[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by heli

TH-Ver2:

I understand your saying “If God is (real) then He is worthy of trust.” So you’ve determined to your satisfaction that “God is real” and therefore logically gets your whole-hearted and whole-minded trust.

Again, there's just trust. You have it or you're playing odds. Of course the reason someone qualifies the way you do is similar to Pure's using infallible like butter on bread. It's not a particularly new tactic.

This level of trust you declare is full and final and non-negotiable,

See, confirms that you aren't actually interested in understanding, given I've gone over the attempt to qualify trust several times now. And I note the continuation of the above noted tactic of diminution by association.

in the sense it is impossible for you to doubt God

Trust and doubt are mutually exclusive terms.

to the point of asking yourself awkward questions that contradictorily imply mistrust, but not impossible to have doubts, or gaps in understanding.

Same objection as the last time. The awkward bit is nothing more or less than a thin attempt to put a rational response in an unfavorable light. It's little better than the "You afraid?" bit of schoolyard business you tried earlier.

Having a mental reservation means there is no trust, which is a perfect thing, and permanent for life.

Same sort of associative tactic. You can keep finding new ways to say a thing with a negative inference, but it always comes back to trust or its absence. And you don't get to doubt from trust. You get to doubt from reservation. People who continue to see their fledgling faith as a choice instead of a recognition tend to make the same sort of mistake you've made and zoo may be making here.

There is no such thing as trust that is imperfect or missing, and therefore subject to revision, unlike perfect trust.

"Either you trust or you do something else, like a hedged bet. There's no perfect/imperfect trust, only the presence or absence of it."

He who re-evaluates his faith does not have such trust therefore. Any lack of security nullifies trust.

"Rather, if you trust your wife you won't follow her about or pay someone to so that you can feel secure in it. If you aren't secure in it you didn't trust from the outset. You hoped. Nothing wrong with hope. But it's something else."

[heli]

Originally Posted by PureX

Perhaps it isn't serious at all. Except that it's an important issue to the people around him.
Change is change. If zoo22 has changed from not doubting the doctrines of his religion, to being skeptical, why shouldn't he then change his religious associations from people who don't accept religious skepticism to people who do?

Do we have two distinguishable types of doubt?
Type1 a lack of effective belief/faith, an inability to believe
Type2 a fishy feeling, smell, suspicion all is not well.

-do these overlap? Any ideas?

from dictionary.com:
verb (used with object)
1. to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe.

2. to distrust.

3. this definition not relevant.

verb (used without object)
4. to be uncertain about something; be undecided in opinion or belief.

[fool]

And now to the point.

Originally Posted by zoo22

I've made a change, that some TOL friends might notice, and others might not have been aware enough in the first place to recognize...

Right now, I just don't know about God. I think I could label myself as a Deist or something, because I do believe in and have faith in a higher power, but recently, I'm more overwhelmed with my not knowing.

It's had a lot to do with TOL... Conversations, squabbles, differences that just don't make sense to me.

I hope that folks and freinds will take it in stride; I'm absolutely open to conversation.

WELCOME TO ATHEISM!!!!!!
Good to have you aboard.
You don't need to do anything, no dues, no meetings, no secret handshakes (unless you want to make one up then not tell anyone about it so it stays a secret) all you have to do is harbor a doubt.
See ya at the secret lair (if Gerald offers you a drink you're not thirsty )

[PureX]

Originally Posted by heli

Do we have two distinguishable types of doubt?
Type1 a lack of effective belief/faith, an inability to believe
Type2 a fishy feeling, smell, suspicion all is not well.

-do these overlap? Any ideas?

from dictionary.com:
verb (used with object)
1. to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe.

2. to distrust.

3. this definition not relevant.

verb (used without object)
4. to be uncertain about something; be undecided in opinion or belief.

Doubt is doubt, but it occurs by degree. Some things we doubt to the point of disbelief (though not total rejection). And some things we doubt only very slightly, even as we continue to believe. These are different degrees of doubt, but I don't think they are different states of being.

On the other hand, we can be aware of our own skepticism, or we can be unaware of it. And we can consciously determine to be skeptical, or we can be unconsciously pushed into being skeptical. And we might want to consider these to be different "states" of doubt, as opposed to degrees.

