Call for Comments: An Indictment of the Church

[jpholding]

Comments welcome. I want to post this in a few hours but more can always be added later.

*********


DRAFT -- subject to additions

This is an article about how the church at large has failed us.

It is, of course, by no means meant to imply that there are not exceptions to the rules to be discussed. You may be part of a local church body without these failings, and if you are, you should be glad of it. But let's be honest -- most churches ARE failing when it comes to these matters we will discuss.

Here is the problem that I see re-occurs time and time again:

1. Our churches do not educate people in the basics of their faith. We seldom if ever hear about things like textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, alleged "copycat" savior gods, etc.
2. Because our people are not educated in these matters, they are caught "flat footed" when confronted with them.
3. Some people are unaffected and simply go on their merry way. Good for them, maybe. Others start having questions.
4. Their pastors cannot answer their questions because they too are generally lacking in such knowledge; their degrees are more geared towards counseling or preaching technique. Likewise Sunday School teachers and other figures of authority, who generally have even less relevant education. Persons with questions are told that eg, questioning is evil, they should have faith, etc. which is not satisfactory.
5. The lack of education also extends to the public sector, where people are not taught to think critically, nor to evaluate credibility of sources, but rather that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. The church often teaches this as well, explicity or implicitly.
6. Persons with questions come across Skeptical literature in print or online that is mostly written by persons with no better education in the relevant areas. However, because the reader also lacks the necessary education and thinking skills, the base level of what is called "common sense" (as it would often be, if indeed the facts were as the literature says) becomes persuasive precisely because of their ignorance. For example, ignorance of the process and science of textual criticism could lead to the erroneous "common sense" conclusion that there is some problem in that we have "only copies of copies of copies" of the New Testament.
7. By this time it is often too late to even provide such people with sound material by credible authorities. They are not able to comprehend even the simplest defense at times (and indeed, certain things simply can NOT be simplified so much, for otherwise they lose power and credibility as defenses), because they have not been given the adequate foundation to understand what someone like eg, a Bruce Metzger says about textual criticism. Because it violates what they have taken to be a sound, "common sense" approach by a non-authority who is equally in the dark, it is simple for them to simply dismiss answering material as some sort of desperate effort to resolve what is really a very serious problem (though in reality it isn't).

What can or needs to be done about this?

* Taking your church through "Purpose Driven Life" won't solve this.
* Reading "Left Behind" novels won't solve this.
* More contemporary music programs and "seeker-friendly" techniques won't solve this.
* Joel Osteen will DEFINITELY not solve this.
* Your average Sunday School materials, which strain mightily to make passages like Is. 42 somehow relevant to the average working person, won't solve this.
* Building a new church gymnasium won't solve this.
* Youth programs involving gimmicks and games won't solve this.
* Passing our tracts won't solve this.

Of course I'm being facetious. The only way to solve this is with a solid educational program, which is exactly what we lack in so many of our churches. It's time for fewer prefab sermons, with their rampant decontextualizations, and time for more demonstrations on textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, and so on. It's time to make such efforts a priority and not something we take after the damage is done and we need to play "catch up". It's time to be proactive instead of reactive. It's time to make these things something that is discussed from the pulpit on Sunday morning, not hidden away in Sunday night church training classes or Wednesday night Bible study. It's also time to make this part of our evangelism, and throw away or at least de-prioritize all the gimmicks like the "Evangecubes" and the poorly drawn Chick tracts.

What's a good way to test this?

* Did your church do anything about The Da Vinci Code? What, and when (Sunday morning when so many people were there, or on some obscure night when they know only a handful will show up)?
* How about the Gospel of Judas? Was anything said about it?
* Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved down their throats?
* Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus?
* If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today), or the argument stricture of i Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent" passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just glaze over?

There are some answers to this that are no good:

* "This kind of approach will intimidate people." Does it occur to someone who says this that the Gospel was a very intimidating message in its time, one that upended all of the social values of its day? Let's not water down the facts or the message behind them for the sake of making yet more converts without an adequate foundation.
* "The Holy Spirit will move people." Then you don't need to preach watered-down feelgood sermons either, do you? Obviously no one practices this idea consistently except for the sort of person who a century or so back would not send a missionary to India under the reasoning that the Spirit would do all the work without missionaries. At least they were consistent in their approach.

Consider this a call to action.

[SteveF]

This thread could quite easily be titled 'An Indictment of Society' as the problems you report apply right across the board. Many people are ill informed about a wide range of key things, from politics to important scientific theories and principles.

TWeb is unusual in the depth of knowledge that its members has and is not representative of a great deal at all. In this way, the Church is simply reflecting society in general in its poor intellectual standards.

[themuzicman]

I think the problems are simply more fundamental than what you describe, although they are cerainly areas to be addressed.

More fundamentally, the church simply isn't viewed as having any credibility beyond some suggestions for improving our lives. Over the last 50 years, the church has simply been wrong on so many issues, from racism to "rock-n-roll" music to segragation to contraception and the list goes on. We permit those who make the church look foolish to continue their foolish ways (see Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.) and have failed in our mission to impact the culture around us by first loving each other, and then engaging the poor, the fallen, and the hurting.

Sure, teaching about the fundamentals of the Christian faith is important, but if those listening simply say, "that's nice, tell me about how to fix my marriage", we aren't going to get anywhere.

The church needs to get back to being the church and being relevant, having a credible voice first among those who attend, and then among those who do not.

It's been 50 years since the church headed down the wrong road. Not sure how long it would take to recover it.

Michael

[Ryokan]

This thread could quite easily be titled 'An Indictment of Society' as the problems you report apply right across the board. Many people are ill informed about a wide range of key things, from politics to important scientific theories and principles.

TWeb is unusual in the depth of knowledge that its members has and is not representative of a great deal at all. In this way, the Church is simply reflecting society in general in its poor intellectual standards.
Yeah, that.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I had a similar problem at church recently where I was told that they were going to be less educational-oriented and preach more sermons.

I asked how this would cause an intelligent skeptic to convert.

[jpholding]

This thread could quite easily be titled 'An Indictment of Society' as the problems you report apply right across the board. Many people are ill informed about a wide range of key things, from politics to important scientific theories and principles.

No dispute there. But the church especially should know better and do better, from a Christian POV given the founder's commands to make disciples of all nations.

[jpholding]

More fundamentally, the church simply isn't viewed as having any credibility beyond some suggestions for improving our lives. Over the last 50 years, the church has simply been wrong on so many issues, from racism to "rock-n-roll" music to segragation to contraception and the list goes on

Well, I *have* only lived 38 of those years. :teeth: Yet would these be causes or symptoms? I tend to think being wrong and being foolish are symptoms of poor discipleship and learning. More critically, a failure to recognize the stewardship that the Great Commission implies.

Ultimately my observation is that without the fundamentals, one has no basis to consider advice on things like fixing a marriage to be valid. Then again, perhaps marriages would have fewer problems if proper understandings of agape love were in place. Do it all together. But the more serious lack now is with the fundamentals.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

This evening I am going to call an elder and ask what they're doing about the Da Vinci Code movie at our church. :teeth: I'll report back to the thread if you like, JP. And comment on the article - it's good, I hope something positive comes from this.

[themuzicman]

But will anyone really care what the fundamentals are?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

But will anyone really care what the fundamentals are?
I think they *ought to*

[themuzicman]

I think they *ought to*
Yeah, well, they *ought to* stay married, and they *ought to* pursue serving in their church, and they *ought to* know the fundamentals already, and the *ought to* be helping the poor...


"Ought to" only matters when people actually feel an obligation to do so.

Michael

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

huh? :huh: since when was an obligation down to feeling?

[jpholding]

This evening I am going to call an elder and ask what they're doing about the Da Vinci Code movie at our church. :teeth: I'll report back to the thread if you like, JP. And comment on the article - it's good, I hope something positive comes from this.

I'd be interested in knowing, yes. My pastor used to serve in the UK and he thinks much less will be done there due to secularism.


But will anyone really care what the fundamentals are?

Only if the implications of them are spelled out. My research into the nature of hell, for example, as a state of shame certainly is the sort of "fundamental" that people care about, as it removes the old canard about hell being a place of unfair torture. Doesn't even let it come to bat in fact.

[spiritmech]

In the Orthodox Church we remember the various heresies that it has triumphed over. We remember the day of Arius's death, in particular.

sm

[Jnthn]

I'd be interested in knowing, yes. My pastor used to serve in the UK and he thinks much less will be done there due to secularism.
My church (http://www.bellevuechapel.org), based in Edinburgh, did a "rebuttal" during the morning family service on the weekend the film came out. The external advertising and fliers (reportedly) brought in a few visitors.

DVC had a moderately high profile and some of the main organisations (Evangelical Alliance, Christian Institute, Anglican and RC Churches) did offer structured responses

J

[Alien]

Generally, I agree. I think the vast majority of church-goers fall into two broad categories.

1. Seekers for certainty. These people are most often found in the more conservative right wing churches. Basically, they want to be given a simple, rigid set of beliefs that they don't need to justify or question ever again. Preferably these beliefs should also fit comfortably with the political and cultural assumptions that they grew up with, and also give them a sense of superiority over those that believe otherwise. They are probably not too vulnerable to challenges to their beliefs as they are too invested in them for reasons unrelated to a quest for truth. In fact they tend to overreact negatively to things like The da Vinci Code because their comfort zone is being invaded. On the other hand, when one of these people breaks they tend to break all the way and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

2. Seekers for "niceness". They want to be in a community where everyone is nice to one another and, at the very least, pays lip service to charitible endeavors. If there is something in the Bible that suggests that God is not always "nice" in this way, they will either ignore it or reinterpret it. They spend more time thinking about the next church social event than about theology. These people will react to challenges in the same way that they react to any other part of their belief system. They will judge them based on how "nice" they are. It probably doesn't matter, as they are not very invested in specific beliefs anyway.

I think that providing the tools of Bible exegesis and historical criticism is a great idea, provided that you are prepared for two likely results.

1. Most people won't take advantage of them.

2. They are a two edged sword and some people will use them to (quite honestly) come to conclusions that you don't approve of.

I'm reminded of my first "Disciple" class. In case anyone doesn't know, this is a course of Bible study that lasts over six months and involves quite a lot of work by the participants. The first one covers over 80% of the Bible. I was pleased that our group would be led by our associate pastor, a lady who was at the time well into her seminary studies. In the introduction, she said something like "I'm not here to teach you or tell you what is right; everyone's opinion is welcome and valid". I was perplexed by this (and a little disappointed, as I had been expecting to benefit from her superior knowledge) and said "Well, if you don't know more about the Bible than I do, then you have wasted the money you have spent on Seminary!" She was not too pleased by this.

[Darth Executor]

My church isn't going to do anything, mostly because the priest and council do the work part time and have real jobs for the rest of the time. The priest did address the Gospel of Judas a while ago though.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I'd be interested in knowing, yes. My pastor used to serve in the UK and he thinks much less will be done there due to secularism.


I spoke to an elder's wife. ARGH! our church was planning to hand out leaflets inviting people to an Alpha course in response to DVC movie! The alpha course has nothing on "was Jesus married" but of course, it's a place to ask questions...but what if the guy running the course doesn't know the answer...

completely useless. But I do have one more contact to follow up on.

[foahchon]

First, I would like to say that I don't have very much experience speaking/writing on this, so forgive me if I seem a little incoherent, but I hope my points come through anyway:

I agree with all of the points above, but I didn't see the point raised that the church is the way it is partly because it's pandering to it's followers. This isn't true of all Christians, I'm not sure if it's true for most, but many newer Christians convert to Christianity because they think they can make Christianity serve some practical purpose in their lives. It's got more to do with "What can Christianity do for me?" than with "What can I do to serve God?" You'll often see sermons centered around a particular verse or passage that's lifted out of it's original theological/social/historical context and forced into the radically different context of our modern lives, thus mangling it.

This sort of self-centered Christianity is most pronounced, and taken to a greater extreme, in works like Purpose-Driven life, or any of Joel Osteen's works. I've also seen it pop up on TV shows like Seventh Heaven. It seems the church is being remolded into some sort of Kool-Aid-and-Cookies Club, where people go to get an emotional fix (or apparently a workout :ahem:), sing songs, hold hands, and "learn about themselves," rather than being a place where people can go to worship with others, learn about God, the Bible, etc, both from the clergy and from each other. It just seems absurd to me that people are trying to use the Bible, a source of ancient history and theological doctrine among other things, to help them manage their modern lives, something that it was never meant to do.

So, really, I guess my point is that the church organizes "activities" like these because people want them that way. What I think needs to be done is, people need to be made more aware that Christianity is more, much more, than a party that you can attend every Sunday morning, and that is in fact a very deep, very rich, very old, theology, with lots and lots of history behind it. Somehow, and I don't know how, people need to be given a desire to learn all of this stuff. As hard as it is for me to conceive now, just a few years ago I was hardly aware that such a background even existed! And I think that's the way many Christians are now, at least the ones I've spoken with. But now that I've started to learn about this background, I'm in love with it, and I can only hope others will be as well.

Learning about all of this is important for a couple of reasons: naturally, it'll help people understand better the true God, and his Word, but also important is that it will help people to better-defend their faith, as JP already talked a bit about. It's sad to see Christians that I've spoken with perceiving books like the Da Vinci Code, or any book purporting the copycat savior thesis for example, to be "powerful" because they're not equipped to respond to those works.

Whew, that turned out to be pretty long. :sigh:

[jpholding]

I was perplexed by this (and a little disappointed, as I had been expecting to benefit from her superior knowledge) and said "Well, if you don't know more about the Bible than I do, then you have wasted the money you have spent on Seminary!" She was not too pleased by this.

Pearls for this and the other insights.

[Cynic Sage]

I'm reminded of my first "Disciple" class. In case anyone doesn't know, this is a course of Bible study that lasts over six months and involves quite a lot of work by the participants. The first one covers over 80% of the Bible. I was pleased that our group would be led by our associate pastor, a lady who was at the time well into her seminary studies. In the introduction, she said something like "I'm not here to teach you or tell you what is right; everyone's opinion is welcome and valid". I was perplexed by this (and a little disappointed, as I had been expecting to benefit from her superior knowledge) and said "Well, if you don't know more about the Bible than I do, then you have wasted the money you have spent on Seminary!" She was not too pleased by this.

[attachment]
click thumbnail

[sc_q_jayce]

Just to let you know, I'll post a reply on this soon. :)

[sc_q_jayce]

* Did your church do anything about The Da Vinci Code? What, and when (Sunday morning when so many people were there, or on some obscure night when they know only a handful will show up)?

For about five weeks or so, our pastor at Riverside Christian Alliance Church (We're part of the CM&A, which is usually pretty charismatic, but since we're a Chinese Church, that makes us on conservative conservative conservative end of charismatic, just for clarification purposes. Blame AB Simpson for our roots. :tongue:) hosted a Sunday School class on the history of the gospels, all these theories about how it was constructed, and basically boggled everyone's mind about all the scholarship involved. Of course, he touched on DVC, Nag Hammadi, GoJ, the German Post-War Theology movement, Marcion, Q, L, etc. etc. etc. It was interesting. I forgot some of it. :P

He's a pretty intelligent guy who knows the scholarship. He also went to Dallas Theological Seminary. The sunday school attendance was the usual; perhaps a less than normal by about 25% (that accounts for about 5 people in a small church like ours). The people were definitely interested.

* How about the Gospel of Judas? Was anything said about it?
Yes. He did a spiel on Gnosticism and such, explaining all of it. It really boggled some of the people's minds. But I think it was explained well.

* Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved down their throats? Since I and my friend Thomas (I'm more an evidentialist and he's more of a logician in terms of apologetic tendencies) are mostly in charge of the Youth Ministry (we have a third, but we have a hard time getting the third one to take equal ownership of it... it may just be because Thomas and I live within minutes of each other and Melody lives forty minutes away?), I would say yes.

Some things we've covered (this has only been about four months since we started. Before I came back, the Youth Ministry was kind of just... sitting there. But I think my return brought some zeal back and we've been working with our kids as best as we can. Unfortunately as of now, we only have one month left before I leave, so I don't know what will happen to the Youth Ministry after that. I trust my best friend, though. I think he can do well with it.):

1. Teaching them how to study the bible expositionally AT THE LEAST by having them lead the leaders in a Bible Study
2. Having them listen to some atheist testimonies (infidelguy does well here, as they have a free testimony MP3 of a fundy skeptic. It was good because none of the youth have ever heard of an atheist testimony before in their life.)
3. Taking them to the BioLA Intelligent Design Under Fire Panel Debate
4. Dealing with controversial issues (women in ministry, dangerous insinuations in scripture) without us leaders really telling the answer
5. I would definitely desire to introduce them to Christ-Myth stuff, but Brian Flemming's cronies haven't advanced the war on Easter to our Church yet, so I'm sad. I'm still looking in the pews, though!
6. Discussions on the role of the Church and where they fit. Trying to understand the dynamics of Church and their role so they recognize the value of a Body of believers and the necessity of it.
6. I would also like to eventually cover that panel by Jack Miles et al.

(JP, have you taken a look at the CD I gave you yet? I would definitely love your opinion on covering it.)

Essentially, our goal is not so much as equip them (though I think we are) as it is for them to take ownership of their own faith so that they'll be inspired and motivated on their own to develop their faith in the Lord without people like us pushing their bottoms to give the momentum. One of the kids, for example, while skeptical, is very upfront in his challenge against Intelligent Design and such. Even though I'm not that passionate for ID, I can still spot logical fallacies and chemistry errors. My friend Thomas is better at recognizing his flaws and we're doing our best to show that our faith is a faith of reason and loyalty.

What do you think about that, JP?

* Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus? Sadly, no. No one's brought it up yet. I would note, however, my cousin had to write a report based on Ehrman's introductory book on the New Testament. I helped set her straight. ;)

* If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today), or the argument stricture of i Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent" passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just glaze over?

The latter, I suspect. There are definitely things we need to deal with. Can you link me to something on the matter?

- - -

I will say this, though. I think I'm probably the most argumentative of the bunch at the Church. . . mostly because I don't like hearing untruths. As a result, for a time, the Pastor thought I was a Calvinist because I was talking about reformed tradition. He even brought me an Arminian Newletter to combat TULIP once! :lol: Needless to say, I think we sorted that out quickly. Our pastor is definitely a very intelligent and learned man in Scripture, and I think RCAC is blessed to have him, even if he's not the best preacher in the world. ;)

But I'll be leaving them soon anyway to go to another church (who I think is also spot on in their discussion of ideas. I only attended once, but immediately I was aware of their understanding of original texts [they even talked about the Chalcedonian Creed at one point for their Sunday School! I was impressed. :) ] through further correspondence. The Pastor was very knowledgable about NT Wright, for example, and other issues of the day. I think he's a fine man. I can't wait to attend that church!).

We'll see how it goes, yes?

[jpholding]

So, how do I join your church? :hehe:

The commute would be hard, though.


5. I would definitely desire to introduce them to Christ-Myth stuff, but Brian Flemming's cronies haven't advanced the war on Easter to our Church yet, so I'm sad. I'm still looking in the pews, though!

Anyone near you get one?

(JP, have you taken a look at the CD I gave you yet? I would definitely love your opinion on covering it.)

Not yet. Had my hands full with TDC this week, but next week or two is clearer.


What do you think about that, JP?

I think that's a model for what does need to be done.


The latter, I suspect. There are definitely things we need to deal with. Can you link me to something on the matter?

I forget the exact link, but go to http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html and look under "JEDP" for the item on Deuteronomy.

God bless,

JP

[knight2]

Howdy folks, newbie here. Actually, I've read here occasionally and have been following Tektonics and JP for over a year now. But this is my first "real" post.

It just seems absurd to me that people are trying to use the Bible, a source of ancient history and theological doctrine among other things, to help them manage their modern lives, something that it was never meant to do.

I agree with this, to some extent. Certainly Ezekiel wasn't written to help my marriage, nor was Ephesians written to help me manage my money. Nevertheless, if I learn all there is to know about history and doctrine, yet my marriage is still broken and I'm in debt up to my ears, what good is that? It seems there are 2 extremes in Christianity. On the one side we have the Bible churches and a few others, which teach all theology, all the time, with no practical outworking of that theology. On the other side, we have the "non-denominational" churches and others, which teach all practicality all the time, with no theological foundation for that practicality (though it would seem obvious that this side has more numbers).

It would seem, then, that some balance is in order. So while I don't support the idea that the Bible was written to help me with my "boundaries" or "purpose" necessarily, I also don't support the idea that the Bible was "never meant" to help us manage our lives at all. While granted the authors couldn't possibly have had any idea of our modern lives, certainly part of their purpose in writing was to help their original readers manage their lives, and many aspects of those instructions can be easily applied to our lives today. So I guess my point is, while I agree that it's bad that the church as a whole today is ignoring history and doctrine, I think the converse (that of ignoring practicality) would be equally as bad. Paul of course began his letters with doctrine and theology, but ALSO included practical instructions based on that theology. I just think we need to be careful not to overemphasize either side, and I feel that the comment above, and possibly some ideas in JP's article, lean toward overemphasizing the history and doctrine side to the extent that practicality is left out. We need to both KNOW the right thing, and DO the right thing (but I do agree that as a whole we are lacking in the knowledge area at this time).


K2


P.S. My church basically devoted an entire Sunday to TDC, with the Sunday morning sermon all about debunking some of the more major issues (i.e. was Jesus married, was Jesus' divinity decided by a vote, etc.). Then that evening a professor from the nearby seminary spoke on the same topic, going a bit more indepth. But we haven't discussed anything else in the article.

[papabryant]

Consider this a call to action.

Once again JP, your articles prove prophetic, because over on the webblog of Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, he's advocating using skeptics to "train" believers in how to "properly" analyse texts so that superstition would be eliminated and the world would be a much safer place.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/05/could_science_e.html

Vox Day, the syndicated columnist has already taken him to task on this essay. With your liberties, I'm going to post the Tekton version as a link over there, just for laughs, and see if Dumbert bites.

[Abykale]

I would like to point out that, ignorant as people in churches are, they do tend to know a lot more than those who don't go to church. I guess my experiences haven't been typical, though. I mean, I'd always assumed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were common knowledge among adult Christians, and that people liked debating theology together. As an aside, I wonder if the high propertion of missionaries and Wycliffe employees among my parents' friends had anything to do with that? Still, I can't help but laugh when I see the "War on Easter" targeting churches! Isn't that the last place to go if you want to avoid people who actually know what the Apocrypha is? :lol:

And I agree wholeheartedly that churches aren't teaching what they should.

[Cynic Sage]

Once again JP, your articles prove prophetic, because over on the webblog of Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, he's advocating using skeptics to "train" believers in how to "properly" analyse texts so that superstition would be eliminated and the world would be a much safer place.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/05/could_science_e.html

Vox Day, the syndicated columnist has already taken him to task on this essay. With your liberties, I'm going to post the Tekton version as a link over there, just for laughs, and see if Dumbert bites.

Any links to Vox Day's reply?

EDIT: I'm off top the "screwball" thread to nominate several commentators on that blog entry.

[P-Dunn]

Great thoughts here.

My church has done messages on The Da Vinci Code which were useful, but other than that, they don't try to do anything where apologetics are concerned. This call to action should be taken seriously, because the knowledge we get out of apologetics is incredibly useful for the future of all of us.

[TuckEverlasting]

I glanced at this thread title and got all excited when I thought it said 'Call for Communists'. :sad:

[sc_q_jayce]

Any links to Vox Day's reply?

EDIT: I'm off top the "screwball" thread to nominate several commentators on that blog entry.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/

[jpholding]

Once again JP, your articles prove prophetic, because over on the webblog of Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, he's advocating using skeptics to "train" believers in how to "properly" analyse texts so that superstition would be eliminated and the world would be a much safer place.

Snort... :hehe:

I'd love to take him on in a dual match: apologetics AND cartooning.


With your liberties, I'm going to post the Tekton version as a link over there, just for laughs, and see if Dumbert bites.

I think someone else just did, as CMAD?

[Darth Executor]

Well, this morning I did what I usually do. No, not church, I was wandering aimlessly around the city for a few hours, when I ran into "The Universal Church of Jesus Christ". The building looked like a miniature Colliseum, and there was a Dr. Phil type in a suit at the door. When people walked in he would tell them "we're here to help" and had a whole bunch of ads on the wall about psychiatric help and the like. One thing I found odd was that instead of a cross, they used a white dove as a symbol (which made me hungry for some fried chicken, but that's another story). So I went up to the guy, asked him when the next match was and told him I'd like to wager a dozen gold coins on Maximus. He wasn't amused. The only thing even remotely close to apologetics that I saw were a bunch of Jews for Judaism ads taped to trees. :argh:

[Tophet]

I glanced at this thread title and got all excited when I thought it said 'Call for Communists'. :sad:
Comrade TuckSSR,

Please to answer this question:

If our homeland is Mother Russia and Germany is the Fatherland, what would Poland be?

[Anthem]

If our homeland is Mother Russia and Germany is the Fatherland, what would Poland be?
a custody dispute gone terribly wrong?

[OU812]

a custody dispute gone terribly wrong?




:rofl:

[lapologist]

The problem you discuss in your article is *exactly* why I left the church as a teen/young adult. I kinda got the idea that it's frowned on from a site policy perspective to link to your own blog in a post here, but I had written a post (http://littlestapologist.wordpress.com/2006/05/27/greek-to-me/) on this topic just yesterday, so feel free to edit the link out if I'm out of line.

Here's an excerpt:

I remember being surprised and angry. There was more than one way to translate the bible? Not just the "thees and thous", but important words that could even change the meaning? How many of these translation problems were there? Why did my church never talk about this?

