will, and not believe. This is the historical basis of belief in a place one can actually walk to; even Islam recognizes belief in the Jewish Messiah but is now in contention over superiority of belief. Immortality rests here.
That is the question today, and in this age, to believe or not. Believing in the Messiah brings the promise; rejecting leaves the promise behind. When history begins its final curtain call, does one choose to believe in the grace extended; or exercise the mortal will and reject salvation bought by His blood of the cross? Seriously, what will one choose?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".