I don't know the state or degree to which zoo22 is doubtful, or about what, exactly. Nor is it any of my business. My only point in the discussion is that doubt is good, reasonable, and necessary, but only as it works in conjunction with faith. The two work together to keep us honest (realistic) and moving forward.

[bybee]

Originally Posted by PureX

How is this difference significant? If I prescribe, "drive on the right side of the road", or I proscribe, "Don't drive on the left side of the the road", what have I said in each case that was significantly different?

Simply avoidance is not the same as active participation.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Again, there's just trust. You have it or you're playing odds.

What you're really talking about here is trusting blindly, or trusting in the 'odds' (reasoned probability arrived at through applied skepticism), and you're trying to present this blind trust as the only expression of trust, while you're presenting reasoned trust (trust tempered with skepticism) and not being trust at all (as just "playing the odds"). But this is a false characterization. Both are expressions of trust. One, however, is irrational, while the other is not.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

See, confirms that you aren't actually interested in understanding, given I've gone over the attempt to qualify trust several times now.

Except that trust doesn't have to be blind or total, yet this is how you are trying to present it.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Trust and doubt are mutually exclusive terms.

No more than hot or cold or up and down are mutually exclusive. They are opposite ideals that create a scale we use to quantify/qualify the same phenomena. Hot and cold are used to quantify/qualify temperature. Trust and doubt are used to quantify/qualify our subjective commitment to an idea. To claim they are mutually exclusive is misleading, as they are both aspects of each other. It's like claiming that 'in' and 'out' are mutually exclusive when there is no 'in' if there is no 'out'. They are mutually exclusive, but only as they exist together.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Either you trust or you do something else, like a hedged bet. There's no perfect/imperfect trust, only the presence or absence of it.

Again with the false premise. It's like claiming "it's either hot or it's not". As though "hot" were an object, or "trust" were an object. They are not objects. They are relative conditions. We trust only to the degree that we are not skeptical, and we are skeptical only to the degree that we don't trust. Trust and skepticism (doubt) are expressions of the degree to which we accept an idea or proposition as true.

You deliberately characterize everything in terms of absolutes, and then claim anyone who poses a different characterization is deliberately trying to MIS-characterize reality. We aren't mischaracterizing, anything. We're simply expressing reality as we experience it. You don't experience it as you do because you have adopted an absolutist paradigm through which you understand everything that you experience. Just as others have adopted a relativist paradigm through which they understand everything they experience. No one is deliberately MIS-characterizing anything. We are simply perceiving and understanding things differently because we are perceiving and understanding them through different conceptual paradigms.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

"Rather, if you trust your wife you won't follow her about or pay someone to so that you can feel secure in it. If you aren't secure in it you didn't trust from the outset. You hoped. Nothing wrong with hope. But it's something else."

This is not the reality that we are living in, though. The reality we are living in has us MOSTLY trusting our wives, so that we don't bother acting on our doubts, because those doubts are not significant enough to warrant action. Or, we may find ourselves feeling doubtful and suspicious even though logically we know our wives are trustworthy. Or we could find ourselves feeling the exact opposite of that. The point is that human beings are not one-dimensional, and so we are not bound by the false dilemma of having to always be "either/or". We trust by degree. We doubt by degree. We can believe this while we're feeling that. And all these experiences are happening simultaneously, and relative to each other, within us and to us.

It isn't simple, and it isn't "this or that".

[PureX]

Originally Posted by bybee

Simply avoidance is not the same as active participation.

What's simple about avoidance? Also, I have discovered in life that very often the best action I can take is to avoid taking any action at all. The world seems to have a surprising ability to find it's own solutions, better and faster, when left to it's own methods, as opposed to my meddling.

I understand the Christian ideal of doing good to others to so as inspire them to do good as well, but it's equally true that there is no more dangerous man than the man who acts only with the best of intentions. As a taoist, I have learned to value greatly the fact that I am not in charge of the world, or even in a position to stand in judgment of it. So it's likewise not going to be my place to try and "correct" it or "improve" it. I am a creation of it, it is not a creation of mine.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by PureX

What you're really talking about here is trusting blindly, or trusting in the 'odds' (reasoned probability arrived at through applied skepticism),

No, I'm talking about trust or something closer to weighing probability. If a Christian doesn't have the former his foundation isn't solid and failure at some point is unsurprising.

and you're trying to present this blind trust as the only expression of trust,

Nah, that's just you trying to make everything relative. At any rate, I'm distinguishing between the trust a Christian needs and the sort an apostate never possesses.

while you're presenting reasoned trust (trust tempered with skepticism) and not being trust at all (as just "playing the odds").