After 20 some odd years, I have recommitted my life to Christ, and am drawn to apologetics to defend the Christian faith with reason, evidence and intelligence. If I had known then that there was more to it than "blind faith"...ah well, only my Father knows for certain why. But I feel called to learn this discipline and show people that they need never feel like their heart and their head can't be reconciled.

I will return to being a lurker now, as I am way in over my head in 99% of the threads here, but I thought you might like to hear from a person who has lived the experience you are trying to prevent with your indictment.

-Tracey
(littlest apologist)

[papabryant]

Snort... :hehe:

I'd love to take him on in a dual match: apologetics AND cartooning.




I think someone else just did, as CMAD?

I posted it, but Adams has to "approve" before its posted. Maybe this "Johnny Eccentric" posted first and he didn't want a duplicate. :ahem:

[Pilgrim]

After reading the first post I cansay that with the exception of the Davinci Code our church has had offical programming and even preaching on all those topics.

But my question is this, "Is it your assertion that unless a church is talking about these things that personally interest you, it is not really being a good church?" Man if every church handled the same things all the time it would be a pretty boring place and many people would feel left out of the mix.

[jpholding]

After reading the first post I cansay that with the exception of the Davinci Code our church has had offical programming and even preaching on all those topics.

Do you mean, has NOT had?

But my question is this, "Is it your assertion that unless a church is talking about these things that personally interest you, it is not really being a good church?"

No. It is my assertion that unless a church is talking about these things that
are directly causing people to drop their faith and/or weaken it, it is not really being a good church. Don't pull that "personally interest you" nonsense on me. It is precisely because churches take too much concern for what "personally interests" people and not enough concern for what is causing damage that problems exist.

That's like claiming that I want the EPA to clean up toxic wastes that cause cancer only because I'm "personally interested" in stopping cancer and removing toxic wastes. I'm frankly appalled that you even think "personal interest" plays any part in this.


Man if every church handled the same things all the time it would be a pretty boring place and many people would feel left out of the mix.

To paraphrase a sig line someone once had, too many people were told by their mothers that they were special....in case you didn't notice, the church is not here to entertain people; "boredom" is a modern idea that didn't exist in the ancient world, and is a problem of our own invention; and Jesus "left" out the goats, so don't pretend that setting up barriers is some sort of PROBLEM. It's time to stop gouging on this sort of Hostess Ding Dong teaching and serve some meat -- and if someone chokes on meat, they either need to learn to chew better or stop complaining. Discipleship doesn't mean sitting on your behind singing and eating pablum and worrying about offending people who have decided to be offended because you don't think they're special.

That said, you're right about churches handling the same thing all the time...like the Bible, right? They ALL handle that...maybe some of them should do some ritual voodoo sacrifices to liven things up and stop people from getting bored, ya think? :hehe:

[Pilgrim]

Do you mean, has NOT had?

No, I meant exactly what I said. Our church HAS HAD programming and preaching on those topics. We are considering a summer lecture series on the Davinci Code now but no gurantees that is will be what we go with.


No. It is my assertion that unless a church is talking about these things that are directly causing people to drop their faith and/or weaken it, it is not really being a good church.

Interesting, I have never met a person yet who has lost his or her faith due to the Davinci Code. Must be pretty poor faith to begin with if that is the case though.

Don't pull that "personally interest you" nonsense on me. It is precisely because churches take too much concern for what "personally interests" people and not enough concern for what is causing damage that problems exist.

Well, I would say that it can be one of the problems facing the church, I would not necessarily give it the primacy you do though. Although, if you are talking about selfishness in general and an anthropocentric approach to church in general, I guess I agree.

That's like claiming that I want the EPA to clean up toxic wastes that cause cancer only because I'm "personally interested" in stopping cancer and removing toxic wastes. I'm frankly appalled that you even think "personal interest" plays any part in this.

Yeah, I guess sort of. And that would still be bad if the only thing in the world you were concerned with was toxic waste. Well maybe not. Some people need to be concerned with that and it's good that they are because they shed light on a problem that personally affects them. It's also good that other people are concerned with other environmentl issues that are of a personal interest to them. We need them all I guess.


To paraphrase a sig line someone once had, too many people were told by their mothers that they were special....in case you didn't notice, the church is not here to entertain people;

Scanning my post for any reference to entertaining....hmmm....can't find it. That straw man must be in response to someone else I guess.

"boredom" is a modern idea that didn't exist in the ancient world, and is a problem of our own invention;
Define "ancient."

and Jesus "left" out the goats, so don't pretend that setting up barriers is some sort of PROBLEM. It's time to stop gouging on this sort of Hostess Ding Dong teaching and serve some meat -- and if someone chokes on meat, they either need to learn to chew better or stop complaining. Discipleship doesn't mean sitting on your behind singing and eating pablum and worrying about offending people who have decided to be offended because you don't think they're special.

Ahh yes, and of course, JP is the only one with the good untainted meat. BUt seriously, Jesus leaving out the goats would seem to be His perogative. Are you asserting that as far as matters of salvation go you have the same authority as Jesus? Let me remind you of James 4:11 ff.


That said, you're right about churches handling the same thing all the time...like the Bible, right? They ALL handle that...maybe some of them should do some ritual voodoo sacrifices to liven things up and stop people from getting bored, ya think? :hehe:

Scanning for any comment of mine that implies such a thing...no, can't find that one either. You must be responding to someone else again.

[jpholding]

No, I meant exactly what I said. Our church HAS HAD programming and preaching on those topics. We are considering a summer lecture series on the Davinci Code now but no gurantees that is will be what we go with.

You put thay very oddly, then, speaking of TDC as an "exception".

Interesting, I have never met a person yet who has lost his or her faith due to the Davinci Code.

Try some book reviews over at Amazon. I find plenty of people there who say that it caused them to dismiss Christianity, either wholesale from a believer's POV or as seekers.

Must be pretty poor faith to begin with if that is the case though.

Must be thanks to churches that don't educate them. :hehe: Of course, if your idea of "faith" is "blindly adhere to X in spite of any evidence" then of course your apparent apathy for the brethren is quite understandable. :ahem:

Well, I would say that it can be one of the problems facing the church, I would not necessarily give it the primacy you do though. Although, if you are talking about selfishness in general and an anthropocentric approach to church in general, I guess I agree.

Yep, that's what I mean.


Scanning my post for any reference to entertaining....hmmm....can't find it.

Try as a conceptual antonym to "boredom". Boredom is what happens when one finds experience tedious: eg, too long or too slow or too dull. The opposite of that is to make things short, or fast (and that means, compromise when it comes to complex topics), or entertaining.

If you can't master the vocabulary, don't post the messages. :hehe:

Define "ancient."

Have you tried a dictionary lately?

Of or relating to times long past, especially those of the historical period before the fall of the Western Roman Empire (A.D. 476).

In any event, the first century is certainly ancient. Biblical people had no concept of being bored. They were too busy trying to survive.


Ahh yes, and of course, JP is the only one with the good untainted meat.

Ahh yes, and you make it personal because you're frustrated. :ahem: Of course, it never occurs to you that (ahem) Jesus was quite adamant about being the only way to heaven....

That said, I'm a broker for the good meat, to be sure, and thankfully not alone, but the actual number of butchers out there IS very small, which is why I made this point to begin with.

And if you don't think the meat is good, let's see what carcass you hauled in for the day, shall we?

BUt seriously, Jesus leaving out the goats would seem to be His perogative

They were left out based on what they chose to do in life. Jesus did set the rules; he didn't simply banish arbitrarily.

. Are you asserting that as far as matters of salvation go you have the same authority as Jesus?

No, that's a very silly reading. I'm asserting that I provide truth. Why don't you try this instead?

"You're wearing sandals? Are you asserting that as far as matters of salvation go you have the same authority as Jesus?" :lol:

Is this the kind of clear thinking you get from reading stuff like Sojouners magazine? If so, can you tell me where to get a subscription? I want to send some to some atheists I know.

Scanning for any comment of mine that implies such a thing...no, can't find that one either. You must be responding to someone else again.

Nope. It's a response to you, old boy. But why not tell us about your ideal church?

Does it teach 40 Days of Purpose?

Does it include "I Can Only Imagine" in the music roster?

If someone comes up to the pastor and says, "How do you answer this guy who says Mithra was a source for Christ? He says Mithra rose from the dead after three days in a tomb." -- what does the pastor say in your ideal church?

a) "Duh. I dunno. Your faith must be pretty lame to ask stuff like that. Here, read this article by Jim Wallis."
b) "We have someone 1) in our church; 2) over here who answers that sort of question. Let me set you up with him."
c) "That's silly. According to the world's leading Mithraic specialists, Mithra never died. You see..."

I'd be glad to have C be true but will settle for B. A is inexcusable. Feel free to suggest more answers.

[Goth_S]

I would ask for more clarity on issues that actually matter, rather than wasted effort and time, making the church public enemy no.1


I realise I'm somewhat an outsider on the issue, but nobody can deny the obvious power the church holds. That's a considerable amount of power that is either going to waste, or being used to tell me where I'm going when I die. (And it's always hell.)

The poor stay poor, but the chuch gets a new steeple.
The hungry go hungry, save those precious holidays when everyone thinks god is looking.
The meek will inherit the earth, yet the church pulls the strings on political marionettes.
The Passion is seen as the greatest conversion tool, since the bible, yet the church spends time telling me why "The Matrix" was too violent.

I think "The Passion" describes everything I ever hated about the church. That movie, sums up everything I think is wrong today with the institution.
The complete lack of substance.


I don't care about the blood, or the gore.
It's the *reason* for the blood and the gore. Through the entire movie, I never liked the relatively minor amount of time spent on discussion WHY these things were happening to Jesus. On WHY he was dying. On WHAT he was dying for. The events that LED to his crucifixion.

A pity story can make for a good movie, just like any other dime-store romance novel. But if your trying to make a point, it ought to have one somewhere in the movie.

The church is too one-sided. Too interested in getting involved in MY life, when they OUGHT to be doing something that actually matters. Instead of telling me to wear long-skirts, and less makeup.

Every time I see hate-parades, protesting against people like Mr. Rogers for not teaching against them thar' hated "homer-sexshuls" I can't stop thinking about the number of hands holding picket signs, that could be holding a ladle, giving soup to the poor, or holding a hammer for Habitat for Humanity.



Pious my left foot.



/rant





Love,
Goth_S

[jpholding]

I realise I'm somewhat an outsider on the issue,

Which sometimes makes for a more objective and clearer vision. :wink: Allow me to comment....

The poor stay poor, but the chuch gets a new steeple.

Or a new gymnasium?

The hungry go hungry, save those precious holidays when everyone thinks god is looking.

If more people understood what was demanded of them, this would not be a problem...as it is, all is filtered through the cult of the individual.

The meek will inherit the earth, yet the church pulls the strings on political marionettes.

A little off here. In the first century church and state were one and the same, so no side of the issue can appeal to that teaching in terms of political action in the context of a modern republic.


The Passion is seen as the greatest conversion tool, since the bible, yet the church spends time telling me why "The Matrix" was too violent.

I don't agree on either end. Use of popular entertainment means as evangelism tools bespeaks a lack of creativity as well as desperation. Acts does not record use of popular entertainment as a tool of evangelism.

Of course, arguably, The Passion does depict with historical accuracy what a Roman crucifixion was really like, in many ways, while The Matrix isn't an effort to be historical. Some could take exception as well to the violence in realistic Civil War movies. Nevertheless it was never intended to be a source of diversion, and for the ancient person, it was the shame, not the pain or blood, that was most important.

(You may find http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html of interest; one of my atheist friends gave me a highly positive reaction to it.)


A pity story can make for a good movie, just like any other dime-store romance novel. But if your trying to make a point, it ought to have one somewhere in the movie.

Yes....thank you.

The church is too one-sided. Too interested in getting involved in MY life, when they OUGHT to be doing something that actually matters. Instead of telling me to wear long-skirts, and less makeup.

Trivial concerns on their part. On the other hand, I assume you don't wish to forbid the church taking some sort of moral stance on major issues?

Every time I see hate-parades, protesting against people like Mr. Rogers for not teaching against them thar' hated "homer-sexshuls" I can't stop thinking about the number of hands holding picket signs, that could be holding a ladle, giving soup to the poor, or holding a hammer for Habitat for Humanity.

I'd like to think even so that there are far more people doing the latter than the former...it's just that the latter doesn't make for sexy coverage on the evening news, no?

[Goth_S]

Which sometimes makes for a more objective and clearer vision. :wink: Allow me to comment....

I always look forward to what you have to say.
Let's get started...



Or a new gymnasium?

Sure why not. If the money is there, which it always seems to be.



If more people understood what was demanded of them, this would not be a problem...as it is, all is filtered through the cult of the individual.

Mmmmm, I blame the institution.

Who's to blame when the flock goes astray? The sheep, or the shepard?

Then again, I'm fond of the old saying, "Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows."

I won't mince words here, the likes of Jack Chick, Billy Grahm, Pat Robertson, and the entire staff of "Focus on the Family" are not doing a very good job of leading the masses.



A little off here. In the first century church and state were one and the same, so no side of the issue can appeal to that teaching in terms of political action in the context of a modern republic.

An appeal to past systems, in the focus of modern times, is not a very good analogy here. Although perhaps I'm not understanding your point.

I'm fine with people organising *within* the church, to support their favorite candidate, just as I'm fine with any group of people rallying behind their chosen champion. Just not the church itself, or it's leaders doing such.

But when candidates use that support to their benefit (such as requesting church directories for campaigning purposes) I smell a rat.
Dick Cheney's disgusting use of religion to split voters down the middle is deplorable, and the fact that it works, is even worse.

The public today is extremely ill-informed about the biology of abortions for this very reason.


There is such a thing as *too* much power.


I don't agree on either end. Use of popular entertainment means as evangelism tools bespeaks a lack of creativity as well as desperation. Acts does not record use of popular entertainment as a tool of evangelism.

Be that as it may, it happens. Surely you can't tell me that major religious leaders havn't stated that violent video games and movies are somehow "sinfull"?

I've seen a great push in the last few years by the religious right to crush artistic expression, and fantasy that are steeped in violence.

I have no problem with a religious movie being made to either teach or entertain. I love Stigmata, and I want to go see the Davinci code soon.
I also paid money to go see The Passion. I'm capable of enjoying a movie for it's own merits. It's the use of popular entertainment to create a double standard that I don't dig on.

The local churches around my house had a sunday school viewing of The Passion, in which children as young as 5 got so see it.
I don't care how religious someone might be, if your gonna say that the Matrix is too violent, and then show a man being crucified (ripped to strips, might be more accurate) I have to question the logic.

I'm only stating that the church needs to stay the heck out of my entertainment. I'm a grown woman, I can make my own choices.


Of course, arguably, The Passion does depict with historical accuracy what a Roman crucifixion was really like, in many ways, while The Matrix isn't an effort to be historical. Some could take exception as well to the violence in realistic Civil War movies. Nevertheless it was never intended to be a source of diversion, and for the ancient person, it was the shame, not the pain or blood, that was most important.

But that's not my point. While the Passion might be historical (of course, that's an entirely different topic. ;) ) It's still too violent for children. I don't care the context. If your going to state that the Matrix was too violent for kids, then the Passion ought to be viewed in the same light. Saving Private Ryan was met with considerable unease due to it's graphic portrayal of real life. Simply because it's historical, doesn't mean I'm going to show it to kids.

And still I draw issue with the context. I don't care so much about the crucifixion itself, as I do the *why*.
A man being tortured and killed in a brutal manner is nothing new. Very sad, but other people have gone through worse. Jesus got off light, in comparison to quite a few political dissidents of the past.

What matters, is what he died for. The POINT of his persecution. If you come to me bleeding, and tell me that "their after you!" but never say why, I might close my door for fear that those who are after you, are the cops.
That entire movie made a poor explanation of the *why.*

My point, is really that the church has a problem with seeing the forest for the trees. It latches onto the "easy" explanation. Rather than talk more about why he suffered, they just show him getting broken on the cross, in an emotional plea. Essentially an argument by popular outrage.
And that doesn't fly with me. Especially when we're talking about a man who's actions ought to be central to the church. Not his death.
An execution without cause is sad. But an execution WITH a cause, in which the bloody end, is more noted than the cause that was paid for in blood, is a tragedy.


(You may find http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html of interest; one of my atheist friends gave me a highly positive reaction to it.)

I actually read it. I think it's one of your best. I liked it alot, but I think that's a different direction than where I was going for this.


Trivial concerns on their part. On the other hand, I assume you don't wish to forbid the church taking some sort of moral stance on major issues?

I don't personally want the church involved in anything political. It's a sticky line, to be sure. But I think that both sides, religious and non, need to be able to carefully observe the facts, and seperate theology from pragmatism.

I wish with every fibre of my being, that religious leaders were capable of seperating the two.

So I suppose it depends on a case by case basis. But in all cases, the church needs to step back when it comes down to politics.

Perhaps I could answer your question better if I had an understanding of what constituted a ""major" issue, and what these "moral stances" are rooted in.


I'd like to think even so that there are far more people doing the latter than the former...it's just that the latter doesn't make for sexy coverage on the evening news, no?


True, but that argument, while good, is somewhat weak when considering the wealth and membership of the major organisations in the public focus.

You don't have to be a mathematician to realise that Fallwells organisation is pushing harder for their political goals, than pleasantchurch of small-town USA is pushing for the abolishment of poverty.


Their just bigger and stronger.




Love,
Goth_S

[Pilgrim]

You put thay very oddly, then, speaking of TDC as an "exception".

How so? You mentioned several things in your OP one of which was TDC. That was the one thing we had not yet really talked about here. Thus it was the exception. Not sure why that is put oddly?

Have you tried a dictionary lately?

I'm aware of what ancient means. I was trying to pin down if you had some specific time or culture in mind.


In any event, the first century is certainly ancient. Biblical people had [quote]no concept of being bored. They were too busy trying to survive.

That's an interesting assertion. I'd be interested to hear more on this. I've not heard anyone else make the assertion that boredom is a modern concept.

Ahh yes, and you make it personal because you're frustrated.

Hmm, so now you're a mind reader too? I'm not frustrated at all. I'm having fun actually.

No, that's a very silly reading. I'm asserting that I provide truth. Why don't you try this instead?

"You're wearing sandals? Are you asserting that as far as matters of salvation go you have the same authority as Jesus?" :lol:

LOL indeed. You talk about goats and sheep and them being seperated from Christ which is clearly, in context, about salvation and then when I question your intention you speak to me of sandals? Why not just answer the question?

Nope. It's a response to you, old boy.
If you say so I guess, but it wasn't really cogent to my comments and didn't actually address anything I said. :shrug:


But why not tell us about your ideal church?

Does it teach 40 Days of Purpose?

Gads no! I've read the book yes, but I read most things that seem to be relavant. I found it pretty shallow though not totally lacking. Particulary in practicle matters like a need to to define yourself.

Does it include "I Can Only Imagine" in the music roster?
We're a pretty traditional church. I've never actually heard that title before. We pretty much stick with the Presbyterian Hymnal for congregational singing and the music director handles the choirs so...

If someone comes up to the pastor and says, "How do you answer this guy who says Mithra was a source for Christ? He says Mithra rose from the dead after three days in a tomb." --

No one has ever actually asked the question of me (Or any other pastor I know for that matter). But I'd have to go with D. "I'm not sure, let me do some research and let's have lunch or coffee next week and talk about it. And hey, by the way, what are you doing Friday, we're going to Sister Jean's Kitchen to serve meals. It's a great way to put faith into action. Maybe we could chat after we're done serving?"

[jpholding]

Howdy,

I always look forward to what you have to say.

Feelin's mutual. :teeth: This will be my last message before signing off today, I think.


Who's to blame when the flock goes astray? The sheep, or the shepard?

I have found both guilty in practice at various times, though arguably there are cases where one of the sheep presumes to be a shepherd by role despite lack of qualification. Maybe it's too many shepherds, not enough sheep at times, to paraphrase the saying about cooks and broths.

I won't mince words here, the likes of Jack Chick, Billy Grahm, Pat Robertson, and the entire staff of "Focus on the Family" are not doing a very good job of leading the masses.

Grok. :thumb:


An appeal to past systems, in the focus of modern times, is not a very good analogy here. Although perhaps I'm not understanding your point.

I'm just saying that "the meek with inherit the earth" would not apply in the way you seemed to be using it.

I won't speak further on this since I don't bother with politics myself.


Be that as it may, it happens. Surely you can't tell me that major religious leaders havn't stated that violent video games and movies are somehow "sinfull"?

I'll gladly take your word for it, since I don't listen to such people and never have. I suspect they'd object to my comics as well. Plenty of violence there (I've killed at least 2 characters so far that I can recall offhand).

The local churches around my house had a sunday school viewing of The Passion, in which children as young as 5 got so see it.

Not very smart...The Passion can only be appreciated by knowing what was behind the atonement, as you indicated, and 5 years old won't grab that.

I'm only stating that the church needs to stay the heck out of my entertainment. I'm a grown woman, I can make my own choices.

Do you grant them the right to speak publicly on entertainment choices, though? I'm a leading voice on errors in The Da Vinci Code....do you find that objectionable, for me to critique it?

If your going to state that the Matrix was too violent for kids, then

I haven't seen any of the Matrix movies, myself.

why he suffered, they just show him getting broken on the cross, in an emotional plea. Essentially an argument by popular outrage.

Which is one of the attitudes I am also trying to fix with this article in the OP. :smile:



Perhaps I could answer your question better if I had an understanding of what constituted a ""major" issue, and what these "moral stances" are rooted in.

I don't want to argue merits on such things, since I don't get into them much myself, so let's say capital punishment. There are churches/Christians both for AND against it on various grounds, so that means no side need be discussed.

What role would you grant a church in addressing the issue, whatever side they fall on as a body? What is a pastor allowed to do in terms of leadership?


True, but that argument, while good, is somewhat weak when considering the wealth and membership of the major organisations in the public focus.

? -- Fred Phelps has wealth and membership? Or is Falwell's bunch doing hate parades I haven't heard about?

[jpholding]

Well, time for one more...

How so? You mentioned several things in your OP one of which was TDC. That was the one thing we had not yet really talked about here. Thus it was the exception. Not sure why that is put oddly?

If a "not" was added in the right place, your paragraph made sense. As it is I found it unwieldy.


That's an interesting assertion. I'd be interested to hear more on this. I've not heard anyone else make the assertion that boredom is a modern concept.

You'll have to read some of the literature I recommend. :teeth: Boredom appears at best among the literature of the leisure classes, if it can be called that, but do you know what the ancient Greek word for boredom is?


Hmm, so now you're a mind reader too?

I excel at it, in fact. Years of experience with those who do the watusi.

LOL indeed. You talk about goats and sheep and them being seperated from Christ which is clearly, in context, about salvation and then when I question your intention you speak to me of sandals? Why not just answer the question?

I did. You imported the idea that salvation was the topic, not me.

But I'd have to go with D. "I'm not sure, let me do some research and let's have lunch or coffee next week and talk about it.

The "by the way" isn't relevant. I'm speaking to a lack of a specific.

So now tell me how and where you do your research, please, to answer the question. Be careful...this is a trap. Back tomorrow to collect you from it.

[Pilgrim]

Well, time for one more...



If a "not" was added in the right place, your paragraph made sense. As it is I found it unwieldy.




You'll have to read some of the literature I recommend. :teeth: Boredom appears at best among the literature of the leisure classes, if it can be called that, but do you know what the ancient Greek word for boredom is?




I excel at it, in fact. Years of experience with those who do the watusi.



I did. You imported the idea that salvation was the topic, not me.



The "by the way" isn't relevant. I'm speaking to a lack of a specific.

So now tell me how and where you do your research, please, to answer the question. Be careful...this is a trap. Back tomorrow to collect you from it.
Well JP, of course I'd come straight to TWeb and ask you for a recommendation!

[Goth_S]

Hello,


I have found both guilty in practice at various times, though arguably there are cases where one of the sheep presumes to be a shepherd by role despite lack of qualification. Maybe it's too many shepherds, not enough sheep at times, to paraphrase the saying about cooks and broths.

Sadly, it's a bit too difficult to publicly oust those who are poor representatives. Especially when they command the followings that they do.

An interesting project....I wonder what would happen if certain influential members of various religious sects came here to talk....


I'm just saying that "the meek with inherit the earth" would not apply in the way you seemed to be using it.

How so? How can one be "meek" in any sense of the world, when the demographic in question controlls the most powerful nation on earth?


I won't speak further on this since I don't bother with politics myself.

Politics is my favorite flavor. I'm not overly concerned with religion by itself, but the application thereof. Words mean little, if the actions that are based on them, are flawed.

I love christianity for it's message.[sometimes] I hate it for how it's delivered.

I'll gladly take your word for it, since I don't listen to such people and never have. I suspect they'd object to my comics as well. Plenty of violence there (I've killed at least 2 characters so far that I can recall offhand).

I hate them. I hate them with passion.

Video games are being pulled because a choice minority thinks their bad. Apparently America has forgotten the concept of personal accountability.
Since when was it acceptable to force the government to keep innapropriate material out of the hands of a child? What ever happened to mommy and daddy paying attention to what the child is listening to/reading/playing/watching?

Attacks against men like Marilyn Manson are absurd. Every television has an off-button, and every music player has the same.


Not very smart...The Passion can only be appreciated by knowing what was behind the atonement, as you indicated, and 5 years old won't grab that.

True, but my anger towards the passion goes further than that.
Perhaps I'm not relaying myself appropriately.

I don't think that the movie did a good enough job of explaining Jesus' atonement to anybody, let alone, 5 year olds.
I never hear anybody talking about the movie in regards to why he was being crucified. Just lots of talk about how sad it was.

And I think that the movie missed the whole point. Ultimately, those I've come in contact with, I think missed it too.

If your going to tell a story about gettysburgh, then you ought to tell people why they were fighting in the first place, or all your going to see is senseless bloodshed.

Assuming that the story of Jesus is true, Jesus suffered for our sins. He died to bring humanity salvation, and if you ask me, it was to give god himself a certain amount of appreciation for our stupidity. How can a god be merciful, if he has no understanding of what mercy is? How could god know pain, if he had never felt it?

But all the passion showed was bloodshed without cause. Hate without a reason. Death for no purpose.

Ultimately, I see The Passion as more dangerous to christianity than Davinci Code could ever be.

If spreading lies in what is admittedly a *fictional* work, is harmfull, then surely telling the story of Jesus' death while omitting the reasons behind it in what was supposed to be a "historical work", is moreso.


Do you grant them the right to speak publicly on entertainment choices, though? I'm a leading voice on errors in The Da Vinci Code....do you find that objectionable, for me to critique it?

Critique? Go for it! Just critique it with the fact that it was a work of fiction at the forefront of your mind.

Banning the movie? Not a chance.



I haven't seen any of the Matrix movies, myself.

Say it isn't so!

I think you'd like it. LOADS of religious metaphors. Some are actually kinda hard to spot.

I think you might enjoy this website (http://www.thematrix101.com/matrix/)


Trinity is my favorite character. Finally a strong female presence that doesn't reek of canned testosterone.
I don't know why it's so hard to create a female hero, that doesn't follow the very same cliche's that feminists railed against in the past, when there were only male protagonists.

Nowadays, it seems that whenever a female is in the lead, they just swap the roles. Men fall to their knees in cowardly fear, while the woman unloads piles of ammunition, and cute catch-phrases all while looking "ab-fab."

Blech.



Which is one of the attitudes I am also trying to fix with this article in the OP. :smile:

Something I appreciate.


I don't want to argue merits on such things, since I don't get into them much myself, so let's say capital punishment. There are churches/Christians both for AND against it on various grounds, so that means no side need be discussed.

Provided those grounds remain rooted in logical thought, and not "god said it, so it must be so."

I refuse to stay in the home while my husband works, simply because somebodies religious text somewhere in the world, said it would be a good idea.

Arguing such things as capital punishment is fine, just as long as religion doesn't come into play, or is used to sway the masses. Statements like, "All good christians are opposed to capital punishment" are misleading.


What role would you grant a church in addressing the issue, whatever side they fall on as a body? What is a pastor allowed to do in terms of leadership?

In either case, great care and caution must be taken in how such things are worded. It's a tricky subject to be sure.
Ultimately, I don't want religion to dominate the masses.

Since it's a somewhat general question, I can only give a somewhat general answer.



? -- Fred Phelps has wealth and membership? Or is Falwell's bunch doing hate parades I haven't heard about?


No, mostly I'm referring to the responsibilities of leadership. Simply because falwell hasn't ran any hate-parades doesn't mean that he wasn't...

[[[edit]]]

[][][][][][
I removed my quote, and it's source, further checking, proved it to be vulgar, and innapropriate for the forums.[][][][][][][][][]

I also love this little gem of wisdom:


JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.

(My own emphasis added)

Source (http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0917-03.htm)

People in power, need to be more carefull when delivering such admonishments. How many people out there, took that statement and ran with it?

I certaintly hold everyone accountable for their own actions, and those that took this as a call to violence need to be judged by their own failures, but falwell shares a portion of blame, just like Charles Manson does, for the Tate murders. If your going to give people the wrong idea, don't be surprised when the act on it.

It's not so much what he's doing, but that he has the power to make *other* people do things. And *that's* my point.

It's no secret this man wants a theocracy. I'm terrified that he just might get it.







Love,
Goth_S

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I won't mince words here, the likes of Jack Chick, Billy Grahm, Pat Robertson, and the entire staff of "Focus on the Family" are not doing a very good job of leading the masses.

And that is what I think J P Holdings article is about. People like these are very good at playing on peoples emotions, but in the end all they are doing is throwing the proverbial seed onto rock. A great many people may become Christians through these people, but because they have no root they wither and die the first time their beleifs are seriously challanged. I'm not sure if this is what Jesus had in mind when he told this parable, but it certainly fits.

I'm only stating that the church needs to stay the heck out of my entertainment. I'm a grown woman, I can make my own choices.

Agreed I can certainly understand wanting to protect young children from excessive sex and violence, there comes a point when you need to let them decide. For the most part I'd say that if someone is old enough to live on their own, they're old enough to decide what they should watch/listen to/play.

The biggest problem with trying to make blanket statements about what consitutes 'good' and 'bad' in terms of entertainment is that what offends one person my not bother another at all. For example I can play games like Diablo II for hours on end without flinching even once(I dunno if I should be proud of that or not, but its true), where as my sister gets uncomfortable if she walks into a room while I'm playing a game like that. Then I had someone who tried to tell me that Kingdom Hearts is evil. Kingdom Hearts: It's made by Disney for crying out loud! I think people who try to set universal limits like that should read 1 Corinthians 8

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I haven't seen any of the Matrix movies, myself.

Watch the first one. You can safely skip the other two.

Meh. I exagerate. The other two arent bad. But the Reloaded's plot is very hard to understand, I had to watch all of them 3 times to finally get it. And Revolution's ending made me want to hurt myself. Seriously when I first saw it I thought for sure they would make another sequal because it just cant end that way. There were, however, good action sequences in all three of them.

[Goth_S]

And that is what I think J P Holdings article is about. People like these are very good at playing on peoples emotions, but in the end all they are doing is throwing the proverbial seed onto rock. A great many people may become Christians through these people, but because they have no root they wither and die the first time their beleifs are seriously challanged. I'm not sure if this is what Jesus had in mind when he told this parable, but it certainly fits.

Agreed.

However, I personally think the whole thing is illogical in and of itself, but that's just me.

I'm really more concerned with what someone does with their faith, rather than how they come by it.

If I could prove that christianity is dangerous to society, (as I contend it to be) then I would call for it's immediate destruction.
However, as it has it's good points, I don't.

But just like any other facet of life, it has great potential to be abused. Wasting time and tax dollars debating the ethics of homosexuality (which ought to be an open and shut case) is ultimately pointless in the face of all the good that those wasted resources could have done for society.


Agreed I can certainly understand wanting to protect young children from excessive sex and violence, there comes a point when you need to let them decide. For the most part I'd say that if someone is old enough to live on their own, they're old enough to decide what they should watch/listen to/play.

The biggest problem with trying to make blanket statements about what consitutes 'good' and 'bad' in terms of entertainment is that what offends one person my not bother another at all. For example I can play games like Diablo II for hours on end without flinching even once(I dunno if I should be proud of that or not, but its true), where as my sister gets uncomfortable if she walks into a room while I'm playing a game like that. Then I had someone who tried to tell me that Kingdom Hearts is evil. Kingdom Hearts: It's made by Disney for crying out loud! I think people who try to set universal limits like that should read 1 Corinthians 8



Doom 3 is a personal fav.
They should have stuck with Trent Reznor though.






Love,
Goth_S

[jpholding]

Well JP, of course I'd come straight to TWeb and ask you for a recommendation!

Thank you. You just changed your answser to B and that validates my article. :thumb:

[jpholding]

Howdy,


How so? How can one be "meek" in any sense of the world, when the demographic in question controlls the most powerful nation on earth?

Given the definition I offered -- which comes from scholars of anthropology:

Meekness IS gentleness, coupled with non-violence that is followed not because of any revulsion to violence, but because the meek person CAN use violence but has enough confidence and ability not to threaten or challenge others, and whose opponent is unworthy or too weak -- in other words, he's not strong enough or right enough for you to bother with.

...such a nation CAN be meek....though I would hardly argue for the likelihood that the temptation to be otherwise would not be given in to. :teeth:


Video games are being pulled because a choice minority thinks their bad.

I'll defer to Sir TAL on that since I don't play the violent games. I do recall that some car hijacking game was objected to, but I thought that was by a broad consensus and not merely a choice minority, and in part because of some sort of hidden material.

Right now I'm 57% of the way through Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 3: Night of the Quinkan. Not half bad though it sure went apocalyptic on me. :hehe:

What ever happened to mommy and daddy paying attention to what the child is listening to/reading/playing/watching?

Well, in many cases you can just stop at "What ever happened to mommy and daddy?" period.


I don't think that the movie did a good enough job of explaining Jesus' atonement to anybody, let alone, 5 year olds.

Do you think movie audiences in general would appreciate such an explanation?

is harmfull, then surely telling the story of Jesus' death while omitting the reasons behind it in what was supposed to be a "historical work", is moreso.

Well, that's one reason I wrote my article of course...because of The Passion.


Critique? Go for it! Just critique it with the fact that it was a work of fiction at the forefront of your mind.

Fiction it is. So was Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was one of the things that spearheaded the abolitionist movement. So is the New Testament, according to Brown's loyalist readers. Eh? :wink:

Banning the movie? Not a chance.

I agree, I'd rather it be out there so I can get my teeth into it. :hehe:

Say it isn't so!

I think you'd like it. LOADS of religious metaphors. Some are actually kinda hard to spot.

That reminds me. In the leading apologetics magazine, the Christian Research Journal (which I have written for), there was an article on religious metaphors in the Matrix movies. But, nothing about the violence aspect that I recall!


Trinity is my favorite character. Finally a strong female presence that doesn't reek of canned testosterone. I don't know why it's so hard to create a female hero, that doesn't follow the very same cliche's that feminists railed against in the past, when there were only male protagonists.

Oh, my! You would REALLY like my comics, then. All the female heroes (like Sheila) are vivacious, strong, and independent. :teeth: Like my wife!




Provided those grounds remain rooted in logical thought, and not "god said it, so it must be so."

Many on both sides do appeal to Biblical precedent, but I think you'd allow for the sake of argument that this can be done in the same sense that one might appeal to the works of an ancient secular moralist.

I refuse to stay in the home while my husband works, simply because somebodies religious text somewhere in the world, said it would be a good idea.

Good thing its not in any texts I know of, eh? :wink:

Arguing such things as capital punishment is fine, just as long as religion doesn't come into play, or is used to sway the masses. Statements like, "All good christians are opposed to capital punishment" are misleading.

All right, now let me give this example. Some appeal to John 8 (the woman caught in adultery, whose accusers Jesus flummoxed) for their case against capital punishment. Leaving aside issues such as whether it is rightly used that way, and whether it is a historical incident, do you have any objection to the use of such a text as a moral example (without "God said it" as the lead, which at any rate, most of those who use that passage would not say anyway)?


Ultimately, I don't want religion to dominate the masses.

Very well. Now given your stance on moral accountability re TV and video games, does it follow that a pastor can be given a considerable amount of freedom, and it is up to the masses to be accountable and turn him off (leave his church) if they don't find the teachings amenable or sensible? Since you say:

I certaintly hold everyone accountable for their own actions, and those that took this as a call to violence need to be judged by their own failures, but falwell shares a portion of blame, just like Charles Manson does, for the Tate murders.

Just as TV does, just as violent video games do? :smile:

It's no secret this man wants a theocracy. I'm terrified that he just might get it.

I'd say that wouldn't happen under present conditions. There's too much power in the checks and balances system.

[Pilgrim]

Thank you. You just changed your answser to B and that validates my article. :thumb:
I suspect we're closer on all than this than I let on. Being presbyterian it comes with the territory that education and learning are given a high value with in the church. We have some of the most stringent requirments for ordination of any denomination: a four year BA. And M.Div or equivalent after that. You must be under care of your presbytery for 3 years first as an inquirer and then as a candidate for ordination. You must spend one year in field education under the guidance of an already ordained minister of word and sacrament, you must complete the required number of CPE credits and finally, you must pass ordination exams of which there are five: Theolgy, Worship, Polity, Biblical Content and Original Language exegesis. (There really are very few denominations that require original language exegesis anymore and that is sad.) And after you are ordained it continues. It is a denominational standard that all pastors be given at least two weeks of study leave for continuing education every year. It's also becoming the practice to offer extended sabbaticals to senior pastors. I am being given a 3 month paid sabbatical after five years. I plan on using my two weeks and my sabbatical to start working on a doctorate.

I say that more or less to say that I agree with your over all point that we need be well educated so that we will be prepared to give a defense. Not that God needs or defense, but that God's people do.

Which is why I also stress that we not only need to be informed, we need to be acting. Which is why I answered the way I did trying to wind action into education because it is with the action of faith that a deep ownership sets in. And with that ownership a falling away is less likely.

[Darth Executor]

I do recall that some car hijacking game was objected to, but I thought that was by a broad consensus and not merely a choice minority, and in part because of some sort of hidden material.


I'm guessing you're talking about Grand Theft Auto made by Rockstar. The developers hid a sex mini-game in it. Games with explicit sex in it usually get an AO rating and a lot of big stores refuse to carry AO games (like Walmart), which is why the company hid it. If ESRB (the gaming industry is self regulated by the ESRB, I don't remember what it stands for and it's not really relevant) doesn't know about it, they won't give them an AO rating and damage their sales. When people found out about it they got mad (according to Maddox Hillary Clinton got involved) and ESRB ordered the games pulled out and forced Rockstar to release it again with an AO rating. Personally, I think Rockstar should be punched in the face (which is kinda difficult since companies don't have faces) for jeopardising the industry's autonomy by tempting politicians to regulate it instead. Last thing I want is Lieberman plastering AO ratings on every game that comes out and have half my favorite companies bite the dust. If that happens, I'd be stuck playing something like Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. :teeth:

[Ishmael]

JP: I think this article is beneath you. It is more of a rant than anything else and my advice to you would be to avoid writing in this style and instead focus your energy on writing a book which deals with the subjects that you feel would better serve Churches as an alternative to the one's you have mentioned here, and in other places.

[Pilgrim]

I'm guessing you're talking about Grand Theft Auto made by Rockstar. The developers hid a sex mini-game in it. Games with explicit sex in it usually get an AO rating and a lot of big stores refuse to carry AO games (like Walmart), which is why the company hid it. If ESRB (the gaming industry is self regulated by the ESRB, I don't remember what it stands for and it's not really relevant) doesn't know about it, they won't give them an AO rating and damage their sales. When people found out about it they got mad (according to Maddox Hillary Clinton got involved) and ESRB ordered the games pulled out and forced Rockstar to release it again with an AO rating. Personally, I think Rockstar should be punched in the face (which is kinda difficult since companies don't have faces) for jeopardising the industry's autonomy by tempting politicians to regulate it instead. Last thing I want is Lieberman plastering AO ratings on every game that comes out and have half my favorite companies bite the dust. If that happens, I'd be stuck playing something like Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. :teeth:
You should repost this in the Evangelical Church thread. It is a great example of a corporation acting sociopathically. That is, without conscience.

[jpholding]

JP: I think this article is beneath you. It is more of a rant than anything else and my advice to you would be to avoid writing in this style and instead focus your energy on writing a book which deals with the subjects that you feel would better serve Churches as an alternative to the one's you have mentioned here, and in other places.

Thanks for your usual non-reason-giving response, but I already have a library of articles that serve the latter purpose. :rasberry:



I suspect we're closer on all than this than I let on. Being presbyterian it comes with the territory that education and learning are given a high value with in the church.

Then Presbys likely have the fewest problems with this. I had ideas to recommend that pastors have the sort of credentials you speak of already required. (After all, why is it that doctors of the soul should not be prepared, while doctors of the body are?)

I think if you visit a typical Southern Baptist church, or Church of Christ church (for example) for about a month you'll have a non-divine sort of revelation....



Which is why I also stress that we not only need to be informed, we need to be acting.

No doubt we do....that aspect has other defenders, though, while my aspect hasn't got many I know of.





I'm guessing you're talking about Grand Theft Auto made by Rockstar. The developers hid a sex mini-game in it

That was it.

Last thing I want is Lieberman plastering AO ratings on every game that comes out and have half my favorite companies bite the dust. If that happens, I'd be stuck playing something like Ty the Tasmanian Tiger.

Might be good for you. :rasberry: :hehe:

[Ishmael]

Thanks for your usual non-reason-giving response, but I already have a library of articles that serve the latter purpose. :rasberry:


You sound like one particular graduate Bristish history professor I had who would ask for "comments" and then berate me for not giving comments with "depth"-- you both should ask for what you want. :eek:

[jpholding]

You sound like one particular graduate Bristish history professor I had who would ask for "comments" and then berate me for not giving comments with "depth"-- you both should ask for what you want. :eek:

If you don't know what I want by now, you don't know me as well as you think you do. :rasberry:

[Bill the Cat]

Does it include "I Can Only Imagine" in the music roster?


If I may, JP, what is wrong with Mercy Me? I really like the message of the song.

[Goth_S]

Howdy,



Given the definition I offered -- which comes from scholars of anthropology:

Meekness IS gentleness, coupled with non-violence that is followed not because of any revulsion to violence, but because the meek person CAN use violence but has enough confidence and ability not to threaten or challenge others, and whose opponent is unworthy or too weak -- in other words, he's not strong enough or right enough for you to bother with.

...such a nation CAN be meek....though I would hardly argue for the likelihood that the temptation to be otherwise would not be given in to. :teeth:

Then I certaintly don't think a theocracy applies.
I shudder to think what would happen if nuclear weapons were given to a nation ruled by god.



I'll defer to Sir TAL on that since I don't play the violent games. I do recall that some car hijacking game was objected to, but I thought that was by a broad consensus and not merely a choice minority, and in part because of some sort of hidden material.

Right now I'm 57% of the way through Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 3: Night of the Quinkan. Not half bad though it sure went apocalyptic on me. :hehe:


But the content itself doesn't matter. The companies ought to have a right to sell it. Wallmart does a decent job of keeping anybody under 18 from buying video games that their not supposed to. Heck, I can't even buy spraypaint without an ID. But the challenge towards GTA really was fairly small. And most importantly, most people were ill-informed about the causes behind the ruckus in the first place.

It was a part of the game called "Hot coffee", where your character was allowed to have simulated sex with your "girlfriend" in the game which you could controll. It was decided not to go in the game, but instead of deleting it (which would have been a long and tedious process) they simply deactivated it and left it in the game.

It took a small team of hackers to get it out, and mod it.




Well, in many cases you can just stop at "What ever happened to mommy and daddy?" period.

But my point is, it's not the industries job to watch your kids.
And when people have that mode of thought, the rest of us get left with the short end of the stick.


Do you think movie audiences in general would appreciate such an explanation?

*sigh*

Sadly, probably not. It's easier to make someone feel pity and show blood and gore, than to tell a story that might be worth telling.

I mourn the death of substance.


Well, that's one reason I wrote my article of course...because of The Passion.

Groovy



Fiction it is. So was Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was one of the things that spearheaded the abolitionist movement. So is the New Testament, according to Brown's loyalist readers. Eh? :wink:

Nuthin' wrong with a bit of fiction. But if it sways people out of their faith, then maybe they shouldn't have had it in the first place if Tom Hanks can so easily corrupt it.

Of course, I too beleive that the new testament (indeed, all holy books) are fiction. But that doesn't detract from the generally decent "moral" code outlined.


That reminds me. In the leading apologetics magazine, the Christian Research Journal (which I have written for), there was an article on religious metaphors in the Matrix movies. But, nothing about the violence aspect that I recall!

I'm talking about our favorite national mouthpeices for "morality".
Just getting tired of hearing from everybody behind a pulpit that this world is going to hell in a handbasket, and nobody is capable of making our their choices.



Oh, my! You would REALLY like my comics, then. All the female heroes (like Sheila) are vivacious, strong, and independent. :teeth: Like my wife!

:thumb:



Many on both sides do appeal to Biblical precedent, but I think you'd allow for the sake of argument that this can be done in the same sense that one might appeal to the works of an ancient secular moralist.

Perhaps.



Good thing its not in any texts I know of, eh? :wink:

Depends on whom you ask.


All right, now let me give this example. Some appeal to John 8 (the woman caught in adultery, whose accusers Jesus flummoxed) for their case against capital punishment. Leaving aside issues such as whether it is rightly used that way, and whether it is a historical incident, do you have any objection to the use of such a text as a moral example (without "God said it" as the lead, which at any rate, most of those who use that passage would not say anyway)?


Yes. Rather than a cause and effect relationship being used in modern context, with a logical principal, this would be defferring to an old text without modern context. Essentially faith leading the masses when faith has no place in government.
Of course, I'm talking about in the public spectrum. Churches can do as they please within their walls. But they won't legislate from the pulpit.

Not to mention, this is excusing of course the argument of context and what it means, which could go even further to obfuscate the issue.



Very well. Now given your stance on moral accountability re TV and video games, does it follow that a pastor can be given a considerable amount of freedom, and it is up to the masses to be accountable and turn him off (leave his church) if they don't find the teachings amenable or sensible? Since you say:


To a point. Anybody in power has a tight grip on the minds of his followers. Hitler for example. All it would have taken, was a few people to stop listening to him. But hitler had a gift for oration, and a fiery attitude. And they took it and ran. There is a difference between video games, books and TV which are all easy to seperate fact from fiction and draw your own conclusions, and a human being which is harder to avoid, and easier to give into.


Just as TV does, just as violent video games do? :smile:

No, there is a considerable difference. Video games have never been shown to increase violence nor any other "anti-social" behavior. Though I hold the parents accountable when garbage like "Jack***" gets repeated.

And ultiamately the big kicker here, is that it is all fiction, and they tell you it's fiction.


I'd say that wouldn't happen under present conditions. There's too much power in the checks and balances system.

We'll see.





You should repost this in the Evangelical Church thread. It is a great example of a corporation acting sociopathically. That is, without conscience.

Blah.

A company is suddenly supposed to be a moral leader? What about the gun companies? I happen to own quite a few firearms myself, and I'm not about to let them go, simply because someone somewhere shot himself or someone else.

Or car companies, or airplane companies....








Love,
Goth_S

[jpholding]

If I may, JP, what is wrong with Mercy Me? I really like the message of the song.

It focusses on one's personal experiences before God. The constant repetition of what "I" will do takes focus away from, more importantly, what GOD will do and say. It's individualism gone wild.

On the other hand, it's not as bad as that girl who sang "There's no God like Jehovah" 15 times straight. I counted. :glare: I think she had lost her lyrics sheet and was frantically looking for it while she was repeating that line.

[Darth Executor]

I shudder to think what would happen if nuclear weapons were given to a nation ruled by god.

I'm guessing you're in favor of invading Iran then? :teeth:

[Gromit45]

At the "New Member" class, pass out JP Moreland's Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576830160/qid=1102553492/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6729638-1528106?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) . Have them return for a follow-up class in a month to discuss and ask questions.


My church's Sunday School classes went from a slow, semi-deep look at Phillipians to a study on cults and now to the Walk Thru The Bible book.

There is nothing wrong with Walk Thru The Bible, but it is SO elementary and the church did it before a few years ago. Most of these classes are filled with "church veterans".

[Ishmael]

It focusses on one's personal experiences before God. The constant repetition of what "I" will do takes focus away from, more importantly, what GOD will do and say. It's individualism gone wild.

On the other hand, it's not as bad as that girl who sang "There's no God like Jehovah" 15 times straight. I counted. :glare: I think she had lost her lyrics sheet and was frantically looking for it while she was repeating that line.
Never have I seen a man in more desperate need of a year long study of J. Vernon McGee's comentaries.

[jpholding]

Hiya,


Then I certaintly don't think a theocracy applies.
I shudder to think what would happen if nuclear weapons were given to a nation ruled by god.

So do you say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a theocracy to be "meek" by the definition I gave? Or just hard (which I would say, given the human condition)?


But the content itself doesn't matter. The companies ought to have a right to sell it.

No disagreement there....but I never heard that bit about "Hot Coffee".

But my point is, it's not the industries job to watch your kids.

I don't think it is either; but I'd place the level of responsibility about 70% for parents, 30% for the corporations....maybe change that if you add in other stuff like freinds and neighbors. Of course, this is in terms of a society of the individual. In a society of the group, like Japan (even as secular as it is), they'd place a great deal more responsibility on the corporate whole, I think.


Nuthin' wrong with a bit of fiction. But if it sways people out of their faith, then maybe they shouldn't have had it in the first place if Tom Hanks can so easily corrupt it.

Or, they (or their shepherds) should have been better at providing substance? This will be an odd question, perhaps, but when was the last time you were in a Christian bookstore?


Depends on whom you ask.


Well, that's for later, perhaps! :teeth:

Churches can do as they please within their walls. But they won't legislate from the pulpit.

I'm having a hard time not seeing these two sentences as contradictory....perhaps it is just the way you put it....


To a point. Anybody in power has a tight grip on the minds of his followers.

I can't really comment deeply. I'm of a personality type that just isn't swayed by alleged leaders. I frankly find it hard to understand how one gets in line with a Hitler, oration or no oration. I DO have a suspicion that you may underestimate the ease with which SOME fail to regard games and TV as fiction. Certainly the advertising industry doesn't think that TV can't influence people, and it is hard to say at the same time:

"Video games have never been shown to increase violence nor any other 'anti-social' behavior."

"Let's buy some advertising so people will buy our product."

without thinking that someone, somewhere is missing something. Either the video games, et al CAN influence, at least some people...or the advertising industry is built on false premisses and is wasting billions of dollars.

Maybe like me, you're not influenced easily by such things either.... :smile:

[jpholding]

Never have I seen a man in more desperate need of a year long study of J. Vernon McGee's comentaries.

*choke*

You ARE a nut. That wins a Screwball Award. :rasberry: Unless you take it back.

[Ishmael]

*choke*

You ARE a nut. That wins a Screwball Award. :rasberry: Unless you take it back.
I don't take it back, I have been trying to win for a year. :lol:

[Alien]

I can't really comment deeply. I'm of a personality type that just isn't swayed by alleged leaders. I frankly find it hard to understand how one gets in line with a Hitler, oration or no oration.