Skepticism is doubt coupled with reason. Trust and doubt are mutually exclusive terms.

But this is a false characterization. Both are expressions of trust. One, however, is irrational, while the other is not.

Spoken like someone on the outside of relation looking in. It's the reason you want the particular that heli does and there's nothing irrational in it, except your insistence on overlapping those mutually exclusives.

Except that trust doesn't have to be blind or total, yet this is how you are trying to present it.

You can tack on any description you think will sully the term, but skeptical trust is an oxymoron.

No more than hot or cold or up and down are mutually exclusive.

If something feels hot to me it cannot also feel cold to me. If something is true to me it cannot also be false to me. And if I trust God I cannot doubt Him. If I do then I describe something else.

We trust only to the degree that we are not skeptical,

Rather, we can only trust if our skepticism is satisfied.

and we are skeptical only to the degree that we don't trust. Trust and skepticism (doubt) are expressions of the degree to which we accept an idea or proposition as true.

Rather, skepticism reflects a reservation in relation to a proposition. Trust signifies the absence of that reservation. And we call that particular reservation doubt.

You deliberately characterize everything in terms of absolutes,

Of course I don't. I am skeptical regarding any number of things. I suspect time is no fixed arrow, but I'm not certain, by way of. No, I characterize trust as an absolute because it is, or it's something else. I'd say love is much the same.

and then claim anyone who poses a different characterization is deliberately trying to MIS-characterize reality.

No, Pure. I'm telling you why your faith fails you absent trust, why it reasonably should be expected to. And so far, those who find themselves somewhere other than in relation with God seem to be uniformly in your camp, which is rather a strong illustration of my point.

This is not the reality that we are living in. The reality we are living in has us MOSTLY trusting our wives, so that we don't bother acting on our doubts, because those doubts are not insignificant enough to warrant action.

I pity anyone that's true of and I hope they have a good lawyer.

Or, we may find ourselves feeling doubtful and suspicious even though logically we know our wives are trustworthy. The point is that human beings are not one-dimensional, and so we are not bound by the false dilemma of having to always be "either/or".

Well, you either are or you aren't.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

No, I'm talking about trust or something closer to weighing probability. If a Christian doesn't have the former his foundation isn't solid and failure at some point is unsurprising.

Failure by who's standards? Has God placed someone here on Earth in charge of how other people relate to 'Him'? I know there are lots of people who THINK God has appointed them the gatekeepers of all things good and holy, but you don't strike me as one of those.

Yet the presumption here seems to be that to doubt some religious doctrine or other, or even the existence of God entirely, must surely be opposed to God's will, and a step away from spiritual alignment with the Divine Mystery. Yet I don't see how any human being can honestly claim to know any such thing. And I can't think of any good reason or even outcome that could result from God appointing any human bing to that task.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

You can tack on any description you think will sully the term, but skeptical trust is an oxymoron.

So is "cold heat", and yet every degree of coldness involves some degree of heat, and likewise. We can play lots of word games, but in the end trust and doubt are intrinsically relative concepts. Neither concept can exist without the other. Neither condition could even be recognized without the other. "Trust alone" doesn't exist as "trust". It can only exist as certainty. Certainty exhibits no trust, because it exhibits no doubt. It is not subject to skepticism. It is blind faith. A faith in nothing but itself.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

If something feels hot to me it cannot also feel cold to me.

And yet every morning you blend the two together in your shower, in the form of water temperature.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

If something is true to me it cannot also be false to me.

And yet in your lifetime you have read countless works of fiction, which somehow managed to represent the truth better than the truth, itself.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And if I trust God I cannot doubt Him. If I do then I describe something else.

Do you trust your wife, or your idea of your wife? What is the difference? Can you understand that there IS a difference?