Here's my 2c. Charismatic leaders like Hitler sense an emotionally based need in a sufficiently large (for their purposes) proportion of the population and exploit it. To understand it, we have to drop all our knowledge of the history of the Nazis and project ourselves into the mindset of the average German in the 30's. Following WW1, reparations leading to hyper inflation have reduced a once proud nation to shame and poverty. Resentment runs rampant. Now, along comes a leader who promises not only a scapegoat for all this (always popular) but a return to national pride. The reaction is understandable, I think, if not in retrospect praiseworthy.

I too like to think I would be immune to all this, and maybe we would have been. But let's not be too confident .... :wink:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I'll defer to Sir TAL on that since I don't play the violent games.

I should say, though, that while I'm not opposed to violent games, I dont play games solely on the bases of their violent content. I play games because they are fun to play, and if they contain violence, well that's just the way it is. In fact two of my favorite series(Kingdom Hearts and Zelda) contain no more violence than your average Disney movie(indeed, KH was made partly by Disney). In fact I think most gamers are like me, which is why Zelda and KH have both been at the top of sales charts since their births.

Meh, I think the media's current treatment of video games is just another part of their long line of trying to point fingers and offer quick-fix solutions to complex problems. First it was rock music, then it was tv/movies, now its video games. :sigh: I guess us gamers are going to have to wait until some new form of entertainment comes out.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

It was a part of the game called "Hot coffee", where your character was allowed to have simulated sex with your "girlfriend" in the game which you could controll. It was decided not to go in the game, but instead of deleting it (which would have been a long and tedious process) they simply deactivated it and left it in the game.

It took a small team of hackers to get it out, and mod it.

It should also be pointed out that in response to the controversy more recent releases of San Andres have completely deleted the game.

However what the media didnt say, is that most gamers(even your serious ones) dont have access to the equipment or skills to do that kind of hacking. So at most only a few thousand people(out of the millions who bought San Andres) would have been able to get to the mini game. In fact I bet if it hadnt been for the controversy only gameing geeks like myself would have even known about it.

On a side note: I havent yet played San Andres at all. Perhaps I should.

[Darth Executor]

So at most only a few thousand people(out of the millions who bought San Andres) would have been able to get to the mini game.

And out of those thousands somebody made a patch so anyone who wants to get to it can.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

And out of those thousands somebody made a patch so anyone who wants to get to it can.

Really? Odd that I hadnt heard about that.

Ah, well nobody except gaming geeks downloads those kinds of patches anywho. So my point still stands: if it hadnt been for the controversy nobody outside of the gaming community would have known about the hot coffie mod.

[Goth_S]

And ultimately it's not the game developers job to make sure that anybody under 18 doesn't watch this stuff.

It allready had a MA rating.

Anybody that want's to get mad at little billy for doing dumb things, needs to ask themselves how little billy had the access to stuff like that in the first bloody place.


And furthermore, depending on how they hacked into it, they (the hackers) may have broken the law. Most data discs nowadays have something about not being allowed to decompile, reverse engineer, copy, or defeat the protections.


Attempting to press charges might have helped rockstar.

But this is all kind of turning into a derailment anyways...



Love,
Goth_S

[Sparko]

JP, my church has all sorts of programs and classes for people to learn apologetics. That is how I became interested in the topic to begin with. My church also encourages people to think for themselves and to get involved in classes to learn more about apologetics and spreading the Gospel, going on missions, and helping out volunteering in the community.

The main problem at my church is not the availability nor the drive to educate members. The problem is the members who are just happy to come to the Sunday service, listen to a 40-minute sermon (which by definition can't be that detailed in apologetics), and try to sneak out early to beat the traffic.

I have to say that the Adult Bible Fellowship classes (the 'sunday school') does have a fair turnout. The one I attend is called Bridges and it is geared toward apologetics and bible study (you can check out our podcasts at http://www.bridgesabf.com/podcast/ )

But even so, it is only about 1/3 of the congregation that attend such classes.

Changes need to occur with the congregation before the church can educate them. The congregation needs to insist on being educated and not put to sleep with a boring sunday sermon each week.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Dang sparko, you had to ruin our attempts to hijack this thread.


Ah, well, its all good, I was getting bored talking about San Andres anyway,

[papabryant]

Essentially faith leading the masses when faith has no place in government.

Of course, I'm talking about in the public spectrum. Churches can do as they please within their walls. But they won't legislate from the pulpit.

Boy, I can run with this one. Ya know Goth, you are really good at prompting replies! :smile:

I've quoted Greg Koukl before, but as I've said before, I cannot improve upon perfection:

Two general comments to begin with. First, you don't marginalize a significant block of voters simply because you don't like what they have to say. It seems to me that in a truly pluralistic society every group should get a hearing who wants to be heard instead of being summarily dismissed. We wouldn't say, "Oh, that's those Mexicans making trouble again," or "Those old people are making demands," or "That Board of Realtors is forcing their views on us." Or "those blacks," or "those homosexuals," or "those unions," or "those fundamentalists."

The fact is that each is a legitimate voice among the constituency. It doesn't mean that we adopt every suggestion or give in to every special interest group. But it certainly seems appropriate for them to be able to ask questions, get informed, and make their point through a public appeal.

Second, the charge that Christians are trying to force their views on others is simply unfair. They're trying to make their case in the public square and then are willing to put it to a vote. No force, no imposition, just advocacy for a point of view and voting. Everybody has an equal shot. That's fair, that's reasonable. What isn't fair or reasonable is when any group has to fight just to be heard or are condemned or ridiculed not for their point of view but for giving their point of view, regardless of how unpopular it may be, or how stridently it may be argued. Christians just want to be players in the discussion. Why do others want to censor that contribution?

That's why I get frustrated when any candidate listens to the Christian segment who asks valid questions that relate to their point of view and their particular interests and then he starts screaming that they're an extremist group trying to impose its views.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5692



This happens far more often than the "Rev." Fred Phelps-theocrat types raising their heads.

I happen to see a much more Macchiavelian mindset than most in the calls to separate "faith" from politics. (I exempt you from this, as you'll see more fully in a moment. It deals with the ultimate conclusion I draw here.) Certainly I do not want to see a theocracy, but I do not think there is a serious danger of that ever happening. The Constitution, while not an explicitly Christian document, did arise out of a Judeo-Christian worldview, which sees life in terms of conscience and choice. You cannot force someone to be saved; they must choose to be saved and they have the right to choose not to be saved.

However, I see the opposition as saying it is illegitimate to hold certain views because of how they were derived. It's an issue of marginalizing people of a given viewpoint. It’s an issue of silencing a political enemy by making their views illegitimate to hold. "If you have religious sentiments then it's a violation of the First Amendment to let those religious concerns inform your decisions when you go to the polling booth."

Funny, that is not what I get out of the First Amendment. The First Amendment insures all non-violent expression of thought by limiting the government's restriction of speech and expression of religious thinking and belief. It doesn't say that Christian individuals can't have their beliefs influence their politics. If anything, it says that the government can't stop them from doing that, anymore than government can stop a secularist from having their beliefs influence their politics.

Why is it that only religious people have to separate their self-identity when they enter the political world? Why aren’t gay politicians asked to separate their homosexuality from their political beliefs? Not even Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, a homosexual rights activist, thinks this is right, and she thinks that is EXACTLY what the gay rights movement is trying to force religious people to do :

It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to 'be' gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?'' she writes in her Becket paper. ''I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp


It's as if the world is saying, "Everyone has the right to hold their own views, but since how you arrived at your views isn't the approved method - as evidenced by the fact you don't agree with us - it's off to the mental ward for your lobotomy and medications." Quite frankly, this is one step from the gulag. Literally. And Antonio Gramsci is to blame.

Gramsci founded the Italian Communist Party and, unlike most Marxists of his day, rejected the Soviet model for spreading communism through armed revolution. Gramsci's essential insight was that the West could not be beaten militarily or economically - the working class in the West was simply not going to rise up in revolution. Why? Because Western culture - that is, the culture of what used to be called "Christendom" - was simply too strong for Marxist ideology to overcome. Consequently, argued Gramsci, the only way to conquer the West was moral subversion through destroying the West's values, obliterating its knowledge of its own history, and destroying its Christian spiritual foundation.

If these things could be accomplished, the West would collapse from within. In essence, Gramsci outlined a strategy for transforming the thinking of the free peoples of the West so they would enter willingly into the Marxist gulag.

In 1933, an obscure band of German Marxists known as the "Frankfurt School" began immigrating to the United States to escape Hitler. Today, many of those associated with the Frankfurt School are familiar names in teh field of education - Eric Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, Max Horkheimer - to name a few. What relatively few know, however, is that all of these "intellectuals" adhered to a form of Marxism developed by Gramsci.

When the members of the Frankfurt school began arriving in America, they almost immediately began drawing upon Gramsci's principles for "deconstructing" American culture. Their approach was simple: Begin a systematic campaign of criticism of Western culture and America with the objective of ultimately convincing the public that the West - and America, especially - have been guilty of genocidal crimes against every culture they had come in contact with and that these crimes had flowed essentially from Christianity.

Thus, the objective was to de-legitimize such pillars of American culture as Christianity, capitalism, the family, sexual restraint and patriotism.

Obviously, this was a project that, as Gramsci had foreseen, would take time. The Cultural Marxists knew that adults, because they were generally aware of the truth regarding America's institutions and history, would reject their critique. Therefore, their main effort was directed toward youth, and particularly educational institutions.

Over the years, the original members of the Frankfurt school and their American adherents obtained positions in colleges, universities and other institutions such as public schools where they were able to use their positions to influence generation after generation of students. As their influence on campus grew, they consistently pursued a policy of intimidation, censorship, and slander against anyone opposing their agenda for America.

Public-school curricula, for example, now tend to ignore essential American history in order to lavish attention on minor historical figures that allegedly boost the "self-esteem" of designated victim groups and that are also used to persuade children that the historic American culture and Christianity are illegitimate.

Throughout the 19th century and into the 1940s, K-12 government schools generally taught children moral principles that, if not always explicitly Christian, were at least compatible with Christianity. Today, many parents, particularly Christian parents, wonder how public and private discussions of morality have largely become cliche-ridden gibberish about "not being judgmental," "not moralizing," "not imposing your value judgments on others," and "valuing differences." What this represents, tragically, is a massive movement in American society away from the concept of transcendent moral values, toward a moral relativism rooted in the idea that moral values are nothing more than subjective preferences. How is this happening? The critical first step is leading children to adopt moral relativism.

This theme is woven into many different subjects, often by incorporating into various courses "non-directive moral education" curricula such as "values clarification" and "critical thinking" that implicitly teach there are no absolute moral values. Instead, the children are told, they must choose the values that are "right for them."

Just what is "non-directive moral education"? Non-directive approaches treat moral education as a process through which children are supposed to develop their own values through participation in games, discussion of moral problems or dilemmas, and use of certain intellectual strategies. In this approach, teachers are not supposed to take moral positions or present their own moral views. Indeed, proponents of non-directive moral education explicitly reject the notion of "teaching values" and criticize those who object to this value-neutral approach as wanting to impose their own "rigid, obsolete value structures" on others through the schools.

As a result, children are to be turned loose without any moral guidance on critical, complex issues involving drugs, sex, war, and life and death to arrive at conclusions based upon their limited experience and knowledge and their feelings. Despite claiming to be value-neutral, non-directive approaches to teaching moral reasoning actually indoctrinate children with the view that all moral values are purely subjective and that none are transcendent and universally applicable.

The real purpose behind all of this is to separate children from the values they have learned in their families so that they will be "open" to new values consistent with some variant of cultural Marxism.

At a practical level, non-directive moral education turns moral instruction on its head. Efforts by parents, churches and others to teach children values, let alone the transcendent moral values at the heart of Christianity, are denounced by those trained in values clarification and other non-directive approaches as "moralizing"-- the "mistake" of failing to recognize that all moral values are a matter of personal preference and that, therefore, moral values are always relative, changing and situational. Thus, children are taught that "moralizers" are just pushy, intolerant people who are trying to force their values on others.

Moreover, if there is no moral truth, only personal values and preferences, then all that can really be done is reach a consensus. The consensus that is promoted, however, is one that uses the cultural Marxist presuppositions of race, class and gender victimization as a foundation for driving children to the conclusion that the highest values are diversity, multiculturalism and tolerance, as interpreted by the politically correct crowd.

And we are now seeing the fruits of the Frankfort School's labors now, not just in modern schools, but in society at large with the call to delegitimize Christian voters. But the "First Fruits" of this movement actually came in the 1960s when the Constitutional protection - and proper political function - of the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Hindu Temples, etc. in America was thrown out by LBJ in an act so bold Gramsci probably leaped for joy in his grave. This was when LBJ, as a Senator, added Churches to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers put both the Church and the Press both in the First Amendment - because a free press and a free pulpit, each examining and commenting on the events of the day from their unique perspective, serve as a second set of checks and balances on the power of government as a whole. There is no better way to stop colusion between the various branches of Government than the two most effective, and diametrically opposed, social commentators in Western society: the Reporter and the Preacher.

For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is concidered immoral by Biblical standards (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. (And now with the growth of "hate crimes" legislation... Preachers have already been arrested in two other Western countries, Sweden and Canada, who supposedly share our political values and who have been targetted by their own Gramsci-ist movements.)

We've all been effected by this. It has scewered our perspective on the Church, on society, on politics, on morality, even our view of God Himself, whether believer or skeptic. It is one of the reasons I find myself drawn to apologists like JP and Glenn Miller, who approach from the perspective of how a person the Bible was first presented to would have understood it - it's reeducation from the ground up. :pray:

[Goth_S]

It's a matter of logic and reason, vs. dogma.


There's a thread around here, entitled something along the lines of "reasons of faith aside, what's wrong with homosexuality"

The answers given, are lacking to say the least.


There is a considerable difference between making a political choice based on factual knowlege and observation, and making claims that such and such isn't a-ok, because the invisible man in the sky said so.


Churches have a considerable amount of power, and if they are allowed to use that power to influence the masses, which directly controll our politics, then you will have a theocracy, however removed.




Love,
Goth_S

[Cynic Sage]

Hey JP, Purpose-Driven and Willow Creek have already put out some material on DVC titled Discussing The DaVinci Code by Lee Strobel and Gary Poole:

http://www.willowcreek.com/davinci/

My Dad ordered a sample set inculding a booklet, a discussion book, and a DVD. I watched part of the DVD this morning (didn't see much though cuz the DVD went on the fritz). It seemed a bit McDowell-esque with questions like "How do the book's claims about Jesus make you feel?" :eww:

Maybe when we get a working copy of the DVD I'll be able to finish viewing it.

BTW: I sent him a link to your article on DVC. I'll ask him what he thinks.

[Bill the Cat]

* If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today),

JP, is this kind of what you mean?

http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/deut-const.htm

[Cynic Sage]

Found this, a rather interesting piece of satire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtI2pa2m5cg&search=mega-church

:hehe:

[papabryant]

It's a matter of logic and reason, vs. dogma.


There's a thread around here, entitled something along the lines of "reasons of faith aside, what's wrong with homosexuality"

The answers given, are lacking to say the least.


There is a considerable difference between making a political choice based on factual knowlege and observation, and making claims that such and such isn't a-ok, because the invisible man in the sky said so.

Aside from the obvious question of how do you know that the "invisible man in the sky" didn't say so, and that sky-daddy didn't base what He said on factual knowledge - lets continue using the homosexual example, if that's o.k. - that gays have a higher propensity to suicide even in supportive social settings, or that the behavior of socially sanctioned promiscuity, coupled with the introduction of HIV-infection into a population that engage in behavior that exposes the virus to the small intestines (which are cells that absorb nutrient molecules LARGER than the HIV virus directly into the bloodstream) have contributed to an epidemic that has sent a sizable portion of the community into homicidal/suicidal behavior (the so-called "bug-hunting" or "gay roulette".)

And what is to say that believing in the sky-daddy precludes stopping the use of factual knowledge and reasoning/observation? Why is this not possibly the reason FOR belief in the sky-daddy? Or how about the use of reason in the establishment of Dogma, which sort of begs the question about universal truths?

I don't want to diminish your original point about the type of person that would force conformity of behavior; they certainly exist. But there are points I would like to make:

1. In the "battle" between skeptic and believers, there are those on BOTH sides that seek to force people into conformity. They both violate the principles they profess to uphold and should not be used as stereotypes.

2. At this point the skeptic of this type are more numerous and in a position of power greater than that of believers. That is not to say that there are more skeptics than believers, but that the radical skeptics have been better than the radical believers (I hesitate to call them "believers", but for lack of a better word..) at gaining power and influence. This wasn't always the case, and can change in the future, but it is the reality now. Because radical skeptics have a firmer hold on power and have a plan that shows evidence of implimentation (Gramsciism) they are the real danger to freedom at the present time.

3. Both groups are small in number. But they scream real loud. They like the attention. And they tar and feather the rest of us. The bad guys always make it hard on the good guys.


Churches have a considerable amount of power, and if they are allowed to use that power to influence the masses, which directly controll our politics, then you will have a theocracy, however removed.




Love,
Goth_S

Churches have less power than people think, and the nature of that power is such that abuses, such as setting up a theocracy, come from abandoning the principles of the faith, not living up to them. (Which is why I hesitated calling "radical believers" believers.

Influence is not the same as control. If the Churches directly controlled the voter, impossible under a secret ballot system, then your pushback would definately be valid. But again, what is the difference between the Churches attempting to influence the masses as opposed to any other special interest?

And how do we not let the Churches have a say in politics when there are those like our friend Flemming and the Freedom From Religion Foundation that are actively seeking to affect the Churches politically? The Church has a dog in that hunt.

It's my birthday, and the wife and kids are taking me out to dinner. I may be on tonight to read your reply, but I also may not be. But whether today or tommorrow, I look forward to reading it. :teeth:

Hope everyone's evening is going to be a fine as mine :ale: :yipee: :highfive: :dance: :woohoo: :cheers:

[jpholding]

JP, is this kind of what you mean?

http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/deut-const.htm

Yes indeed.




Hey JP, Purpose-Driven and Willow Creek have already put out some material on DVC titled Discussing The DaVinci Code by Lee Strobel and Gary Poole:

I wonder how close the connection is between Willow Creek and Saddleback, other than Strobel's former employment at both. Still:

It seemed a bit McDowell-esque with questions like "How do the book's claims about Jesus make you feel?"

"Like barfing. So do questions like these." :doh: But thanks for the referral.



But even so, it is only about 1/3 of the congregation that attend such classes.

That's still better than what I have seen where it is more like 1/3000th because they stick it at a lousy time.

I like to think that most of my teaching efforts educate and keep interest...




I should say, though, that while I'm not opposed to violent games, I dont play games solely on the bases of their violent content. I play games because they are fun to play, and if they contain violence, well that's just the way it is.

Yes. Though I have the impression at times that resort to eg, gunplay signifies a lack of creative effort by a game's creators. The transition between Jak and Daxter 1 and 2 was a perfect example for me. Jak 1 had a very clever premise in terms of "weaponry" (the absorption of eco energy, of multiple colors. with differing effects). Jak 2 almost completely dropped this and switched to guns of the same sort you'd find in a gun shop on Earth, which told me that the creators were at a loss. I don't object to weaponry -- Ratchet and Clank is a personal favorite -- but good grief, if you're going to do that, make it some sort of clever weapon like the Spitting Hyrda or something hilariously funny like the Kwack-o-Ray. Show some inventiveness!



I don't take it back, I have been trying to win for a year.

Then I demote you to bronze. Fixing results is a no no. :thumbd:



I too like to think I would be immune to all this, and maybe we would have been. But let's not be too confident ....

I would have left Germany for America by 1926....

[Darth Executor]

I would have left Germany for America by 1926....

:no:

We're so different. I'd have assassinated Hitler and taken command of the NAZI party. Of course, my rule would have been much different from his but the rest of you would be speaking German regardless. :rasberry:

[jpholding]

:no:

We're so different. I'd have assassinated Hitler and taken command of the NAZI party.

Maybe that's not so bad because they'd all end up playing video games as part of the party platform. :rasberry:

[Goth_S]

Aside from the obvious question of how do you know that the "invisible man in the sky" didn't say so, and that sky-daddy didn't base what He said on factual knowledge - lets continue using the homosexual example, if that's o.k. - that gays have a higher propensity to suicide even in supportive social settings, or that the behavior of socially sanctioned promiscuity, coupled with the introduction of HIV-infection into a population that engage in behavior that exposes the virus to the small intestines (which are cells that absorb nutrient molecules LARGER than the HIV virus directly into the bloodstream) have contributed to an epidemic that has sent a sizable portion of the community into homicidal/suicidal behavior (the so-called "bug-hunting" or "gay roulette".)


So to contain the virus, you hope to elliminate an entire demographic of people? And if controlling AIDS is truly the issue at hand, why the anti-condom use campaign led by many prominent religious leaders?

Could not education stem the flow of this disease as well?
And ultimately, the issue of choice is involved. Barring homosexual sex for fear of aids, ought to go hand in hand with denying anybody with AIDS the ability to engage in sexual intercourse.

Also, what materials/statistics do you have to support the assertion that a "sizable portion" of the homosexual community is "suicidal/homocidal"

With special regard to the former. Everything I've seen, shows that homosexuals are on the bottom rung, when it comes to violent offences.


And what is to say that believing in the sky-daddy precludes stopping the use of factual knowledge and reasoning/observation? Why is this not possibly the reason FOR belief in the sky-daddy? Or how about the use of reason in the establishment of Dogma, which sort of begs the question about universal truths?

Logic dictates an invisible man that breaks all rules of physics, purely by will, despite the fact that nothing in this entire universe functions on supernatural principals? I dare say that in itself is a tricky question. If you'd like to discuss it, start a thread and I'd be happy to engage you in whatever challenge you might have.

But ultimately, the issue is faith vs. dissent. Despite the fact that I don't dig on "sky-daddies" my underlying point, was merely that dissenting opinions on what exactly said "sky-daddy" desires for us, is hard to use in creating middle ground. What your god says for women to do outside the home, is a far cry from the muslim attitude on the subject, now isn't it?

So what do you propose the tie breaker would be? Kinda hard to turn an argument based out of religious reasons, when other religions say "no" and all purely based out of dogma.

Logical thinking and pragmatism above all, ought to rule societial actions.

As a side note, I wanted to clarify, my statement of "invisible men" was meant to make clear that I do not hold any religious views, and as such, dogma has little effect on me.
No offense intended should any have been taken.



I don't want to diminish your original point about the type of person that would force conformity of behavior; they certainly exist. But there are points I would like to make:

1. In the "battle" between skeptic and believers, there are those on BOTH sides that seek to force people into conformity. They both violate the principles they profess to uphold and should not be used as stereotypes.

True, which is why I want logical thought, and reason to dominate. A skeptic incapable of considering the opposing side, is hardly a skeptic, but a stubborn mule.


2. At this point the skeptic of this type are more numerous and in a position of power greater than that of believers. That is not to say that there are more skeptics than believers, but that the radical skeptics have been better than the radical believers (I hesitate to call them "believers", but for lack of a better word..) at gaining power and influence. This wasn't always the case, and can change in the future, but it is the reality now. Because radical skeptics have a firmer hold on power and have a plan that shows evidence of implimentation (Gramsciism) they are the real danger to freedom at the present time.

Allow me to stifle my giggling here for a moment...

Given the radical push towards religious intentions, the political statements of religious adherance and the nigh-fanatical cling to such ridiculous statements such as 'god is inherrantly american' what with god being in such things as the pledge of alleigance (which wasn't added until 1954) I fail to see how this is in any way a valid statement.


3. Both groups are small in number. But they scream real loud. They like the attention. And they tar and feather the rest of us. The bad guys always make it hard on the good guys.

I agree wholeheartedly.




Churches have less power than people think, and the nature of that power is such that abuses, such as setting up a theocracy, come from abandoning the principles of the faith, not living up to them. (Which is why I hesitated calling "radical believers" believers.

I highly dissagree.


Influence is not the same as control. If the Churches directly controlled the voter, impossible under a secret ballot system, then your pushback would definately be valid. But again, what is the difference between the Churches attempting to influence the masses as opposed to any other special interest?

Influence, is indeed control. Especially when dealing with an intangible entity, whos agenda, everyone seems willing to dictate. The turning point is the god question. Faith in the invisible is fine. Legislating off of it, is not.


And how do we not let the Churches have a say in politics when there are those like our friend Flemming and the Freedom From Religion Foundation that are actively seeking to affect the Churches politically? The Church has a dog in that hunt.

Personally, I think any church ought to be capable of standing on it's own two feet. Multi-million dollar mega-churches, I point to in example. The problem?
Those that run them will be happy to tell you that their doing "god's work."
That god wants them to have a snazzy church, complete with dolby 5.1, and an indoor swimming pool.


Good luck arguing with that!


It's my birthday, and the wife and kids are taking me out to dinner. I may be on tonight to read your reply, but I also may not be. But whether today or tommorrow, I look forward to reading it. :teeth:

Hope everyone's evening is going to be a fine as mine :ale: :yipee: :highfive: :dance: :woohoo: :cheers:


Happy B-day!!
May everything desirable happen!!





Love,
Goth_S

[Darth Executor]

Barring homosexual sex for fear of aids, ought to go hand in hand with denying anybody with AIDS the ability to engage in sexual intercourse.

I was under the impression that having sex while knowing you have AIDS is illegal already.

Logic dictates an invisible man that breaks all rules of physics,

How does God break the rules of physics?

[Goth_S]

I was under the impression that having sex while knowing you have AIDS is illegal already.

No, it's perfectly legal provided your partner tells you that he/she has AIDS.


How does God break the rules of physics?

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, etc. etc.




Love,
Goth_S

[Darth Executor]

No, it's perfectly legal provided your partner tells you that he/she has AIDS.


That sounds like a dumb law, and from what I remember, it only applies to heterosexual couples. :thumbd:


Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, etc. etc.


Where is matter created or destroyed? I know God creates a number of things, but the method isn't exactly specified.

[Goth_S]

That sounds like a dumb law, and from what I remember, it only applies to heterosexual couples. :thumbd:

I cannot find anything on the books about what you're talking about. What state are you in, so I can check the laws?

Why is it a dumb law? Is this to say that if you contract AIDS, I should have the right to enact legislation keeping you from having sex?

There are allready a great number of laws protecting the public from transmission, such as disclosure agreements, and many states classify the forcefull transmission of the virus with intent to cause harm, as a felony, rather than assault.

I assure you, you're in no greater danger due to homosexuality, than you are anybody else.



Where is matter created or destroyed? I know God creates a number of things, but the method isn't exactly specified.

Genesis 1:1 NIV


Method doesn't matter, when your making matter. ;)





Love,
Goth_S

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Yes. Though I have the impression at times that resort to eg, gunplay signifies a lack of creative effort by a game's creators. The transition between Jak and Daxter 1 and 2 was a perfect example for me. Jak 1 had a very clever premise in terms of "weaponry" (the absorption of eco energy, of multiple colors. with differing effects). Jak 2 almost completely dropped this and switched to guns of the same sort you'd find in a gun shop on Earth, which told me that the creators were at a loss. I don't object to weaponry -- Ratchet and Clank is a personal favorite -- but good grief, if you're going to do that, make it some sort of clever weapon like the Spitting Hyrda or something hilariously funny like the Kwack-o-Ray. Show some inventiveness!....

I'd say it depends on the type of game your trying to make. For example if your going to make a game set in the old west, you should use weaponry one would expect to find the in the old west. That means to spitting Hydras or Kwack-o-Rays. But it also means no machine guns or grenade launchers. Of course a game that has a slightly sillier premise can afford to include slightly sillier weaponry. A good example of this would be Destroy All Humans, where your arsenal of weaponry includes a Zap-o-matic and an Anal Probe.

It really depends on the type of game.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

:no:

We're so different. I'd have assassinated Hitler and taken command of the NAZI party. Of course, my rule would have been much different from his but the rest of you would be speaking German regardless. :rasberry:

I already speak German. Interesting my ancestors were German royality. Unfortunitly royality doesnt mean much these days outside of England and a few other small countries.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

How does God break the rules of physics?

The Bible records God doing many things that are normally physicaly impossible. Although really you have to wonder how God could not break the laws of physics and still be God. Its like asking for dry water.

[Darth Executor]

I cannot find anything on the books about what you're talking about. What state are you in, so I can check the laws?

Canada. I only mentioned it because your post reminded me of an american friend of mine. A lady at his church had a gay son who contracted aids from having sex with another man. The man knew he had aids but there was nothing his mother could do, nor could anyone press charges as the law only protected heterosexual people.

Why is it a dumb law? Is this to say that if you contract AIDS, I should have the right to enact legislation keeping you from having sex?

Not the right, the obligation (though in my case you would not need it, if I knew I had AIDs I'd sooner kill myself before I risked infecting anybody else). There is no cure for aids, it is deadly and it can be transmitted. More than enough reason to quarantine those infected.

There are allready a great number of laws protecting the public from transmission, such as disclosure agreements, and many states classify the forcefull transmission of the virus with intent to cause harm, as a felony, rather than assault.

It should be classified as attempted murder/murder and the offender should be punished accordingly. In fact, the punishment should be even more severe since a gunshot to the head causes less suffering than destroying someone's immune system and letting them die slowly.

I assure you, you're in no greater danger due to homosexuality, than you are anybody else.

I was talking about AIDS, not homosexuality. :huh: I'm in no danger from homosexuality itself at all.


Genesis 1:1 NIV


Method doesn't matter, when your making matter. ;)



Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

:huh:

Method does matter, because it says "God created the heavens and the earth", not "God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing". The word used for the creation of the heavens as the earth is the same as the one used for the creation of man, and man was created out of something, not nothing. Personally, I would assume that God's wish provides the energy required to create anything. I'm sure an omnipotent God has plenty of it to spare. :wink:

[Darth Executor]

The Bible records God doing many things that are normally physicaly impossible.

I have had this discussion many times with both atheists and other Christians and I have yet to see anybody prove with reasonable certainty that God broke a law of physics.

Although really you have to wonder how God could not break the laws of physics and still be God. Its like asking for dry water.

I'm not arguing that God can't break them, I'm arguing that God doesn't break them.

[Goth_S]

Canada. I only mentioned it because your post reminded me of an american friend of mine. A lady at his church had a gay son who contracted aids from having sex with another man. The man knew he had aids but there was nothing his mother could do, nor could anyone press charges as the law only protected heterosexual people.

What year did this occur? State?
It's generally viewed as a felony.

However, if these protections are not extended to homosexuals, then I point to that as just another denial of the same rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy.




Not the right, the obligation (though in my case you would not need it, if I knew I had AIDs I'd sooner kill myself before I risked infecting anybody else). There is no cure for aids, it is deadly and it can be transmitted. More than enough reason to quarantine those infected.

Setting a dangerous precident there....

What your talking about is akin to the Japanese internment camps.
Heck, all I would have to do to get YOU quarantined is prove that christianity were deadly to the public health.

Depending on whomever was in power, with that precident, I might just win.

Do tell how this is in any manner, ethical?


It should be classified as attempted murder/murder and the offender should be punished accordingly. In fact, the punishment should be even more severe since a gunshot to the head causes less suffering than destroying someone's immune system and letting them die slowly.

I hardly think that a civilian (a canadian at that) could comment on American disciplinary measures. However, failure to inform one's partner about having the AIDS virus, is indeed a felony in many cases.


I was talking about AIDS, not homosexuality. :huh: I'm in no danger from homosexuality itself at all.

Then why the fuss over homosexuals and AIDS?
Do you fear roving bands of anal rapists?

A worthy fear to be sure, but hardly a justified one, considering your risk of being hit by a car, is probably greater by a substantial margin.


Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

:huh:

Method does matter, because it says "God created the heavens and the earth", not "God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing". The word used for the creation of the heavens as the earth is the same as the one used for the creation of man, and man was created out of something, not nothing. Personally, I would assume that God's wish provides the energy required to create anything. I'm sure an omnipotent God has plenty of it to spare. :wink:


Ah. And I suppose "breathing life" into dust, is also a scientific explanation, eh?

Good to know that God's "wishes" are all that is needed to create.

Of course, this is self defeatest of you to say, because that in itself, would defy the laws of physics, as one cannot simply "wish" things into existance.




Love,
Goth_S

[Goth_S]

The Bible records God doing many things that are normally physicaly impossible. Although really you have to wonder how God could not break the laws of physics and still be God. Its like asking for dry water.


Precicely my point.



Love,
Goth_S

[Darth Executor]

What year did this occur? State?
It's generally viewed as a felony.

Sorry, I don't remember the location. It was in the last 2-3 years.

Setting a dangerous precident there....

What's so dangerous about stopping people with a transmittable, incurable deadly disease from spreading it?

What your talking about is akin to the Japanese internment camps.

:hrm: How? Japanese internment camps quarantined people based on race. Race did not pose a danger. The only way the anaology would make sense is if you guys were using mindreading devices to lock up japanese spies and saboteurs. As it stands this seems to be only a variation of Godwin's law.

Heck, all I would have to do to get YOU quarantined is prove that christianity were deadly to the public health.

What is it with you and destroying Christianity? I hate to tell you this but if atheists try anything when we're the majority you really won't like the results. :wink:

Depending on whomever was in power, with that precident, I might just win.

Anybody stupid enough to support such a motion will find themselves in danger of losing their head. Not just from Christians but other non-theists who don't like where this is going.

Do tell how this is in any manner, ethical?

If a psychopath was running around and posed a danger to other people, would you allow him to run around or prevent him from hurting people? I didn't suggest that we put people with AIDS in internment camps. I suggested that they should not be allowed to risk spreading the virus. Are you saying people should be around to spread diseases at will as long as they tell the other person? I don't know about you but I'd like AIDS wiped out and if people who have it stop spreading it it would get wiped out within a couple of generations. If they want to have sex, they can find another infected partner.

I hardly think that a civilian (a canadian at that) could comment on American disciplinary measures.

I didn't comment on American disciplinary measures, I commented on universal disciplinary measures. What made you think my opinion extended only to the US?

Then why the fuss over homosexuals and AIDS?

I don't recall fussing over anything or even bringing up the fact that homosexuals and aids might be a problem.

Ah. And I suppose "breathing life" into dust, is also a scientific explanation, eh?

Did I say it is?

Good to know that God's "wishes" are all that is needed to create.

Of course, this is self defeatest of you to say, because that in itself, would defy the laws of physics, as one cannot simply "wish" things into existance.

When did "wishing things into existance is impossible" become a law of physics? Which scientist discovered it?

[Goth_S]

Ugh...are you desperately *trying* to be difficult?


Sorry, I don't remember the location. It was in the last 2-3 years.

Some of these laws are fairly recent, though I'm pretty sure they were enacted earlier than this.


What's so dangerous about stopping people with a transmittable, incurable deadly disease from spreading it?

Ah. Indeed. So..........we should also lock up anybody with Diabetes. That is after all, a genetic disorder, easily passed down from generation to generation. Maybe heart disease too. Pretty much anything that puts a burden on humanity. Why stop at AIDS?

>.-


:hrm: How? Japanese internment camps quarantined people based on race. Race did not pose a danger. The only way the anaology would make sense is if you guys were using mindreading devices to lock up japanese spies and saboteurs. As it stands this seems to be only a variation of Godwin's law.

They posed a *perceived* threat.


What is it with you and destroying Christianity? I hate to tell you this but if atheists try anything when we're the majority you really won't like the results. :wink:

Ah. Threats. Indeed. God forbid you take it as the example in which it was intended. That might be something christ would do.

Schmuck.

My *point* was to compare an aspect of your life, and put it under the effects of persecution, just as you're putting AIDS victims under the microscope.

I never said anything about destroying christianity. Say it slowly..."Ex-am-ple"


Anybody stupid enough to support such a motion will find themselves in danger of losing their head. Not just from Christians but other non-theists who don't like where this is going.

Oooh....yeah....talk tough to me.

I ph33r yer 1337 sk1llz!11!!11!!shift!1!1



If a psychopath was running around and posed a danger to other people, would you allow him to run around or prevent him from hurting people?

Um...are you actually comparing people with AIDS to psychopaths with an actual *intent* to kill?


I didn't suggest that we put people with AIDS in internment camps. I suggested that they should not be allowed to risk spreading the virus. Are you saying people should be around to spread diseases at will as long as they tell the other person? I don't know about you but I'd like AIDS wiped out and if people who have it stop spreading it it would get wiped out within a couple of generations. If they want to have sex, they can find another infected partner.

And...how pray thee tell, do you intend to stop people from having sex?
How do you presume yourself to be any safer?

I was talking about AIDS, not homosexuality. I'm in no danger from homosexuality itself at all.

Are you not capable of asking your prospective partner to get an STD test? Wouldn't you *still* do that, even if AIDS were eradicated? Would that not be the *smart* way to go?

I fail to see how keeping AIDS victims from having sex would in any way save your butt.

What, are you a vampire or something? Do you go running around licking people's open sores? How exactly would you enforce such a ridiculous law?

"STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!! PUT YOUR PANTS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM, AND YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR!!! I KNOW YOU'VE GOT AIDS SCUMBAG!"


Gimme a break.


I didn't comment on American disciplinary measures, I commented on universal disciplinary measures. What made you think my opinion extended only to the US?

Well, probably because I know of few other nations that have any laws concerning transmitting AIDS through sexual contact without alerting the partner.



I don't recall fussing over anything or even bringing up the fact that homosexuals and aids might be a problem.

You stated that you thought there was allready a law on the books forbiding those with AIDS to have sex. Then you kinda lost it when I told you there wasn't, and hence this little discussion.



When did "wishing things into existance is impossible" become a law of physics? Which scientist discovered it?

Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed.

What else would you call "wishing things into existance" brainiac?







Love,
Goth_S

[Darth Executor]

Ugh...are you desperately *trying* to be difficult?

No. I believe the difficulty comes from the fact that you insist on conjuring assumptions about me out of thin air. One might even say you're breaking the laws of physics. :wink:




Ah. Indeed. So..........we should also lock up anybody with Diabetes. That is after all, a genetic disorder, easily passed down from generation to generation. Maybe heart disease too.

Both can be avoided by not eating like a pig. Why the word "also"? When did I suggest we lock anybody up?

Pretty much anything that puts a burden on humanity. Why stop at AIDS?
>.-

Sure, I have no problem with preventing other contagious diseases from spreading by banning individuals from certain acts. I don't live in a society to do as I please and put everybody else at risk.

They posed a *perceived* threat.

And people who have aids that have sex with people who don't have aids are simply a "perceived" threat?

Ah. Threats. Indeed. God forbid you take it as the example in which it was intended. That might be something christ would do.

Threats??? :lmbo:

My *point* was to compare an aspect of your life, and put it under the effects of persecution, just as you're putting AIDS victims under the microscope.

Your connection does not make sense, as religion is not a contagious, deadly disease. Atheism outbreaks, on the other hand, seem to have appeared rather recently and only affected small ammounts of the population. Hmm...

I never said anything about destroying christianity. Say it slowly..."Ex-am-ple"

Yes yes, I know it was an example, but it's not the first time you used a similar example, and I was simply wondering about the reasoning behind it.


Um...are you actually comparing people with AIDS to psychopaths with an actual *intent* to kill?

No, I am comparing one deadly threat to another. We do what must be done in one case. Why not in the other?


And...how pray thee tell, do you intend to stop people from having sex?

The same way we stop people from shooting other people.

How do you presume yourself to be any safer?

By not marrying anybody with a shady past.


Are you not capable of asking your prospective partner to get an STD test? Wouldn't you *still* do that, even if AIDS were eradicated? Would that not be the *smart* way to go?

Why do you insist on making this about me? If you think I want to enact laws like these to save my own skin you're quite mistaken. I want them enacted to destroy AIDS.

I fail to see how keeping AIDS victims from having sex would in any way save your butt.

What, are you a vampire or something? Do you go running around licking people's open sores? How exactly would you enforce such a ridiculous law?

"STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!!! PUT YOUR PANTS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM, AND YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR!!! I KNOW YOU'VE GOT AIDS SCUMBAG!"

Gimme a break.

Shoot anybody who is found breaking it (and it doesn't have to be a cop busting in on two people having sex, it could be as a result of an investigation) on sight, like we treat other dangerous criminals who knowingly spread death.


Well, probably because I know of few other nations that have any laws concerning transmitting AIDS through sexual contact without alerting the partner.

So? I proposed a law I wanted enacted. Why does it have to be only in the US? I'd think other countries could use it a lot more than you.


You stated that you thought there was allready a law on the books forbiding those with AIDS to have sex. Then you kinda lost it when I told you there wasn't, and hence this little discussion.

*sigh* I asked about HOMOSEXUALITY, and why you are accusing me of things I never said regarding it. Try to pay attention please.

Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed.

What else would you call "wishing things into existance" brainiac?

Matter is energy. If the energy God's omnipotent mind puts forth in the form of a wish is converted into matter then the law is not broken. What's so hard to understand?

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . she said something like "I'm not here to teach you or tell you what is right; everyone's opinion is welcome and valid". I was perplexed by this (and a little disappointed, as I had been expecting to benefit from her superior knowledge) and said "Well, if you don't know more about the Bible than I do, then you have wasted the money you have spent on Seminary!" She was not too pleased by this.

Hi Tony,

Why were you perplexed and disappointed by this? Surely the purpose of such classes is not to give us a list of things to memorise, but to provide us with the tools to work out the answers for ourselves.

In my limited experience of being educated myself, and of trying to educate the folk in my church, one of the first lessons is 'you are actually allowed to think'! Once this massive barrier is climbed, the next lesson is 'how to think', a slightly easier one IMO. By think, I both mean 'switch da brain on' as well as thinking exegetically, etc. I reckon that this may have been what your Pastor was doing. It certainly was the approach my 'Introduction to Biblical Studies' Pastor took when I started out. Likewise, it is the approach I take when doing 'Introduction to Discipleship'. In fact, the other Sunday I said to the folks "If you have left your brain at the front door, please go and bring it in, cause you'll be needing it".

Part of the problem JP has highlighted is surely down to pew fodder who have sat there for years nodding their heads in polite agreement with the preacher, while not understanding what was being said? Especially if it is now that same generation of nodding heads which are 'running the show'.

[Johnny MacManky]

It is my assertion that unless a church is talking about these things that are directly causing people to drop their faith and/or weaken it, it is not really being a good church. . ..

Ooooh, I betcha you've got Lutheran blood in ya somewhere...

In his 'urgent message to Church leaders re: the DVC' Dr Erwin Lutzer paraphrased Martin Luther: "We always need to speak to those issues that are presently under attack, otherwise we are wating our time."

John

[jpholding]

Ooooh, I betcha you've got Lutheran blood in ya somewhere...

Not me. It's mainly from Ottoman Turks. :hehe:

[Goth_S]

No. I believe the difficulty comes from the fact that you insist on conjuring assumptions about me out of thin air. One might even say you're breaking the laws of physics. :wink:

Same could be said about you. I think you know what you *want* to say, you're just failing at making your point.

Both can be avoided by not eating like a pig. Why the word "also"? When did I suggest we lock anybody up?

And AIDS could be avoided by having safe sex.



Sure, I have no problem with preventing other contagious diseases from spreading by banning individuals from certain acts. I don't live in a society to do as I please and put everybody else at risk.

Do you drive?


And people who have aids that have sex with people who don't have aids are simply a "perceived" threat?

It takes two to tango. That person on your lawn in broad daylight, *might* be a robber. But it's up to you to make that call, and respond accordingly.
Anybody that doesn't have AIDS has a responsibility to make sure they keep it that way. By practicing responsible sex.


Your connection does not make sense, as religion is not a contagious, deadly disease. Atheism outbreaks, on the other hand, seem to have appeared rather recently and only affected small ammounts of the population. Hmm...

I dissagree. But that's a matter of opinion. ;)



No, I am comparing one deadly threat to another. We do what must be done in one case. Why not in the other?

There are very rare cases in which we strip humans of their basic biological rights, to contain a disease.



The same way we stop people from shooting other people.

*chuckles*

And how do we do that, pray tell?



By not marrying anybody with a shady past.

Sounds like a pretty good plan. Keep doing it, and I'm sure you'll be just fine.





Why do you insist on making this about me? If you think I want to enact laws like these to save my own skin you're quite mistaken. I want them enacted to destroy AIDS.

Seems like a fairly extreme course of action, in the face of something so relatively minor.



Shoot anybody who is found breaking it (and it doesn't have to be a cop busting in on two people having sex, it could be as a result of an investigation) on sight, like we treat other dangerous criminals who knowingly spread death.

I beg your pardon, but this is hardly responsible behavior, even for a christian to propose.

Nor is it even remotely ethical.


So? I proposed a law I wanted enacted. Why does it have to be only in the US? I'd think other countries could use it a lot more than you.

The problem is




*sigh* I asked about HOMOSEXUALITY, and why you are accusing me of things I never said regarding it. Try to pay attention please.

:whack:


Matter is energy. If the energy God's omnipotent mind puts forth in the form of a wish is converted into matter then the law is not broken. What's so hard to understand?

What pray tell, is a wish's "energy"? Is it electrical? Kinetic? Thermal?
I simply must know this new theory of "wish dynamics"






Love,
Goth_S

[jwarrend]

JP,

I am a big fan of your apologetics site; I appreciate the time and energy you invest and the thoughtful and thorough presentation of the material that you provide. I have read your article, and while I agree with the overall thrust of what you're trying to say, I think that the presentation is unproductively accusatory given how heavily it seems to rely on generalizations.

First, some points of agreement. I agree that no Christian should become apostate as a result of the kinds of arguments that one finds on skeptical websites. I agree that all Christians should be presented with basic arguments as to why the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy (and that mature Christians should be conversant with such arguments). I also think that all churches should have a mechanism in place whereby someone with a question about some particular point of doctrine can be put in contact with a member of the leadership who can get a timely and satisfactory answer to that question. I agree that critical thinking skills should be encouraged and cultivated.

I do not agree that apologetics should be the topic of all (or even most) Sunday sermons. By and large, apologetics should really only kick in in response to actual questions. I don't think it's all that productive to raise a question that someone never had in the first place, even if you're going to turn right around and answer it. Someone who had never heard of the pagan copycat hypothesis is not necessarily going to be helped by a great sermon in which that hypothesis is refuted. For one, they are probably not really going to be presented with the most vigorous formulation of the skeptical argument (and thus, it's quite likely the speaker will be knocking down a straw man), and for two, they may simply lose interest because it's not a subject in which they have any interest. And that's ok. Not everyone has to find apologetics riveting. However, I do think it's important to teach people the principle that all skeptical questions can be answered, and to provide them with good ways of going about getting those answers.

There is more to the Christian life than having a rational reason to affirm the veracity of Christian beliefs. Christ didn't spend His entire time with the Disciples convincing them of who He was; He taught them about how they were supposed to live, and what they were supposed to do. For someone who accepts the Bible as God's word and believes in Christ, being convinced further of the truth of core points of doctrine may not be as productive as learning practical ways of living out Christ's teachings in the real world.

I also think that it's a matter of how the material is presented. There is no reason that a sermon about Christian living cannot be intellectually stimulating or well thought-out. In my own experience, I've found that some of the most engaging sermons I've heard were those that were ultra-practical. The problem I have is more with sermons that purport to be about Christian living but leave things entirely in the abstract, and don't give specific practical applications of the concept under discussion.

Because there's more to life than apologetics, there's also a place for things like a church building a gym, and flashy youth programs, and other things that you criticize somewhat condescendingly. I don't think this helps your case. These side comments are a distraction from the central premise of your article, and may put people on the defensive rather than encouraging them to consider the positive case you're making for more emphasis on advanced topics.

So, I think the overall idea of your piece is very good: the church should foster critical thinking skills, should equip believers to have a rational defense for their faith, and should help them to find answers when they have questions. The church should not try to package the faith so that it will be more palatable, and shouldn't water down doctrine so much that it doesn't challenge or offend anyone. I think that if you recast your argument into a positive case for greater emphasis on apologetics, rather than as a rant about defects you perceive in "most" churches (whatever that means), you'll have something that will be much more useful.

Hope this is in some way helpful.

In Christ,

Jeff

[Goth_S]

However, I do think it's important to teach people the principle that all skeptical questions can be answered,




mmmmmcareful there....



They can be answered...*to a point*
Weather or not they satisfy the neccessary criteria on the other hand....





Love,
Goth_S

[Pilgrim]

Same could be said about you. I think you know what you *want* to say, you're just failing at making your point.



And AIDS could be avoided by having safe sex.





Do you drive?




It takes two to tango. That person on your lawn in broad daylight, *might* be a robber. But it's up to you to make that call, and respond accordingly.
Anybody that doesn't have AIDS has a responsibility to make sure they keep it that way. By practicing responsible sex.




I dissagree. But that's a matter of opinion. ;)





There are very rare cases in which we strip humans of their basic biological rights, to contain a disease.





*chuckles*

And how do we do that, pray tell?





Sounds like a pretty good plan. Keep doing it, and I'm sure you'll be just fine.







Seems like a fairly extreme course of action, in the face of something so relatively minor.





I beg your pardon, but this is hardly responsible behavior, even for a christian to propose.

Nor is it even remotely ethical.




The problem is






:whack:




What pray tell, is a wish's "energy"? Is it electrical? Kinetic? Thermal?
I simply must know this new theory of "wish dynamics"






Love,
Goth_S
Just a question, do you really think AiDS is stopped through sex safe practices? I mean, it's better than unsafe sex but it would be naive to think that a condom stops AIDS. The reality is that the exact same issues confronting unsafe sex practices confront safe sex practices. Maybe in somewhat less percentages, but the risk is still there and significantly so.

I say teach people the truth about it all. Absitinance, safe sex practices, disease and most importanlty, teach kids how to make good decisions.

[Darth Executor]

Same could be said about you. I think you know what you *want* to say, you're just failing at making your point.

No, I think you're angry with Christianity and project the stereotypical image you see of it on me.


And AIDS could be avoided by having safe sex.

There is no protection against AIDS. You can reduce the chance but short of a one night stand, odds are you'll contract it from your partner.


Do you drive?

No.



It takes two to tango. That person on your lawn in broad daylight, *might* be a robber. But it's up to you to make that call, and respond accordingly. Anybody that doesn't have AIDS has a responsibility to make sure they keep it that way. By practicing responsible sex.

Anybody that doesn't have a bullet in their head has the responsibility to keep it that way. By installing Tesla Coils on their lawn and frying psychoapths who get too close.


I dissagree. But that's a matter of opinion. ;)

Da comrade.

There are very rare cases in which we strip humans of their basic biological rights, to contain a disease.

What rights? Having sex and risking spreading a disease is not a right. People with aids can have sex with other people with aids if they must.


*chuckles*

And how do we do that, pray tell?

Usually? We don't. After the people get shot an investigation takes place and the criminals are arrested.


Sounds like a pretty good plan. Keep doing it, and I'm sure you'll be just fine.

:thumb:

Seems like a fairly extreme course of action, in the face of something so relatively minor.

I disagree. Believe me, I'm a totalitarian who wishes to implement plenty of extreme policies. This ain't one of them.

I beg your pardon, but this is hardly responsible behavior, even for a christian to propose.

Nor is it even remotely ethical.

It's not ethical to shoot people who knowingly spread a deadly, incurable disease? Is it ethical to shoot people who threaten others with more convetional weapons? What's the difference between a gun and AIDS?