It is exactly this difference that causes thousands of murders to happen every year. "She" turned out not to be who he imagined her to be. Who he expected her to be. Who he fell in love with, and imagined that he couldn't live without. He feels like she has destroyed him with her "deceit", and so in a rage he destroys her in return, only he uses a gun. It happens all the time. We are all SO convinced that our idea of the 'other" is absolutely right. And to discover that we were wrong, is more than many of us can handle. To even CONSIDER it is sometimes more than we can handle. So we simply refuse to do so.

I gotta run ...

The rest looks interesting, though.

[heli]

Gentlemen of the jury, I stated to TH my intention to unambiguously understand his position, without any tricks or sneaky stuff, summarise my understanding of his position. All in the interests of clarity. No hidden agenda, only straight talking clarity. You were supposed to stipulate what your own words mean this way.

Why do you accuse me of being disingenuous TH? I invited you to re-word anything you did not approve of, first you did and later you have changed your mind to play along? its not like I am putting words in your mouth can't you see, in fact the very opposite. I've invited you to put words in my mouth! It gets curiouser and curiouser...

Is this some kind of test of my resolve?

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by PureX

Failure by who's standards?

By his own if he meant to enter into relation and by God's in every meaningful sense, though a failure isn't a life or the end of hope.

Has God placed someone here on Earth in charge of how other people relate to 'Him'? I know there are lots of people who THINK God has appointed them the gatekeepers of all things good and holy, but you don't strike me as one of those.

I'm not trying to be. This isn't a grand or complicated matter. Men fall from a faith they professed and I'd grant desired. My entry into the question of apostasy is to find the failing, the thing that made possible their removal from that state desired by them and the hope attending.

Yet the presumption here seems to be that to doubt some religious doctrine or other, or even the existence of God entirely, must surely be opposed to God's will,

No, Pure. You keep dragging any number of bones into this but it's still just the one thing. The foundation of relation is trust in God. And that trust must be inviolate or failure will invariably come. It's purely a matter of time until it does.

And the sad and sorrowful thing is that it isn't some Herculean task. Love, trust, and the demands upon those who hold them, only seem that thing to those who insist on couching them.

We can play lots of word games, but in the end trust and doubt are intrinsically relative concepts.

No, they aren't, but even if you insist on grades you can come to the same practical point: the trust I'm speaking of within that context of yours is absolute. You must trust God without reservation. Else your faith will come to nothing in the end.

Neither concept can exist without the other.

Eh...if there were no evil the good would still exist, it would simply be pointless to name it, being all.

"Trust alone" doesn't exist as "trust". It can only exist as certainty.

No, again. Certainty can exist as a measure of empirical fact. Trust is another creature. I am certain that I sit in a comfortable chair, typing this answer. I trust that God is with and for me in that answer.

Do you trust your wife, or your idea of your wife? What is the difference?

In order: my wife and one is only a notion. My wife has her own notions.

Can you understand that there IS a difference?

As surely as I understand you appear to be laboring under a contextual assumption that is in error.

It is exactly this difference that causes thousands of murders to happen every year. "She" turned out not to be who he imagined her to be.

As an attorney, I've seen a great many human tragedies in relations predicated upon that sort of assumption. It doesn't alter or impact my point.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

By his own if he meant to enter into relation and by God's in every meaningful sense, though a failure isn't a life or the end of hope.

That doesn't mean much. We very often want what isn't good for us, or mistake what is good for us as something to be avoided. I know lots of people who have been blinded to God by their own religious beliefs, and people who were "reborn" by letting them go. The ways of the soul are often not the ways of the heart or the mind. And the pathway to "God" is as mysterious as "God" Itself. I don't think any of us knows any better than any others of us what is truly God's will at any given moment. There are too many examples of how horrible choices and events have brought salvation and enlightenment in the end.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I'm not trying to be. This isn't a grand or complicated matter. Men fall from a faith they professed and I'd grant desired. My entry into the question of apostasy is to find the failing, the thing that made possible their removal from that state desired by them and the hope attending.

No offense, but I don't think you or anyone else has that capacity. The whole idea of a claim of "apostasy" coming from a human being is ridiculous, as it presupposed that we can even know what it is. As if we can see into the souls of others. All the word really means is that someone's view of "God" does not align with our own. And that we have of course presumed our own to be the only possible truth of "God". Which is equally ridiculous coming from a human being.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

No, Pure. You keep dragging any number of bones into this but it's still just the one thing. The foundation of relation is trust in God.