The problem is


:whack:

No, the problem is:

You: Then why the fuss over homosexuals and AIDS?
Me: I don't recall fussing over anything or even bringing up the fact that homosexuals and aids might be a problem.
You:You stated that you thought there was allready a law on the books forbiding those with AIDS to have sex. Then you kinda lost it when I told you there wasn't, and hence this little discussion.
Me: *sigh* I asked about HOMOSEXUALITY, and why you are accusing me of things I never said regarding it. Try to pay attention please.

In case you are confused, when I said homosexuals and AIDS, I was talking about them TOGETHER. My problem was with AIDS not AIDS and homosexuality.


What pray tell, is a wish's "energy"? Is it electrical? Kinetic? Thermal?
I simply must know this new theory of "wish dynamics"

How the heck should I know? You're the one who made the claim that God broke a law of physics even though you lack the evidence required to prove it.

[Goth_S]

Just a question, do you really think AiDS is stopped through sex safe practices? I mean, it's better than unsafe sex but it would be naive to think that a condom stops AIDS. The reality is that the exact same issues confronting unsafe sex practices confront safe sex practices. Maybe in somewhat less percentages, but the risk is still there and significantly so.

I say teach people the truth about it all. Absitinance, safe sex practices, disease and most importanlty, teach kids how to make good decisions.


I didn't mean it to be *the* answer to all questions of this nature. I consider not having sex with someone who could have AIDS or is at high risk for AIDS, and all those sorts of "intelligent" choices when it comes to personal safety, as "safe sex."

I wasn't specificially reffering to condom use exclusively.

But just like I don't shoot people on sight when breaking a law, I think comrade's beleifs go just a tad off the deep end, into the realm of dictatorial paranoia.

AIDS isn't exactly something you can diagnose without a lab, so the concept of "shoot on sight" leaves me cold to say the least.







Love,
Goth_S

[Pilgrim]

I didn't mean it to be *the* answer to all questions of this nature. I consider not having sex with someone who could have AIDS or is at high risk for AIDS, and all those sorts of "intelligent" choices when it comes to personal safety, as "safe sex."

I wasn't specificially reffering to condom use exclusively.

But just like I don't shoot people on sight when breaking a law, I think comrade's beleifs go just a tad off the deep end, into the realm of dictatorial paranoia.

AIDS isn't exactly something you can diagnose without a lab, so the concept of "shoot on sight" leaves me cold to say the least.







Love,
Goth_S
Agreed

[jpholding]

I think that the presentation is unproductively accusatory given how heavily it seems to rely on generalizations.

If I provide specifics, it's going to make a lot more people upset and I'll get accused of being even more unproductive....it cuts both ways. I'll offend someone no matter what I do when I make the point that somebody is doing something wrong.

And perhaps I do assume a certain amount of background knowledge in my average reader.

I do not agree that apologetics should be the topic of all (or even most) Sunday sermons. By and large, apologetics should really only kick in in response to actual questions.

That basic I can't agree on, since what we call apologetics was the means of evangelism in Acts. It needs to be proactive, not reactive. That said, I didn't indicate that "apologetics should be the topic" of even most sermons...I'd more broadly say that something more informative should be the topic of most sermons. Not necessarily apologetics, but at least solid exegesis. And from that, practical application naturally follows. I don't dispute the need for practical application...but if your exegesis is shallow and erroneous, your application will be wrong as well. That's why we have the foolishness of churches appealing to 1 Cor. 14 to say that they won't let women teach.

So it seems clear to me that this needs to become a priority.

I don't think it's all that productive to raise a question that someone never had in the first place, even if you're going to turn right around and answer it.

I have found in practice that it is very productive in terms of the sort of Christian who wants to live and practice his/her faith to the fullest extent. It raises awareness at the very least and makes one's evangelistic efforts more confident, as would be expected if one has greater surety of the foundation of one's beliefs. Parents have been especially grateful, because their children inevitably run into this junk -- especially now that it is so easily found online.

This is like saying that it is not productive to warn people about avoiding porn on the Net, if they never ran into it before. One of our resident Skeptics here calls his work a form of pornography, by the way....

The people who I find it is NOT productive with are the sort of people who:

1) try to hold on to the reigns of power in a church as a deacon or elder and treat it as their personal fiefdom;
2) consider scholarship a threat, and would quote Col. 2:8 at me as a corrective
3) have to re-take Purpose Driven Life courses when their batteries run down

In other words, people who lack the realization I am trying to implement.

For one, they are probably not really going to be presented with the most vigorous formulation of the skeptical argument

Don't be too sure of that. I don't find it an oddity that my pagan copycat article on Mithra regularly gets thousands of hits a month, and placed in the top 5 for May 2006 in terms of hits on the site. That means people are LOOKING for an answer to that issue; and if that many are who are Internet-savvy, what of those who are not, which constitute a greater majority?


There is more to the Christian life than having a rational reason to affirm the veracity of Christian beliefs. Christ didn't spend His entire time with the Disciples convincing them of who He was

I don't dispute that. I simply see this aspect as sorely neglected.

For someone who accepts the Bible as God's word and believes in Christ, being convinced further of the truth of core points of doctrine may not be as productive as learning practical ways of living out Christ's teachings in the real world.

Living an unexamined life doesn't seem productive to me. And how about that someone who IS more convinced thereby becomes an even BETTER disciple in terms of living out Christ's teachings? This describes somone who blissfully motors along with no idea why they believe what they do. That can't possibly lead to maximum productivity.

I also think that it's a matter of how the material is presented.

Oh, no question....you should see my PowerPoint slides. :hehe: I have this great pic of Uncle Fester from the Addams Family with a lightbulb in his mouth, which one of our graphics geniuses here (Hamster) fixed up for me so that it blinks red. I use it on slides where I point out errors in something.


Because there's more to life than apologetics, there's also a place for things like a church building a gym, and flashy youth programs, and other things that you criticize somewhat condescendingly. I don't think this helps your case.

Gyms and flashy youth programs don't help our case, come to that. If someone gets on the defensive over that, maybe they need to be and maybe they need to look more closely at their priorities. The Pharisees sure got on the defensive with Jesus, didn't they? Being afraid to offend is part of the problem. It's time to stop worrying about that so much.

[JonAdams]

I know it's off topic but I feel the need to correct your physics!
Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed.It most certainly can. The destruction of matter is the basis of atomic energy and the most famous physics equation ever (E=mc2) is concerned with this phenomena. I think you mean that energy cannot be created or destroyed only change it's form.
What pray tell, is a wish's "energy"? Is it electrical? Kinetic? Thermal?
I simply must know this new theory of "wish dynamics"Not relevant. Energy can be summed up in one word: motion. If something has or is energy it is in (some form of) motion, conversely if something has no energy it has no motion (there is nothing in our universe like this). I have no problem with the idea that God is in some form of motion (I am reminded of a line from St Symeon's An Invocation to the Holy Spirit "Come, for you continue always unmoved, yet at every instant you are wholly in movement[.]" - not something I expect we'll understand very well) hence has some form of energy he can use (and since God is infinite he would have an infinite supply of that energy!)

As for the question, does God break the laws of physics? I'd answer yes and I don't see why this is a problem. The laws of physics explain how events in our universe unfold, how objects will interact and the results of those interactions. God is not a part of this universe and hence is not subject to those constraints. I see no reason why he could not have the power to temporarily suspend the laws of physics in some locality until he had performed some action there. As soon as he had finished the laws would again take effect and everything would continue on normally.

Jonathan.

[Goth_S]

I know it's off topic but I feel the need to correct your physics!
It most certainly can. The destruction of matter is the basis of atomic energy and the most famous physics equation ever (E=mc2) is concerned with this phenomena. I think you mean that energy cannot be created or destroyed only change it's form.

I was under the impression that all matter = energy.

So in a technical sense, I don't think I'm incorrect, though I admit the possibility.



Not relevant. Energy can be summed up in one word: motion. If something has or is energy it is in (some form of) motion, conversely if something has no energy it has no motion (there is nothing in our universe like this). I have no problem with the idea that God is in some form of motion (I am reminded of a line from St Symeon's An Invocation to the Holy Spirit "Come, for you continue always unmoved, yet at every instant you are wholly in movement[.]" - not something I expect we'll understand very well) hence has some form of energy he can use (and since God is infinite he would have an infinite supply of that energy!)

So god's desire is "motion" ?
I was not aware that emotions = motion.


As for the question, does God break the laws of physics? I'd answer yes and I don't see why this is a problem. The laws of physics explain how events in our universe unfold, how objects will interact and the results of those interactions. God is not a part of this universe and hence is not subject to those constraints. I see no reason why he could not have the power to temporarily suspend the laws of physics in some locality until he had performed some action there. As soon as he had finished the laws would again take effect and everything would continue on normally.

Jonathan.

Which begs the question:

Since nothing in this world is supported by supernatural forces, what precident do you pose in support of this intagible being that defies all laws of physics?


It's easy to argue over who would win if Superman and Batman got into a fight, but ultimately you're still creating criteria without grounds.

[Darth Executor]

Which begs the question:

Since nothing in this world is supported by supernatural forces, what precident do you pose in support of this intagible being that defies all laws of physics?


It's easy to argue over who would win if Superman and Batman got into a fight, but ultimately you're still creating criteria without grounds.

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? Because the laws of physics break down if you go back far enough.

[Goth_S]

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory? Because the laws of physics break down if you go back far enough.


It doesn't defy the second law of thermodynamics, though some explanations I have heard, do.

However, the key here is that word "theory."
I do not take big bang as "fact" I simply take it as a more logical extention of reason than a god that is removed from all logical systems that this existance is dependant upon.

String Theory, Holographic universe theory, Big Bang theory, etc. etc.

Humanity is still a fairly young species, despite our penchant for reveling in our accomplishments. I hardly beleive that we've gained enough experience to start stating cosmology in terms of "fact" as far as final answers go.



EDIT:

The key here, is to seperate the possible from the probable.

[Darth Executor]

It doesn't defy the second law of thermodynamics, though some explanations I have heard, do.


I'm not talking about AiG type explanations. I got that information mostly from other atheists that I have conversed with. At least one of them had a PhD in physics. I admit I have forsaken the ability to understand their explanations when I decided I hate math though. :teeth:

I do not take big bang as "fact"

I do, as do most scientists in the field.

I simply take it as a more logical extention of reason than a god that is removed from all logical systems that this existance is dependant upon.

I don't see how the Big Bang excludes the existance of a God. History is on my side as it was proposed by Christians and opposed by atheists at is birth.

Humanity is still a fairly young species, despite our penchant for reveling in our accomplishments. I hardly beleive that we've gained enough experience to start stating cosmology in terms of "fact" as far as final answers go.

Then you admit you are not qualified to decide that "god is removed from all logical systems that this existance is dependant upon"?

[Goth_S]

I'm not talking about AiG type explanations. I got that information mostly from other atheists that I have conversed with. At least one of them had a PhD in physics. I admit I have forsaken the ability to understand their explanations when I decided I hate math though. :teeth:

Perhaps you could explain to me why you beleive the Big Bang violates any laws of physics?



I do, as do most scientists in the field.

*most* is a very general term.
And I would contend that you're doing yourself damage by declaring that theories are fact.



I don't see how the Big Bang excludes the existance of a God. History is on my side as it was proposed by Christians and opposed by atheists at is birth.

Genesis.




Then you admit you are not qualified to decide that "god is removed from all logical systems that this existance is dependant upon"?


No, I don't admit that. Theories are based on observable testable evidence.
There is zero evidence to support the notion of god in the first place. The beleif in god is a far cry from cosmology.

And furthermore, he is removed by his very definition. One cannot be "all powerful" if one is constrained to things like gravity and the laws of thermodynamics. ;)

[jwarrend]

If I provide specifics, it's going to make a lot more people upset and I'll get accused of being even more unproductive....it cuts both ways. I'll offend someone no matter what I do when I make the point that somebody is doing something wrong.

If you have specific congregations in mind, you could address your remarks specifically to them. If you have a broad swath of Christianity in mind, perhaps you could provide statistics legitimizing your premises. As it stands, you are using generalizations, which are only persuasive if they actually resonate with peoples' experience. In this case, I'd say it's probably highly variable, and that's why I advocate changing your argument to a positive case for what the church should look like, in your view, rather than an indictment. That way, you avoid any trouble from people (like me) who think your basic argument is good but question why you're presenting it as a polemic against "most" churches.

That said, I didn't indicate that "apologetics should be the topic" of even most sermons...I'd more broadly say that something more informative should be the topic of most sermons. Not necessarily apologetics, but at least solid exegesis.

That's fine, and I don't disagree with that. But again, I think stating it in this way instead of making the generalization that most churches are not providing solid exegesis would improve the quality of the piece.


I have found in practice that it is very productive in terms of the sort of Christian who wants to live and practice his/her faith to the fullest extent.
It raises awareness at the very least and makes one's evangelistic efforts more confident, as would be expected if one has greater surety of the foundation of one's beliefs.

I agree, and that's why I enjoy apologetics, and that's why you like apologetics. And I think it's perfectly appropriate to dig into heavy duty apologetics in a self-selected group. But in the pews on Sunday morning, you have an audience of people of different ages, levels of education, and levels of spiritual maturity, and handling a complex topic could just leave a significant fraction of your audience in the dust, and that accomplishes nothing. I think there's probably a way to do it, but I think that the topic has to be chosen very carefully.


This is like saying that it is not productive to warn people about avoiding porn on the Net, if they never ran into it before.

It all depends on the likelihood that they'll come across the subject. With something like the Davinci code or the Gospel of Judas, which have mass media exposure, you're right, churches should equip their members to know how to approach such works. (And many churches are doing just that!) With something more esoteric like the Christ myth hypothesis, yes, some people will come across it but that doesn't mean you need to refute it for the entire congregation. I think the better approach is, again, to establish the principle that such challenges to the faith can be addressed, and to make available an infrastructure whereby members can get help with questions they may be having. But to preemptively address every possible challenge that believers could face would not only be impossible, but might also lead to the erroneous conclusion that because there are so many grounds on which Christianity can be challenged, perhaps Christianity really is bogus.



Don't be too sure of that. I don't find it an oddity that my pagan copycat article on Mithra regularly gets thousands of hits a month, and placed in the top 5 for May 2006 in terms of hits on the site. That means people are LOOKING for an answer to that issue; and if that many are who are Internet-savvy, what of those who are not, which constitute a greater majority?


My point was more that I suspect it might be unlikely that a pastor, in a 30 minute sermon, could present a version of the copycat hypothesis that would be as compelling as the one a skeptic would present, and still have time to refute it. And if he's going to present a straw man, he might as well just avoid the topic altogether. I think that if you want to encourage people to think things through, you have to encourage them to not settle for quick and easy answers (and I know that you do encourage people in this way).


Living an unexamined life doesn't seem productive to me. And how about that someone who IS more convinced thereby becomes an even BETTER disciple in terms of living out Christ's teachings? This describes somone who blissfully motors along with no idea why they believe what they do. That can't possibly lead to maximum productivity.

True, but again, there is more to the Christian life than apologetics. What is a better use of one's time -- spending 30 minutes praising and worshipping God or debating theology on an internet forum? There's probably not a rigid answer to this question, and indeed, everything in moderation is probably the best way to go. That's why I basically agree with what you're saying; there should be some substantive intellectual growth happening in the believer. But as Christians, we don't just need to learn how to think: we also need to learn how to pray, how to worship, how to serve, how to evangelize. And all of those things need to be taught from the pulpit as well. Can they be taught in a way that is more intellectually stimulating? Absolutely. Should they be moved to the side to make room for more sermons refuting Mithraism? Absolutely not.


Gyms and flashy youth programs don't help our case, come to that. If someone gets on the defensive over that, maybe they need to be and maybe they need to look more closely at their priorities.

My point was more that gyms and youth programs don't have anything to do with the topic you're raising. If you want to criticize such practices with a thorough treatment, go ahead! But throwing them in as a gratuitous jab will make people less receptive to the good things you're trying to say.


The Pharisees sure got on the defensive with Jesus, didn't they? Being afraid to offend is part of the problem. It's time to stop worrying about that so much.

I don't disagree, but there's a time and place for everything. I don't think being offensive simply to blow off some steam is productive to the purpose of your piece. At worst, that is what you were doing. At best, you were drawing a false dichotomy; for why cannot a church build a new gym AND emphasize apologetics? Why can a church not have a flashy youth program AND equip the youth to examine their faith critically?

-Jeff

[Goth_S]

I don't disagree, but there's a time and place for everything. I don't think being offensive simply to blow off some steam is productive to the purpose of your piece. At worst, that is what you were doing. At best, you were drawing a false dichotomy; for why cannot a church build a new gym AND emphasize apologetics? Why can a church not have a flashy youth program AND equip the youth to examine their faith critically?



Convert first, teach later?

[Only2religions]

Some are awakening to the fact that they had better get up to speed on this topic, too:

Kurt Wise: "Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. "


Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=344
April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson

Excerpts:

"Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centersthe Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board's annual spring meeting.

Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.

"One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day," Mohler said.-

"This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day."

Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...

...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern's Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research.

Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.

Wise replaces William Dembski, who is leaving Southern Seminary to join the faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so he can be closer to his family.

"With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches," Moore said. [snip] ..

*

A couple of interesting items on the web regarding Kurt Wise:

[1] 7/3/2003 http://www.christianforums.com/t43741&page=12 "Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable." ~ Kurt Wise

[2] December 19th 2004 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44017 Theologyweb.com

Post # 7:

"...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I'd like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs."

*

Of course, that sort of stance rightly invites articles such as this from snickering, rabid atheists like Richard Dawkins:

Sadly, an Honest Creationist - by Richard Dawkins http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_21_4


More:

[1] What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

[2] "..In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles..."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c007.html

Quote: "Conflicts between Science and the Bible arise from either a lack of scientific knowledge or a defective understanding of the Bible." ~ Moses Maimonides




Comments welcome. I want to post this in a few hours but more can always be added later.

*********


DRAFT -- subject to additions

This is an article about how the church at large has failed us.

It is, of course, by no means meant to imply that there are not exceptions to the rules to be discussed. You may be part of a local church body without these failings, and if you are, you should be glad of it. But let's be honest -- most churches ARE failing when it comes to these matters we will discuss.

Here is the problem that I see re-occurs time and time again:

1. Our churches do not educate people in the basics of their faith. We seldom if ever hear about things like textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, alleged "copycat" savior gods, etc.
2. Because our people are not educated in these matters, they are caught "flat footed" when confronted with them.
3. Some people are unaffected and simply go on their merry way. Good for them, maybe. Others start having questions.
4. Their pastors cannot answer their questions because they too are generally lacking in such knowledge; their degrees are more geared towards counseling or preaching technique. Likewise Sunday School teachers and other figures of authority, who generally have even less relevant education. Persons with questions are told that eg, questioning is evil, they should have faith, etc. which is not satisfactory.
5. The lack of education also extends to the public sector, where people are not taught to think critically, nor to evaluate credibility of sources, but rather that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. The church often teaches this as well, explicity or implicitly.
6. Persons with questions come across Skeptical literature in print or online that is mostly written by persons with no better education in the relevant areas. However, because the reader also lacks the necessary education and thinking skills, the base level of what is called "common sense" (as it would often be, if indeed the facts were as the literature says) becomes persuasive precisely because of their ignorance. For example, ignorance of the process and science of textual criticism could lead to the erroneous "common sense" conclusion that there is some problem in that we have "only copies of copies of copies" of the New Testament.
7. By this time it is often too late to even provide such people with sound material by credible authorities. They are not able to comprehend even the simplest defense at times (and indeed, certain things simply can NOT be simplified so much, for otherwise they lose power and credibility as defenses), because they have not been given the adequate foundation to understand what someone like eg, a Bruce Metzger says about textual criticism. Because it violates what they have taken to be a sound, "common sense" approach by a non-authority who is equally in the dark, it is simple for them to simply dismiss answering material as some sort of desperate effort to resolve what is really a very serious problem (though in reality it isn't).

What can or needs to be done about this?

* Taking your church through "Purpose Driven Life" won't solve this.
* Reading "Left Behind" novels won't solve this.
* More contemporary music programs and "seeker-friendly" techniques won't solve this.
* Joel Osteen will DEFINITELY not solve this.
* Your average Sunday School materials, which strain mightily to make passages like Is. 42 somehow relevant to the average working person, won't solve this.
* Building a new church gymnasium won't solve this.
* Youth programs involving gimmicks and games won't solve this.
* Passing our tracts won't solve this.

Of course I'm being facetious. The only way to solve this is with a solid educational program, which is exactly what we lack in so many of our churches. It's time for fewer prefab sermons, with their rampant decontextualizations, and time for more demonstrations on textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, and so on. It's time to make such efforts a priority and not something we take after the damage is done and we need to play "catch up". It's time to be proactive instead of reactive. It's time to make these things something that is discussed from the pulpit on Sunday morning, not hidden away in Sunday night church training classes or Wednesday night Bible study. It's also time to make this part of our evangelism, and throw away or at least de-prioritize all the gimmicks like the "Evangecubes" and the poorly drawn Chick tracts.

What's a good way to test this?

* Did your church do anything about The Da Vinci Code? What, and when (Sunday morning when so many people were there, or on some obscure night when they know only a handful will show up)?
* How about the Gospel of Judas? Was anything said about it?
* Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved down their throats?
* Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus?
* If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today), or the argument stricture of i Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent" passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just glaze over?

There are some answers to this that are no good:

* "This kind of approach will intimidate people." Does it occur to someone who says this that the Gospel was a very intimidating message in its time, one that upended all of the social values of its day? Let's not water down the facts or the message behind them for the sake of making yet more converts without an adequate foundation.
* "The Holy Spirit will move people." Then you don't need to preach watered-down feelgood sermons either, do you? Obviously no one practices this idea consistently except for the sort of person who a century or so back would not send a missionary to India under the reasoning that the Spirit would do all the work without missionaries. At least they were consistent in their approach.

Consider this a call to action.

[jwarrend]

Convert first, teach later?

I'm not sure how you got that from my remarks.

-Jeff

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps you could explain to me why you beleive the Big Bang violates any laws of physics?

I believe it because scientists told me it is. Seeing how many of them were atheists, I have no reason to doubt their word. If you want to know exactly how the laws of physics break down, you'd have to ask them although I have a feeling the explanations will be beyond both our cromprehension.



*most* is a very general term.
And I would contend that you're doing yourself damage by declaring that theories are fact.

Why? Theories are backed up by evidence. I will consider something to be fact if the evidence support it. Should newly discovered evidence point towards something else, I will change my beliefs accordingly.

Genesis.

What of Genesis? "God created the heavens and the earth." How does this exclude the Big Bang?


No, I don't admit that. Theories are based on observable testable evidence.
There is zero evidence to support the notion of god in the first place. The beleif in god is a far cry from cosmology.

What constitutes evidence? There are claims that people have experienced God. You may not consider claims to be GOOD evidence, but they are still evidence. In fact, you make most decisions based on other people's claims. Unless you experienced something for yourself, you have to take someone else's word for it.

And furthermore, he is removed by his very definition. One cannot be "all powerful" if one is constrained to things like gravity and the laws of thermodynamics. ;)

I don't recall saying He is constrained by those laws. I challenged your statement that you somehow know God broke a law of physics.

[Goth_S]

I believe it because scientists told me it is. Seeing how many of them were atheists, I have no reason to doubt their word. If you want to know exactly how the laws of physics break down, you'd have to ask them although I have a feeling the explanations will be beyond both our cromprehension.

I dunno. I'm usually pretty good with physics. I'm just curious as to how the Big bang may have broken any laws of physics. If so, I'd love to hear how. Perhaps it might adjust my understanding of the subject.


Why? Theories are backed up by evidence. I will consider something to be fact if the evidence support it. Should newly discovered evidence point towards something else, I will change my beliefs accordingly.

Fact is a tricky word, according to Epistimology.
Evolution, is a fact in my book. Big bang? I'm not sure I'd extend the same sort of reliance.


What of Genesis? "God created the heavens and the earth." How does this exclude the Big Bang?

YEC in specific.




What constitutes evidence? There are claims that people have experienced God. You may not consider claims to be GOOD evidence, but they are still evidence. In fact, you make most decisions based on other people's claims. Unless you experienced something for yourself, you have to take someone else's word for it.

Evidence must be considered as such by observable and testable methods.
"Experiencing God" is not admissable in this sense.


I don't recall saying He is constrained by those laws. I challenged your statement that you somehow know God broke a law of physics.

And I told you. By creating matter, (energy, whathaveyou) he directly defied them.

Further, why would god NOT be constrained? Sort of a catch-22 if you ask me. Either god IS constrained by the laws of physics, by which he is not "all poweful" or he ISN'T constrained by the laws of physics, and his existance is entirely groundless.


At least with an non-all powerful incarnation, the existance is somewhat *possible.*

But I hardly beleive that you have any evidence to support that something can exist outside of these laws, when everything else does, and there is no evidence for any such being, nay, that it's even possible to exist removed from these laws of physics.

[Darth Executor]

I dunno. I'm usually pretty good with physics. I'm just curious as to how the Big bang may have broken any laws of physics. If so, I'd love to hear how. Perhaps it might adjust my understanding of the subject.

Try this then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Fact is a tricky word, according to Epistimology.
Evolution, is a fact in my book. Big bang? I'm not sure I'd extend the same sort of reliance.

I extend them both the same sort of reliance on the grounds that I'm not an expert in the field.

YEC in specific.

Find one and argue with him then. :teeth:

Evidence must be considered as such by observable and testable methods.
"Experiencing God" is not admissable in this sense.

That's a skimmed down definition of "scientific theory", not the word "evidence".


And I told you. By creating matter, (energy, whathaveyou) he directly defied them.

But you didn't show that he created energy out of nothing! That was my entire point. You don't know how He created.

Further, why would god NOT be constrained?

If singularities can defy laws of physics then God certainly can.