There are still far too many presumptions going on here, for me. What is "God"? Does God have to be called "God"? Does God have to be related to like a 'person'? Why? And says who? And what is "trust"? Does it have to be conscious and deliberate? Do we have to even be aware we're doing it? Why? And says who?

I don't think anyone can answer these questions for anyone but themselves, and even then they could always be wrong. That's why I don't pay any heed to people who claim to know what apostasy is, or who is relating to "God" properly and who isn't.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

You must trust God without reservation. Else your faith will come to nothing in the end.

I disagree. I find that even the slightest degree of trust in whatever conception we have of "God" bears exceptional fruit. And it happens immediately. It's a kind of good that's good for it's own sake. So that it's goodness is self-evident. That's how I experience it. And I have seen this happen for others, too.

Carl Sagan was a famous atheist scientist who trusted in "God" pretty much all of his life without even realizing it. You could see it in the light in his eyes and his face as he spoke in awe of creation, and of the wonder and glory of it's cosmic machinations. I suspect he had more of a real and physical sense of "God" than most 'believers' do. He just couldn't conceptualize God through a religious paradigm. So what?

"Believers think they know so much about God. I don't think most of them know much of anything about God, or how to relate soul to soul with the Ultimate Mystery that creates and sustains all that is.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Eh...if there were no evil the good would still exist, it would simply be pointless to name it, being all.

It's far more than just being about names or labels. "Good" itself would be moot, meaningless, irrelevant, and unknowable without it's antithesis. Just as there is no vision at all without the darks and the lights revealing each other. The concept of quality itself would vanish in the vacuum of a "good without evil".

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Certainty can exist as a measure of empirical fact. Trust is another creature. I am certain that I sit in a comfortable chair, typing his answer. I trust that God is with and for me in that answer.

Certainty renders trust an irrelevancy. Think about it. Trust only matters when we aren't certain.

You are certain that you are sitting in that chair. You have no need to trust in that certainty. Trust is irrelevant to your knowing that you are sitting in that chair because you are certain of that knowledge. The knowledge is being derived from a first-person, real time, and self-evident experience of "objective" reality. No trust is required.

[Town Heretic]

By his own if he meant to enter into relation and by God's in every meaningful sense, though a failure isn't a life or the end of hope.

Originally Posted by PureX

That doesn't mean much.

To you and within your context? No. It wouldn't.

We very often want what isn't good for us, or mistake what is good for us as something to be avoided. I know lots of people who have been blinded to God by their own religious beliefs, and people who were "reborn" by letting them go.

I'm sure that's true.

The ways of the soul are often not the ways of the heart or the mind.

That's a poetic enough distinction between the emotional, intellectual and spiritual elements of a person. What we want and what we think we want aren't always the same and neither of those is at every point aligned with what we should want.

And the pathway to "God" is as mysterious as "God" Itself.

Not to the Christian. It's a simple thing really. Men love complication.

I don't think any of us knows any better than any others of us what is truly God's will at any given moment.

Of course you don't. And in the Christian context that's errant. We know any number of things. I set out God's foundational will for us with my passage from Luke.

There are too many examples of how horrible choices and events have brought salvation and enlightenment in the end.

Not sure what you're driving at here, since I've said that a poor choice isn't the end of hope. If I thought otherwise I'd never have come to the aid of a friend in zoo's circumstances.

No offense, but I don't think you or anyone else has that capacity.

And I not only think you're wrong, I've illustrated how.

The whole idea of a claim of "apostasy" coming from a human being is ridiculous,

In the sense that dictionaries are ridiculous.

as it presupposed that we can even know what it is.

It isn't complicated and you can if you know how to read, which you obviously do.

As if we can see into the souls of others.

We don't have to. You simply have to take them at their word.

All the word really means is that someone's view of "God" does not align with our own.

Well, no, that's not all it means, but rather than play word games with you again let me put it this directly: you are apostate in the Christian faith if you deny the identity and salvation of Christ which you previously embraced.

And that we have of course presumed our own to be the only possible truth of "God".

You can argue the relativist's line all you like. You think it broad minded, that's clear, but to the Christian it's merely a broad way that plays to vanity and leads to destruction.

There are still far too many presumptions going on here, for me. What is "God"? Does God have to be called "God"? Does God have to be related to like a 'person'? Why? And says who? And what is "trust"? Does it have to be conscious and deliberate? Do we have to even be aware we're doing it? Why? And says who?

This isn't a "convert the heathen" thread and it isn't about your want of a particular understanding. It's about a Christian brother who has fallen into an unprofitable state. Within that context any number of approaches and definitions apply that will make no sense to you. The Christian response is that you have a carnal mind that delights in its own illusion of power and authority and cannot understand the truth it wants.

I don't think anyone can answer these questions for anyone but themselves, and even then they could always be wrong. That's why I don't pay any heed to people who claim to know what apostasy is, or who is relating to "God" properly and who isn't.

Yes. You spend a good deal of time not paying heed.

Re: faith with reservation is dead.

I disagree.

That's because you don't possess it and, not possessing it, don't understand what I'm talking about and can't value it or even acknowledge its existence.

I find that even the slightest degree of trust in whatever conception we have of "God" bears exceptional fruit.

"I am the way and the truth." Either that's true or it isn't. If it is you are misled and drawn into folly.

Carl Sagan was a famous atheist scientist who trusted in "God" pretty much all of his life without even realizing it. You could see it in the light in his eyes and his face as he spoke in awe of creation, and of the wonder and glory of it's cosmic machinations. I suspect he had more of a real and physical sense of "God" than most 'believers' do.

“Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.”
― Carl Sagan

Sagan was a good salesman for science, but the vanity at the heart of his rejection of God is difficult to miss.

He just couldn't conceptualize God through a religious paradigm. So what?

To a Christian? So everything. Sagan died without experiencing the life he was born to lead, one that would have added to, not robbed him of the wonder of exploring the mechanism of the universe. His story is a very great tragedy.

"Believers think they know so much about God.

Relation does that to you.

I don't think most of them know much of anything about God, or how to relate soul to soul with the Ultimate Mystery that creates and sustains all that is.

You're entitled to think anything that suits you.

It's far more than just being about names or labels.

Everyone who believes believes that. To the Christian it's about relation with the God of creation--through the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

"Good" itself would be moot, meaningless, irrelevant, and unknowable without it's antithesis.

No, it wouldn't. It would be as knowable and present. You simply wouldn't have any reason to note it except as a way of being.

Think about it. Trust only matters when we aren't certain.

Rather, to the Christian, trust comes into play where we cannot know a thing, but rely on the thing we can know, that God is and that His authority and Word are expressions of absolute, unwavering truth. So I trust that God will use me to His purpose and give myself over to that, even though the particular use may be unknown to me. The apostate trusts himself above God, places himself above Him or he could never judge God, would seek to reconcile his understanding to God's instead of the other way round.

[heli]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Rather, to the Christian, trust comes into play where we cannot know a thing, but rely on the thing we can know, that God is and that His authority and Word are expressions of absolute, unwavering truth. So I trust that God will use me to His purpose and give myself over to that, even though the particular use may be unknown to me. The apostate trusts himself above God, places himself above Him or he could never judge God, would seek to reconcile his understanding to God's instead of the other way round.

Well there's the clarity that makes me think I understand you well enough. I regret that you haven't responded to my invitation to edit the core of my post #505 subsequent to your first edit on #508, but have seen fit to cast doubt on my sincerity, in your #511.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Rather, to the Christian, trust comes into play where we cannot know a thing, but rely on the thing we can know, that God is and that His authority and Word are expressions of absolute, unwavering truth. So I trust that God will use me to His purpose and give myself over to that, even though the particular use may be unknown to me. The apostate trusts himself above God, places himself above Him or he could never judge God, would seek to reconcile his understanding to God's instead of the other way round.

You seem to me to have a very polarised view of most things TH, certainly more than I do.
When you were an atheist yourself you presumably then would have thought that the idea of God was a total impossibility, or at least disbelieved in the possibility of gods then much more than perhaps I do now?
I find it hard to understand such absolute certainty or at at least in having enough trust in one's own fallible abilities to even be absolutely certain of pretty much anything.