Sort of a catch-22 if you ask me. Either god IS constrained by the laws of physics, by which he is not "all poweful" or he ISN'T constrained by the laws of physics, and his existance is entirely groundless.

If his existance is groundless, the existance of black holes is entirely groundless as well. :wink:


But I hardly beleive that you have any evidence to support that something can exist outside of these laws, when everything else does, and there is no evidence for any such being, nay, that it's even possible to exist removed from these laws of physics.

See article above.

[aspiretohope]

I dunno. I'm usually pretty good with physics. I'm just curious as to how the Big bang may have broken any laws of physics. If so, I'd love to hear how. Perhaps it might adjust my understanding of the subject.




Fact is a tricky word, according to Epistimology.
Evolution, is a fact in my book. Big bang? I'm not sure I'd extend the same sort of reliance.




YEC in specific.






Evidence must be considered as such by observable and testable methods.
"Experiencing God" is not admissable in this sense.




And I told you. By creating matter, (energy, whathaveyou) he directly defied them.

Further, why would god NOT be constrained? Sort of a catch-22 if you ask me. Either god IS constrained by the laws of physics, by which he is not "all poweful" or he ISN'T constrained by the laws of physics, and his existance is entirely groundless.


At least with an non-all powerful incarnation, the existance is somewhat *possible.*

But I hardly beleive that you have any evidence to support that something can exist outside of these laws, when everything else does, and there is no evidence for any such being, nay, that it's even possible to exist removed from these laws of physics.
gah

yr assuming the non-existence of God from the outset

u say:

"only reasons for God are class X"

"evidence for God from class X is incompatible with God's existence"

"so God does not exist"

gah

silly

can't define "evidence for God" out of existence, as a class, and then posit claim of "no evidence for God" as if it was meaningful

[aspiretohope]

also goth & darth should both have midnite skin

[aspiretohope]

to post on thread title:

my church has stuff jp reccomends like well done teaching and davici code night and advice on how to answer common questions

never heard mithra brought up in aussie though

only prob is i'm unlikely to discuss davinci code & such with no-christian but i'm likely to discuss ontological argument for God with atheist dude who did his MA on it

church don't help on this one

[jpholding]

If you have specific congregations in mind, you could address your remarks specifically to them. If you have a broad swath of Christianity in mind, perhaps you could provide statistics legitimizing your premises.

It's hard to put 20 years of experience and observation into that kind of format. If you doubt the nature of my "generalizations" then I look forward to a better explanation of why eg, churches like Joel Osteen's get such enormous crowds and why it is that the list of 50 Most Influential Christians includes so many that offer questionable or even heretical teachings. I'm saying little that has not already been said conceptually in works like Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, or as John MacArthur has observed with respect to the paucity of sound hymns as compared to inane praise choruses.


As it stands, you are using generalizations, which are only persuasive if they actually resonate with peoples' experience. In this case, I'd say it's probably highly variable

Based on? It seems the majority of comments here come from people who see the same thing I do....the exception has been from a denomination that seems to be the model for what I WANT to happen.

That way, you avoid any trouble from people (like me) who think your basic argument is good but question why you're presenting it as a polemic against "most" churches.

You may not have noticed, but I'm not really concerned with avoiding trouble. :smile: If I was I wouldn't have become an apologist. Like I said, I'll offend someone unless I simply take everything offline and retire to a monestary.

But again, I think stating it in this way instead of making the generalization that most churches are not providing solid exegesis would improve the quality of the piece.

Until that "generalization" is proven untrue, I will state it no other way. As it is, the ripples and evidence bespeak the opposite.

But in the pews on Sunday morning, you have an audience of people of different ages, levels of education, and levels of spiritual maturity, and handling a complex topic could just leave a significant fraction of your audience in the dust, and that accomplishes nothing

Translating data into something all those people can handle is one of my specialities. I don't dispute that able communicators are part of the necessary process; I can and have been able to deal with all but the most incorrigibly dense, whom no amount of outreach will touch.

With something more esoteric like the Christ myth hypothesis, yes, some people will come across it but that doesn't mean you need to refute it for the entire congregation.

Some? My series on the Christ myth also hits the top 5 just about every month... :smile: It's getting out a lot more than you realize...

but might also lead to the erroneous conclusion that because there are so many grounds on which Christianity can be challenged, perhaps Christianity really is bogus.

If they hear it from "them" before they hear it from "us"....what will the churchgoer think? Tell me: Have you ever read Dan Barker? Robert Price? Jason Long? John Loftus (who is on here now and then)?


My point was more that I suspect it might be unlikely that a pastor, in a 30 minute sermon, could present a version of the copycat hypothesis that would be as compelling as the one a skeptic would present, and still have time to refute it.

It can be done...I do it often. Really, to use that example, you can take a few major claims and then present resources for further information. That's all I ask. But we don't get even THAT.

True, but again, there is more to the Christian life than apologetics. What is a better use of one's time -- spending 30 minutes praising and worshipping God or debating theology on an internet forum?

Given the definition of worship http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatworship.html ther latter IS an act of worship (service)....


Should they be moved to the side to make room for more sermons refuting Mithraism?

How about just ONE? That's all I ask, and we don't get even THAT. Ask a church full of people how many have even heard of Mithra....try 1 in 150, and that a college student, when I did it.

My point was more that gyms and youth programs don't have anything to do with the topic you're raising.

If time is a limited commodity, as is money, then it most certainly does.

At best, you were drawing a false dichotomy; for why cannot a church build a new gym AND emphasize apologetics? Why can a church not have a flashy youth program AND equip the youth to examine their faith critically?

They can if they want. The problem is that as a whole, they DON'T.

[jwarrend]

If you doubt the nature of my "generalizations" then I look forward to a better explanation of why eg, churches like Joel Osteen's get such enormous crowds and why it is that the list of 50 Most Influential Christians includes so many that offer questionable or even heretical teachings.

Would it be fair for a skeptic to refute Christianity solely by refuting the doctrine and teachings of Osteen? No, because you (and I) would complain that Osteen is not representative of "true" Christianity. In the same way, it's unfair for you to assume that Osteen's church is reflective of "most" or "all" local churches without backing this up.

What you COULD say as an intro to your piece is something like what you said above; that several very public figures like Osteen, Jakes, etc, are rated as highly influential, yet their sermons are frequently [deficient in this or that way]. What I'm objecting to is your blanket statement that this statement applies to "most" local churches without an attempt to justify this claim. If you even appeal anecdotally to your experience in churches you've visited/attended/spoken at, that would be a start.

Like I said, I'll offend someone unless I simply take everything offline and retire to a monestary.

I disagree; I claim that you would offend no one if you simply phrased your piece as a "way things ought to be" argument rather than as a polemic against a nebulous and vague "most churches". And you'd have a piece that would be far more useful. As it stands, I couldn't recommend the piece, but with a few simple modifications, I'd be very enthusiastic to point people to it.


Until that "generalization" is proven untrue, I will state it no other way. As it is, the ripples and evidence bespeak the opposite.

Ordinarily, the onus is on the one introducing the sweeping generalization to substantiate it. (and you can't defend a generalization with another generalization!) You have made some arguments in favor of your generalization above; why not incorporate them into your piece?


Translating data into something all those people can handle is one of my specialities. I don't dispute that able communicators are part of the necessary process; I can and have been able to deal with all but the most incorrigibly dense, whom no amount of outreach will touch.

Do you feel that "most" pastors are up to the challenge of making an intricate point of apologetics understandable for a broad audience? I'd rather have no apologetics from the pulpit than have sloppy apologetics from the pulpit.


If they hear it from "them" before they hear it from "us"....what will the churchgoer think? Tell me: Have you ever read Dan Barker? Robert Price? Jason Long? John Loftus (who is on here now and then)?

Yes to Barker, no to the others. Actually, it raises an interesting question. Do you have any idea of roughly what percentage of strong atheists are apostate Christians? I've tried to find that out but haven't ever found a way to get an actual number.



How about just ONE? That's all I ask, and we don't get even THAT. Ask a church full of people how many have even heard of Mithra....try 1 in 150, and that a college student, when I did it.

Didn't you just argue above that this is a very well known argument and thus in urgent need of being refuted?

I'm just nitpicking here. But my point is, if no one in a church ever hears of Mithra...so what? I think it's entirely possible to have a fulfilled Christian life never having heard the name or understanding why some think it's relevant. After all, one is far more likely to encounter a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon than a true Mithraist!

I just don't agree with you that pre-emptive apologetics is of primary importance. I do agree with you that teaching believers how to think and how to get answers is important, but there's just no way to innoculate them on every subject, and if you tried, you'd be distracting them from the many other subjects that are probably more important to their daily Christian lives.


If time is a limited commodity, as is money, then it most certainly does.

If you think it's important, then you should flesh out this portion of your argument. Taking a drive-by approach to criticize these practices is sloppy. Your piece got me thinking of valid defenses that a church could have for building a gym or having a flashy youth program, but really, you shouldn't allow that to happen; you should stay on target with what you actually want to talk about, rather than allow the audience's attention to drift to these ancillary subjects. If you want to address them, address them. Otherwise, they're a distraction.

-Jeff

[Goth_S]

Try this then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Ah. That. My apologies, I figured you were going the common route.

My answer to this, is that this is precicely why I do not beleive that big bang is a "fact" but rather a probable explanation, among several others.
Science has the ability to evolve with new understandings.



I extend them both the same sort of reliance on the grounds that I'm not an expert in the field.

An understandable position.


Find one and argue with him then. :teeth:

I really don't need the headache. ;)




That's a skimmed down definition of "scientific theory", not the word "evidence".

True, but they are interconnected rather well.
Your "feelings" are hardly evidence. If they were, than I'd be forced to give more weight to the claims of psychic phenominon, faith healers, witch doctors, hypnosis, Alien abductions, and any number of personal happenings that *seem* to leave an emotional imprint.

So the scientific method seems to be an appropriate divider when seperating valid claims from the mush.


But you didn't show that he created energy out of nothing! That was my entire point. You don't know how He created.

Ah. So...entire worlds can be created in 6 days, complete with water, topography, life, atmosphere, density, etc. etc. ?

Entire stars? Galaxies? Universes?

Let's not get into the garbage of what constitutes 6 days for god either...


I also don't know weather or not he exists. That's not the question my dear.
The question is, what do you have to posit his existance in the first place?
If god is to be treated with any real interest by science, then we ought to remain true to form, and call the existance of god and all actions he is presumed the perpetrator of, as a hypothosis.



If singularities can defy laws of physics then God certainly can.

We can observe Singularities. We can also adjust our knowlege pool to compensate. I understand fully with where your going, and I agree.
I conceed that your god could quite possibly violate the laws of physics as we know them. You've got me on that, and I retract my argument.




If his existance is groundless, the existance of black holes is entirely groundless as well. :wink:

I beg your pardon? Please elaborate.






gah

yr assuming the non-existence of God from the outset
u say:
"only reasons for God are class X"
"evidence for God from class X is incompatible with God's existence"
"so God does not exist"
gah

silly

can't define "evidence for God" out of existence, as a class, and then posit claim of "no evidence for God" as if it was meaningful


Um....no.


I'm not assuming the non-existance for god. I'm stating that there is no grounds to propose such a being in the first place.

I remain at the zero point. I don't have to disprove something, that I don't acknowlege in the first place.
Science dictates we follow the evidence to wherever it leads. Considering the entire world as we know it, functions on principals that work universally, and that none of them function by super-secret man on the moon technology, I feel it's safe to conclude that there is nothing special about existance. At least, nothing out of the ordinary enough to declare a third party diety.

Cosmology contains theories.
Religion contains a hypothosis.



By the By....in the future, do us both the favor of using proper english please?

[Darth Executor]

Ah. That. My apologies, I figured you were going the common route.

Now I'm intrigued: What do you mean by common route?

My answer to this, is that this is precicely why I do not beleive that big bang is a "fact" but rather a probable explanation, among several others.
Science has the ability to evolve with new understandings.

Indeed, but the problem doesn't seem to be with all of the big bang, but rather with just the beginning. Perhaps the singularities are ruled by different laws, laws which I am unlikely to ever understand. :sad:

True, but they are interconnected rather well.
Your "feelings" are hardly evidence. If they were, than I'd be forced to give more weight to the claims of psychic phenominon, faith healers, witch doctors, hypnosis, Alien abductions, and any number of personal happenings that *seem* to leave an emotional imprint.

I said experienced God, not felt God. :wink:

So the scientific method seems to be an appropriate divider when seperating valid claims from the mush.

Only if you're a scientist. If I used the scientific method consistenly in everything I do I would never get anything done as I would need to test every claim and not take anybody's word on it. Is evolution true? As it stands I assume it does. To use the scientific method would be to attempt to replicate all the core experiments and analyse all the important data before I make a decision. All that is a lot of work that will more than likely require me to get a formal education into several fields. I don't do that. You don't either. Do you rush to use the scientific method everytime someone claims to have been abducted by an alien? I suspect not. :wink:

Ah. So...entire worlds can be created in 6 days, complete with water, topography, life, atmosphere, density, etc. etc. ?

Entire stars? Galaxies? Universes?

By God? I suspect He could do it in less time if He wanted to.

Let's not get into the garbage of what constitutes 6 days for god either...

Let's not. You didn't even do me the courtesy of asking if I believe in a literal creation story. :teeth:

The question is, what do you have to posit his existance in the first place?

That is a rather broad question, don't you think?

If god is to be treated with any real interest by science, then we ought to remain true to form, and call the existance of god and all actions he is presumed the perpetrator of, as a hypothosis.

Hypothosis is not a word I found in the dictionary and I can't tell if you mean hypothesis or some other word. Personally, I'd rather God not be treated with any interest by science as science is a long way from exploring our universe, let alone what lies outside it.

I beg your pardon? Please elaborate.

Well, it was basically a repeat of the previous statement I made that you quoted so there is little need.

[papabryant]

Hello!

So to contain the virus, you hope to elliminate an entire demographic of people?

Not sure how you got that out of what I wrote (I was addressing the issue of faith v.s. reason in deciding political issues - perhaps I wasn't clear :blush: ), but on the subject I would treat AIDS as the behaviorly spread disease it is and discourage the behaviors that lead to exposure to the disease, and quarentine ONLY those who have the disease in order to prevent its further spread.

I should not carefully here that discouraging said behaviors, with the exception of IV drug use, would be strictly by social sanction, not legal (because using the weight of law on people simply because I don't approve of their behavior WOULD be tyranical, whether my reasons were religious or secular.)


And if controlling AIDS is truly the issue at hand, why the anti-condom use campaign led by many prominent religious leaders?

Could not education stem the flow of this disease as well?

The reason is simple; abstinance works, as evidenced by the anti-AIDS campaign in Uganda, which is Catholic-run, abstinance-based, and the ONLY campaign that seems to be working in sub-Saharan Africa.

Its not education itself that is the problem with the other programs, its what people are being educated with.

And ultimately, the issue of choice is involved. Barring homosexual sex for fear of aids, ought to go hand in hand with denying anybody with AIDS the ability to engage in sexual intercourse.

No, because potential is not the same as actual. Saying someone might get HIV is not the same as saying they have HIV.

Also, what materials/statistics do you have to support the assertion that a "sizable portion" of the homosexual community is "suicidal/homocidal"

Anecdotal, from two different gay men of my aquaintance. In addition, I have read news stories on the phenominon of "bug hunting", which is actively seeking to become infected with the HIV virus, and "gay Roulette" which is a sex game in which one person in a group of 6 or more strangers is infected with HIV, and people take turns exchanging partners at random.

These are known and open activities in the gay community, and while not engaged in by a majority of gay men, it is a sizable enough number to get noticed by the news media. (I'm at work now, but I'll try and find a link for you later.) It is a safe thing to say that those who engage in this behavior are both suicidal and homicidal.

With special regard to the former. Everything I've seen, shows that homosexuals are on the bottom rung, when it comes to violent offences.

With the exception of domestic violence/deaths from domestic violence, I have no reason to doubt this. But one does not have to engage in acts of violence to be concidered homicidal - one need only engage in behavior that knowingly would lead to the death of another person.

Logic dictates an invisible man that breaks all rules of physics, purely by will, despite the fact that nothing in this entire universe functions on supernatural principals? I dare say that in itself is a tricky question. If you'd like to discuss it, start a thread and I'd be happy to engage you in whatever challenge you might have.

I might just take you up on that! :teeth:

But just in passing I would say that your definition of God puts Him WITHIN the universe, rather than outside it and separate from it as the Bible describes Him as being. No god who is only a part of the whole cosmos can have power over the whole. Only the Creator of the whole can have power over the whole. The idea that God created the universe from nothing is an idea that is not found in any other theological or philosophic system.

And this is an important distiction since without it, we're argueing the wrong arguement.

But ultimately, the issue is faith vs. dissent. Despite the fact that I don't dig on "sky-daddies" my underlying point, was merely that dissenting opinions on what exactly said "sky-daddy" desires for us, is hard to use in creating middle ground.

Why? I point back to Koukl on presenting ideas and voting here. You bring to the table whatcha got, it is discussed fairly both pro and con, and then voted on with the idea that gets the most votes becoming the law of the land. Exactly the same way any other constituency does it.

So what do you propose the tie breaker would be? Kinda hard to turn an argument based out of religious reasons, when other religions say "no" and all purely based out of dogma.

Well, first off the voting system seems to work pretty good, but your assumption that "dogma" is not nor can be based on reason... I simply don't understand that reasoning.

Logical thinking and pragmatism above all, ought to rule societial actions.

I am going to illustrate the absurdity of this statement by being absurd.

It is logical and pragmatic to eliminate from society those elements which causes disunity to society at large and cost society in manpower and money to maintain/protect. Eliminate those elements that cause disunity and society is not burdened with costly and divisive political and social battles, neither is there the need to divert resources to their particular needs, which are slightly different than the rest of society.

We've just justified the holocaust, the killing of black people during the civil rights movement, etc.

Logical thinking and pragmatism are merely tools in determining the correct course of action society should take.

As a side note, I wanted to clarify, my statement of "invisible men" was meant to make clear that I do not hold any religious views, and as such, dogma has little effect on me.
No offense intended should any have been taken.

None taken; in fact, I'm more worried that I sound too harsh in reply. I have a tendency to do that in order to drive home my point. If I've done that then you have MY apologies. :blush:

Allow me to stifle my giggling here for a moment...

Given the radical push towards religious intentions, the political statements of religious adherance and the nigh-fanatical cling to such ridiculous statements such as 'god is inherrantly american' what with god being in such things as the pledge of alleigance (which wasn't added until 1954) I fail to see how this is in any way a valid statement.

I would strongly recommend reading the book "Persecuted" by David Limbaugh, which has both statistical and anecdotal evidence that trumps any of the window dressing (like the Pledge) that passes for defense of first amendment protected religious expression these days, even while admitting I find the symbolism strongly attractive. I can mail you my copy (if ya promise to mail it back. :wink: )

Influence, is indeed control.

I am attempting to influence your viewpoint right now, as you are likewise with me. But I cannot force you to adopt my views; I can only offer my view and try to convince you I am right. If I succeed in changing your mind I have merely created a fellow traveler, not a puppet. At any point you can change your mind again.

Even Hitler did not force the German people to accept the idea of Volksgeminschaft, he simply used coersion techniques that were illegitimate. The German people still had a choice of whether or not to give him power. Once he had that power, he could implement Gleichshaltung, but he had to be given control first.

Of course this brings up the whole issue of free will, but that is another debate. :ahem:

Especially when dealing with an intangible entity, whos agenda, everyone seems willing to dictate. The turning point is the god question. Faith in the invisible is fine. Legislating off of it, is not.

Then logically we must also disband the ACLU, ACLJ, and other Constitutional watchdog groups, since Freedom is invisible and everyone seems to be willing to dictate what it means.

The much more logical thing is to bring to the table your ideas, whether based on religion, secularism, whatever - and allow the marketplace of ideas to work. Examination of ALL viewpoints, regardless of source, in the political arena. Make your best case and see if you have convinced enough people that you're right. If you lose, you live with that result until the next voting cycle when you can try to convince people again.


Personally, I think any church ought to be capable of standing on it's own two feet. Multi-million dollar mega-churches, I point to in example. The problem?
Those that run them will be happy to tell you that their doing "god's work."
That god wants them to have a snazzy church, complete with dolby 5.1, and an indoor swimming pool.

Too sweeping a generalization, although I agree most mega-churches run into the problem you're suggesting.

The original concept of the mega-church is to reach as many different people as possible. To do that you need resources that many smaller Churches, like the ones I've always attended, can never get. Running a food bank is expensive; Crystal Springs AG tried when I attended there (I've moved), but could not sustain it - JP can tell you its a small Church, he's been there. So unless a wealthy benefactor attends, with all the potential internal political baggage that can sometimes bring, there isn't enough money to run a food bank or homeless shelter or ministry to get prostitutes off the streets AND pay for the lights and building payments, UNLESS you have a large church body to pull from.

The fact that so many of them fall into the trap you lay out here is symptomatic of what JP's article talks about.

Happy B-day!!
May everything desirable happen!!





Love,
Goth_S

It was wonderful! My wife and kids took me out for Gumbo and Crawfish Etouffee.

[aspiretohope]

gothess:

what I said was that to say that there is no physical evidence for something non-physical is at best a triviality

[Goth_S]

Now I'm intrigued: What do you mean by common route?

Oh, the common arguments I hear so often. "Where did the big bang come from?" etc. etc.

Personally, I beleive in an eternal universe.

Indeed, but the problem doesn't seem to be with all of the big bang, but rather with just the beginning. Perhaps the singularities are ruled by different laws, laws which I am unlikely to ever understand. :sad:

Most likely. However, once humanity figures them out, I'm willing to bet that the answer will be perfectly reasonable and free of supernatural influence.
Perhaps you dissagree?


I said experienced God, not felt God. :wink:

Define "Experienced" please



Only if you're a scientist. If I used the scientific method consistenly in everything I do I would never get anything done as I would need to test every claim and not take anybody's word on it. Is evolution true? As it stands I assume it does. To use the scientific method would be to attempt to replicate all the core experiments and analyse all the important data before I make a decision. All that is a lot of work that will more than likely require me to get a formal education into several fields. I don't do that. You don't either. Do you rush to use the scientific method everytime someone claims to have been abducted by an alien? I suspect not. :wink:

We do it all the time. Three kids are playing in a room. You hear a crash. You automatically assume that it had to be one of the three kids, but they all posit a fourth child as the culprit. Makes sense? I think not.

God is that 4th kid. So it makes sense to apply the scientific method as often as possible to determine the truth.

In practical application, we have to dumb down the procedure, I admit this fully. But those who are looking for the answer, ought to use it, don't you think?



By God? I suspect He could do it in less time if He wanted to.

And I'm sure Batman would win in a fight against superman.

What makes you say this?



Let's not. You didn't even do me the courtesy of asking if I believe in a literal creation story. :teeth:

True, but I wasn't neccessarily reffering to you specifically. Merely a part in the bible. The way I see it, if the bible is flawed, there's even less reason to posit a christian god, than there was to begin with, which wasn't much.


That is a rather broad question, don't you think?

Well, god is a fairly broad topic, so asking for clarification is a decent request I would think. What makes you think that there is a god?
The so called "complexity" argument? The idea that humans are "complicated" organisms, and their existance is not possible without some external creator?
Or perhaps the question of existance itself? The old argument that the entire world, indeed the universe, was created by intent?

What makes you beleive the things you do? An honest question, with no hidden agenda.



[/i]Hypothosis is not a word I found in the dictionary and I can't tell if you mean hypothesis or some other word. Personally, I'd rather God not be treated with any interest by science as science is a long way from exploring our universe, let alone what lies outside it.

My apologies for my poor spelling. It happens from time to time.
I meant hypothesis of course.

Why shouldn't god be treated with interest by science? What else do you have to validate the claims that god exists?




Well, it was basically a repeat of the previous statement I made that you quoted so there is little need.


Well, I think that there is a considerable difference between God and a black hole. For instance, I can't look at god through a telescope. ;)

[SpiritWoman]

Yeah, that.

Me Too.

[aspiretohope]

you can't look at a black hole through a telescope either
its black

one thing that appeals to me about God a lot is His explanatory usefullness
without God there is a lot of stuff you can't explain
(such as everything for which physics does not provide terms to discuss)
sure, if you try to explain stuff, you are more likely to be wrong
you could also be right
whereas if you don't try to explain stuff, (or try to explain an obviously God-sourced thing without God) you have no chance of being right

[Goth_S]

How'd!

Hello!

Not sure how you got that out of what I wrote (I was addressing the issue of faith v.s. reason in deciding political issues - perhaps I wasn't clear :blush: ), but on the subject I would treat AIDS as the behaviorly spread disease it is and discourage the behaviors that lead to exposure to the disease, and quarentine ONLY those who have the disease in order to prevent its further spread.

That's a sizeable number of people to quarantine. I cannot sanction such actions. Forcible removal of a populace that requires care, is hardly ethical.
Out of sight, out of mind, no?
I fear for the rights of the quarantined, and the methods used to do such procedures.

Would you quarantine your wife? Your children?


I should not carefully here that discouraging said behaviors, with the exception of IV drug use, would be strictly by social sanction, not legal (because using the weight of law on people simply because I don't approve of their behavior WOULD be tyranical, whether my reasons were religious or secular.)

Mmmmmm....to a point I might agree with this method.



The reason is simple; abstinance works, as evidenced by the anti-AIDS campaign in Uganda, which is Catholic-run, abstinance-based, and the ONLY campaign that seems to be working in sub-Saharan Africa.

Its not education itself that is the problem with the other programs, its what people are being educated with.

To a point. Abstinance works, and I've got no qualms telling people to stop having sex. How they are told this, however, is in question.
Scare tactics from god, are not getting the A-ok from me.




No, because potential is not the same as actual. Saying someone might get HIV is not the same as saying they have HIV.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you clarify?



Anecdotal, from two different gay men of my aquaintance. In addition, I have read news stories on the phenominon of "bug hunting", which is actively seeking to become infected with the HIV virus, and "gay Roulette" which is a sex game in which one person in a group of 6 or more strangers is infected with HIV, and people take turns exchanging partners at random.

IF this were true, then I would find it an extremely alarming practice. I've never heard of such things. Nor have I seen anything in any major media group that would indicate such practice. However, there are allready laws on the books to protect people that have been infected by someone intentionally.

In most states, it's classified as a felony, for attempted murder.


These are known and open activities in the gay community, and while not engaged in by a majority of gay men, it is a sizable enough number to get noticed by the news media. (I'm at work now, but I'll try and find a link for you later.) It is a safe thing to say that those who engage in this behavior are both suicidal and homicidal.

I'm afraid I'll need some sort of link before I can accept this as a justification for your position. I'll wait to pass judgment untill I see the sources. But I must say, it certaintly sounds very unlikely that these practices are anything close to a social epidemic if they indeed are happening.

What sort of things do you think could be done to prevent such mind-sets?
Do you beleive these behaviors would stop if society didn't view homosexuals at large, as second class citizens?



With the exception of domestic violence/deaths from domestic violence, I have no reason to doubt this. But one does not have to engage in acts of violence to be concidered homicidal - one need only engage in behavior that knowingly would lead to the death of another person.

I agree 100%



I might just take you up on that! :teeth:

Send me a PM directing me to the link if you do so, I would hate to miss it. This forum is quite large, and I fear I might miss something that was directed at me.


But just in passing I would say that your definition of God puts Him WITHIN the universe, rather than outside it and separate from it as the Bible describes Him as being. No god who is only a part of the whole cosmos can have power over the whole. Only the Creator of the whole can have power over the whole. The idea that God created the universe from nothing is an idea that is not found in any other theological or philosophic system.

And this is an important distiction since without it, we're argueing the wrong arguement.

Then I beleive it would be even harder to substantiate his existance in the first place.




Why? I point back to Koukl on presenting ideas and voting here. You bring to the table whatcha got, it is discussed fairly both pro and con, and then voted on with the idea that gets the most votes becoming the law of the land. Exactly the same way any other constituency does it.



Well, first off the voting system seems to work pretty good, but your assumption that "dogma" is not nor can be based on reason... I simply don't understand that reasoning.

There is a difference between dogma being in tandem with logical thought, and trying to bend logical thought to dogma, which is what I see most often.
And if we're going to follow the bible, and make rules off it, what's to stop you from enforcing your beleif in god?


I am going to illustrate the absurdity of this statement by being absurd.

It is logical and pragmatic to eliminate from society those elements which causes disunity to society at large and cost society in manpower and money to maintain/protect. Eliminate those elements that cause disunity and society is not burdened with costly and divisive political and social battles, neither is there the need to divert resources to their particular needs, which are slightly different than the rest of society.

We've just justified the holocaust, the killing of black people during the civil rights movement, etc.

I dissagree with your example, for the reason that none of these atrocities were rooted in logical thought. The jews did not pose a threat to germany as hitler stated, nor did blacks as we did in the 50's.

The premise upon which these things were based, was illogical, hence my argument still stands. Xenophobia follows no intelligent formula.


Logical thinking and pragmatism are merely tools in determining the correct course of action society should take.

I say they should dictate the course of action. Altruism is a logical system after all.

And who wouldn't want our laws to have to go through the scientific method considering some of the bizzare laws on the books, and the reasons behind them.
hehe



None taken; in fact, I'm more worried that I sound too harsh in reply. I have a tendency to do that in order to drive home my point. If I've done that then you have MY apologies. :blush:

I do the same, I think we'll get along just fine. :)



I would strongly recommend reading the book "Persecuted" by David Limbaugh, which has both statistical and anecdotal evidence that trumps any of the window dressing (like the Pledge) that passes for defense of first amendment protected religious expression these days, even while admitting I find the symbolism strongly attractive. I can mail you my copy (if ya promise to mail it back. :wink: )

I'll look for it on Amazon. Thanks :)

I have no problem with protected speech however. I'm more than willing to take a bullet for your right to have religion. But I expect you to return the favor, for my right to freedom from religion.



I am attempting to influence your viewpoint right now, as you are likewise with me. But I cannot force you to adopt my views; I can only offer my view and try to convince you I am right. If I succeed in changing your mind I have merely created a fellow traveler, not a puppet. At any point you can change your mind again.

Even Hitler did not force the German people to accept the idea of Volksgeminschaft, he simply used coersion techniques that were illegitimate. The German people still had a choice of whether or not to give him power. Once he had that power, he could implement Gleichshaltung, but he had to be given control first.

Of course this brings up the whole issue of free will, but that is another debate. :ahem:


There is a considerable difference between comparing viewpoints, and arriving at a conclusion, than taking the word of an intangible being that cannot be challenged.



Then logically we must also disband the ACLU, ACLJ, and other Constitutional watchdog groups, since Freedom is invisible and everyone seems to be willing to dictate what it means.

No, because they are concepts not dieties of supposed substance.


The much more logical thing is to bring to the table your ideas, whether based on religion, secularism, whatever - and allow the marketplace of ideas to work. Examination of ALL viewpoints, regardless of source, in the political arena. Make your best case and see if you have convinced enough people that you're right. If you lose, you live with that result until the next voting cycle when you can try to convince people again.

And the nation will vote against god? Uh-huh.
Logic is the only infallable.




Too sweeping a generalization, although I agree most mega-churches run into the problem you're suggesting.

The original concept of the mega-church is to reach as many different people as possible. To do that you need resources that many smaller Churches, like the ones I've always attended, can never get. Running a food bank is expensive; Crystal Springs AG tried when I attended there (I've moved), but could not sustain it - JP can tell you its a small Church, he's been there. So unless a wealthy benefactor attends, with all the potential internal political baggage that can sometimes bring, there isn't enough money to run a food bank or homeless shelter or ministry to get prostitutes off the streets AND pay for the lights and building payments, UNLESS you have a large church body to pull from.

The fact that so many of them fall into the trap you lay out here is symptomatic of what JP's article talks about.

There's a difference between a church with a large congregation (and thusly, a large pool of resources) and a church with a multi-million dollar swimming pool, complete with jacuzi and wetbar.

I personally think that money could be better spent. However, I'll not complain about a private institution using funds as it pleases.
I will however, take offense when they tell me I'm a "bad person" because I used my pocket change to buy bubble gum, instead of giving it to the red bell-ringing santa during christmas.



It was wonderful! My wife and kids took me out for Gumbo and Crawfish Etouffee.


I love cajun!!

[Goth_S]

you can't look at a black hole through a telescope either
its black

This isn't entirely true. The Hubble Space Telescope and the
Chandra X-ray Observatory are capable of providing evidence for the existance of black holes.


one thing that appeals to me about God a lot is His explanatory usefullness
without God there is a lot of stuff you can't explain
(such as everything for which physics does not provide terms to discuss)
sure, if you try to explain stuff, you are more likely to be wrong
you could also be right
whereas if you don't try to explain stuff, (or try to explain an obviously God-sourced thing without God) you have no chance of being right

Oh come now! This is precicely what's BAD about the concept of god!
God is simply the master-key for all answers that you cannot solve?

"Hey Bob! My engine won't start! I can't figure it out, it's the darndest thing!"
"God must not want you to go to work today John."
"Hey! Yeah, you're right!"

[aspiretohope]

not what i said, gothess

just try talking about stuff- most stuff, besides physics, without moving beyond terms arising out of what we know of physics

see if you can do it

the terms you use will be entirely synthetic
they will have no logical source, although many people may use them the same way you do
sure, if you can answer kripke's argument against meaning in language without resorting to God, do it
enquiring minds want to know

but I shouldn't need examples like that to say that God is always, (or stricktly speaking ever) a cop-out, explanation-wise

[Alien]

Hi Tony,

Hi.


Why were you perplexed and disappointed by this? Surely the purpose of such classes is not to give us a list of things to memorise, but to provide us with the tools to work out the answers for ourselves.

Yes, up to a point at least, but where do the tools come from, and who is most qualified to provide them? The message I got from this remark was "Everyone's opinion is equally valid", and that is, quite frankly, nonsense. This lady was part way through a theology course at Seminary and had been studying Greek and Hebrew and also had studied various theologians on various subjects. Whose opinion on a given piece of Bible exegesis should be given the most weight? Hers or someone who was reading the Bible for the first time (and some attendees seemed to fall into that category)?

There's a big difference between (say) pointing out that the consensus of academic opinion is X, as opposed to the half thought out Y that some attendee proposes, and spoon feeding. What if the subject was mathematics rather than Bible study, and the group leader was a PhD in math. Would we all have to struggle through everyone's dumb guesses, or would we take advantage of superior knowledge?

[jpholding]

Would it be fair for a skeptic to refute Christianity solely by refuting the doctrine and teachings of Osteen?

That's really beside the point. And I am not saying Osteen's place is reflective of most or all churches in specific teachings. I am saying it is reflective of the general lack of knowledge of doctrine and proper exegesis, one of many ways that are wrong.

What I'm objecting to is your blanket statement that this statement applies to "most" local churches without an attempt to justify this claim.

Then do show it in error. Show me that the blanket doesn't fit the bed. Every scrap of data I find says the opposite.

If you even appeal anecdotally to your experience in churches you've visited/attended/spoken at, that would be a start.

The churches who invite me to speak have so far been the ones that do NOT have the problems.

As it stands, I couldn't recommend the piece, but with a few simple modifications, I'd be very enthusiastic to point people to it.

I have no objections to you not recommending the piece whatsoever.

Ordinarily, the onus is on the one introducing the sweeping generalization to substantiate it

I have numerous articles that support the point. Eg, http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html I have the stats on things like book sales and music. I have numerous email testimonials, numerous records of apostasy...I've done my bit. Your response of "sweeping generalization" rings hollow to the ones in the trenches.

Do you feel that "most" pastors are up to the challenge of making an intricate point of apologetics understandable for a broad audience?

Probably not. And in an ideal world such people would withdraw from the pastorate and become counselors.


Do you have any idea of roughly what percentage of strong atheists are apostate Christians?

I'd say 80-90% based on substantial encounters over the past 20 years. Of course it's barely possible I get unlucky, but I find it hard to believe it is mere coincidence that it is overwhelmingly the case that "nicer" atheists have not been Christians before (eg, Kyle Gerkin) while "meaner" ones have been (too many to name).


Didn't you just argue above that this is a very well known argument and thus in urgent need of being refuted?

Yes. And that is why referral to a better source is also acceptable.

I'm just nitpicking here. But my point is, if no one in a church ever hears of Mithra...so what?

I'll let you say that to lives destroyed by shattered faith because they could not find the answers they needed, as well as to those whose lives they affect when they spread it around. "So what" should work well as an answer before the White Throne, you think?

After all, one is far more likely to encounter a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon than a true Mithraist!

The issue is not encountering Mithraists, but mythicists.

I just don't agree with you that pre-emptive apologetics is of primary importance.

Then you'll no doubt be glad reap what you sow in the results. And I'll happily clean up the mess that is left by this level of indifference. I've been doing it for years so there's no need to stop now.

and if you tried, you'd be distracting them from the many other subjects that are probably more important to their daily Christian lives.

Like what? Watching Creflo Dollar or the Crouches on TV? Shopping for Precious Moments figurines? Doing their personal color analysis?

Your piece got me thinking of valid defenses that a church could have for building a gym or having a flashy youth program

Then you'd miss the point, which is again not that these should not be done, but that the one should not be neglected at the expense of the other.

[jwarrend]

Then do show it in error. Show me that the blanket doesn't fit the bed. Every scrap of data I find says the opposite.

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that it's in error so much as that it is unsupported. To base your entire argument on a sweeping generalization is question-begging. Not everyone who reads your piece will take the time to ask questions about it and find out where you're coming from; they'll just dismiss it from the outset because you sound like you are talking out your hat. I think your piece would be better if you provide some actual context for your remarks; the points you've made to me in this note would be fine.



I have numerous articles that support the point. Eg, http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html I have the stats on things like book sales and music. I have numerous email testimonials, numerous records of apostasy...I've done my bit.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; I was assuming this article was supposed to be something of a stand-alone piece. If so, it should be self-contained. One shouldn't need to scour your site for the stats that back up your premises, or at the least, you should provide links to those areas in the footnotes.


Your response of "sweeping generalization" rings hollow to the ones in the trenches.

Arguing by condescension is beneath you and wastes both of our time.



Probably not. And in an ideal world such people would withdraw from the pastorate and become counselors.

I'm not sure we agree on what a pastor's job is supposed to entail, then.


I'll let you say that to lives destroyed by shattered faith because they could not find the answers they needed, as well as to those whose lives they affect when they spread it around. "So what" should work well as an answer before the White Throne, you think?

First, I was under the impression that you were actually interested to hear comments on your article. If you were just ginning up for a fight, you could have saved me some trouble and said so at the outset.

My "so what" was specifically talking to someone who goes through their whole life without hearing about Mithra, either from believers OR skeptics. Would such a person's life be less fully lived for the lack of awareness that some skeptics think Christianity is really borrowed from Mithraism?

Now, for someone who DID hear about Mithra and felt this was a challenge to their faith, I have already agreed that churches should have a method in place to respond to questions people might have. No one should fall away from the faith because of challenges from skeptics, and I've said this repeatedly and emphatically.


Then you'll no doubt be glad reap what you sow in the results. And I'll happily clean up the mess that is left by this level of indifference. I've been doing it for years so there's no need to stop now.

Wow, and I thought the atheists I debate with hit below the belt! Is this how you welcome all new posters in this group?


Like what? Watching Creflo Dollar or the Crouches on TV? Shopping for Precious Moments figurines? Doing their personal color analysis?


No, doing things like praying, worshipping, serving, volunteering, reading the Bible, etc.


Then you'd miss the point, which is again not that these should not be done, but that the one should not be neglected at the expense of the other.

Then why not say that in your piece, instead of simply indicting churches that build gyms as if this were bad-in-itself?

-Jeff

[Goth_S]

not what i said, gothess

just try talking about stuff- most stuff, besides physics, without moving beyond terms arising out of what we know of physics

see if you can do it

the terms you use will be entirely synthetic
they will have no logical source, although many people may use them the same way you do
sure, if you can answer kripke's argument against meaning in language without resorting to God, do it
enquiring minds want to know

but I shouldn't need examples like that to say that God is always, (or stricktly speaking ever) a cop-out, explanation-wise


I have absolutely no idea what your saying. Could you perhaps rephrase?
Or perhaps give me an example to try to understand?

[aspiretohope]

righto gothess

kripke asks:

where does meaning of words come from, locigally?
he demonstrates that words are not logically connected to anything that can be called meaning
he, you, I and everone know that words act all the time as if they do mean stuff, cos people agree on what they mean
but how in the mind are words connected to what they mean?
ideas such as that we have a picture in our mind connected to the words we say, he has trashed, and no-one has refuted him
a problem seems to be a lack of objectivity between people and even between different uses of the same word by people


and what is so facinating about the user control panel?
(if you don't mind me asking)

[Goth_S]

righto gothess

kripke asks:

where does meaning of words come from, locigally?
he demonstrates that words are not logically connected to anything that can be called meaning
he, you, I and everone know that words act all the time as if they do mean stuff, cos people agree on what they mean
but how in the mind are words connected to what they mean?
ideas such as that we have a picture in our mind connected to the words we say, he has trashed, and no-one has refuted him
a problem seems to be a lack of objectivity between people and even between different uses of the same word by people

Words are given meaning by learned behavior. I call the thing with wiggly legs, a "spider" and therefore, so do you. Over time, you call certain "spiders" by specific names. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this.



and what is so facinating about the user control panel?
(if you don't mind me asking)


I'm afraid I don't understand this question?
Did I say something about the control panel?

[aspiretohope]

Words are given meaning by learned behavior. I call the thing with wiggly legs, a "spider" and therefore, so do you. Over time, you call certain "spiders" by specific names. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this.



ok g_s, lets talk about spiders, and different kinds of spiders, in a way a little bit like saul kripke might talk about them

the word "spider" as you use it refers to a number of arthropods you have come across
if you used "spider" to refer to an arthropod you had not come across before, how would you know that you had intended to use "spider" to refer to that arthropod, and not "crab"?

you havn't come across this new athropod before, so how could you have known that "spider" referred to this arthropod?

how do you know that the word means "spider" and not "crab" when you only have a finite number of examples to tell you what a spider is?

say you have never seen a spider 20cm long before. how would you know that the word still applies?

perhaps "spider" only ever referred to a class of arthropods not in excess of 199mm in length?

so perhaps the sight of a spider above 199mm in lenght threw you a little bit, and you mistakenly applied "spider" to a class of arthropod to which it had not previously been intended to apply, such as "hairy black crab"?

how, on coming on an opportunity for a new usage of a word relating to arthropods, do you choose between "spider" and "hairy black crab"?
what, exaxctly, about your past usage compels your present usage?

nothing

but lets say that you had in your mind a rule stating that "spider" means "an eight-legged arthropod with two torsal sections and no claws"

then you have to say, though, how you would know that "two torsal sections" means "two torsal sections totaling less than 133mm in length" as opposed to "two torsal sections of any lenghth" or weather any object can be above 80mm and still be a torsal section.

simply, you have defined "spider" with "torsal section", so you have to define "torsal section", and then the terms used to define torsal sections, and so on.

it is possible in all cases to provide two definitions of a class of stuff wich say give the same name to the first 299 members of that class that you come across, and then give a different answer for the 300th
the same applies weather the definition is word or picture based
you dont have any logical way of predicting what you're going to name new cases in a class

saying that you have a tendency to give a particular form of spider-like answer when presented with particular forms of arthropod-related questions faces most of the same problems, even assuming that you and everyone else who uses the word never makes a mistake while using it, as the mistake would be an indication of how you tend to use the word, and the definition is sourced from the tendency

so meanings of words are not logically predictable across cases, or at least new cases, because meanings have no described logical course

I'm afraid I don't understand this question?
Did I say something about the control panel?

no
you spent about 2 hours on it that is all

[A Cup of No]

Personally, I beleive in an eternal universe.


Hey Goth_S,

I've been following most of your interactions with people in this thread, and while some of your judgments on the church are correct, you seem to make some decisions too prematurely. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and comments. I did want to comment on the scientific issues you've had with the idea of God, particularly the first law of thermodynamics.

You believe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, this is true. This would also fit well with your belief in an eternal universe. The problem, however, is that the amount of energy available for work in this universe is running down, something known as entropy - the second law of thermodynamics at work. Perhaps a good analogy is that of a top, which has been started and is running out of spin until it topples. Our universe is the same.

Because the universe is running out of avaiable energy, it shows that at one time it was "wound up", and because of this it is impossible for it to be eternal, because it would have already lost all the available energy and reached equilibrium (I realize how incosistent it is to speak of "already" in an eternal universe, but this gets into the problem of traversing an infinite number).

Thanks again for your comments and enjoy T-Web.

[JonAdams]

I was under the impression that all matter = energy.

So in a technical sense, I don't think I'm incorrect, though I admit the possibility.It's in the technical sense that you are incorrect. Matter would be better described as a form of energy. That form can be changed into another form (hence nuclear weapons!) It's a bit like saying that sound cannot be created or destroyed.
So god's desire is "motion" ?
I was not aware that emotions = motion.:huh: God has a desire to act. He has the energy to do that action. That energy is some form of motion.
Which begs the question:

Since nothing in this world is supported by supernatural forces, what precident do you pose in support of this intagible being that defies all laws of physics?How do you know that? Physicists do not know what the universe is ultimately made out of. There is a lot more for us to discover. You cannot reasonably make a blanket comment that rules out the supernatural entirely (at least, not without stepping into the realm of blind faith).

Some further comments based on your conversation with Darth (this is the problem with living in a different time zone, everyone moves on without you!):

You appear to have a wrong view of what the laws of physics represent. They are our current best attempt at describing the behaviour of the universe as we have so far observed it. There may be circumstances in which they can be bent or even broken (for a long time Newton's laws of motion were considered the last word on motion, then situations in which they failed were discovered and Einstein's relativity took over. Now physicists are looking for an extension of that theory because it too fails under certain circumstances - specifically event's at the quantum level).This fact raises a question; you spoke of an "intagible [sic] being that defies all laws of physics". How can you claim that when the known laws of physics are in no sense the last word on the matter? Does God defy the laws of physics? As we know them maybe. But so what. God is a situation we have no understand of and no experience of. How can we even begin to talk about how the laws of physics will interact with such a being?
Also, I'd like to point out that the big bang theory does not break the laws of physics, rather the current mathematical formulations break down (give nonsense answers like infinity) when trying to deal with that situation, hence the efforts of cosmologists to develop new theories (such as string theory) that can handle that situation. I am inclined to thing God could be described as being in a similar situation, but in his case we will never be able to develop any such theory that could explain him! He's simply to far beyond our experience.

Finally:It's easy to argue over who would win if Superman and Batman got into a fightSuperman, obviously, by virtue of the fact that he's an indestructible, well, superman! :teeth:

Jonathan.

[Darth Executor]

Hey Goth_S,

I've been following most of your interactions with people in this thread, and while some of your judgments on the church are correct, you seem to make some decisions too prematurely. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and comments. I did want to comment on the scientific issues you've had with the idea of God, particularly the first law of thermodynamics.

You believe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, this is true. This would also fit well with your belief in an eternal universe. The problem, however, is that the amount of energy available for work in this universe is running down, something known as entropy - the second law of thermodynamics at work. Perhaps a good analogy is that of a top, which has been started and is running out of spin until it topples. Our universe is the same.

Because the universe is running out of avaiable energy, it shows that at one time it was "wound up", and because of this it is impossible for it to be eternal, because it would have already lost all the available energy and reached equilibrium (I realize how incosistent it is to speak of "already" in an eternal universe, but this gets into the problem of traversing an infinite number).

Thanks again for your comments and enjoy T-Web.

I think she was referring to something like the oscillating-universe theory.

[Darth Executor]

This will likely be my last post in this thread, as I will ask the leadership to ban me from this site for a while so it stops distracting me and I can work on some writing I have to do.

Oh, the common arguments I hear so often. "Where did the big bang come from?" etc. etc.

Personally, I beleive in an eternal universe.

Gotcha. :thumb:



Most likely. However, once humanity figures them out, I'm willing to bet that the answer will be perfectly reasonable and free of supernatural influence.
Perhaps you dissagree?

:wink:




Define "Experienced" please

Dictionary definition is good:

The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind


We do it all the time. Three kids are playing in a room. You hear a crash. You automatically assume that it had to be one of the three kids, but they all posit a fourth child as the culprit. Makes sense? I think not.

How is that even remotely like the scientific method? It's quite the opposite. You instantly make a decision based on a preconceived notion and don't bother to look into the alternative as your mind is already made up.

God is that 4th kid. So it makes sense to apply the scientific method as often as possible to determine the truth.

How do you apply the scientific method to figure out if somebody loves you?

In practical application, we have to dumb down the procedure, I admit this fully. But those who are looking for the answer, ought to use it, don't you think?

We don't just dumb it down, we don't use it at all. When was the last time you went out to do research and see if a news report about somebody's dog was accurate? I use the scientific method when it is useful and when the subject is of enough importance to be worth the time.


What makes you say this?

The fact that an omnipotent god doesn't have a time requirement for creating anything and can do so at his leisure? I see a similar reaction from some YECs who state that my god is weak because it took him 6 billion years to make us. I ask why it took god 6 days and not a second.



True, but I wasn't neccessarily reffering to you specifically. Merely a part in the bible. The way I see it, if the bible is flawed, there's even less reason to posit a christian god, than there was to begin with, which wasn't much.

I am unsure as to what you mean by "flawed". Some people, oddly enough, think that utterly irrelevant subjects like errors in the number of goats Abraham are grounds to dismiss the entire bible. Plus, I didn't say Genesis was flawed. :wink:


Well, god is a fairly broad topic, so asking for clarification is a decent request I would think. What makes you think that there is a god?
The so called "complexity" argument? The idea that humans are "complicated" organisms, and their existance is not possible without some external creator?

Nope. Nothing biological.


Or perhaps the question of existance itself? The old argument that the entire world, indeed the universe, was created by intent?

I am unsure as to what argument you are referring to, but if it's old I probably don't like it. :teeth: Fine tuning would be something I consider evidence of some sort of intelligent design behind the universe.

What makes you beleive the things you do? An honest question, with no hidden agenda.

A great deal of things. Some I've forgotten (that might seem odd but I don't give the subject much thought anymore as short of some spontaneouos divine revelation from an atheist, the matter is closed for me). I even had a particularly interesting philosophical argument that you'd have liked, but I can't quite remember how it goes. :teeth: Anyway, I'll try to list what I can remember. I realise that some of these are not about God, but they are still somehow related as they help destroy the absurd skepticism (I'd say agains the supernatural, but I hate the word supernatural) I see in many westerners.

Bizarre events. You'll find that the further away you move from civilisation, the more frequent they become. One particular event that I remember and that I still can't figure out was when I was young (about 12). I was at my grandparents house doing something in the bedroom (might have been reading, I can't remember). The door to my room had one big piece of grained glass (or something like it) in the middle. One side was smooth but running your fingers on the other side produces a scratching noise. Anyway, I was sitting in my room when I hear the scratching noise. I look up and see a hand scratch the window twice. The glass horribly obscurs anything on the other side, so all I saw was a very dark hand. I sit there for a couple of seconds then rush to the door and open it. Nobody there. I look all over the house to see who is home. My grandmother was knitting and watching TV in the living room. I asked her if she had been in the hallway a few seconds ago and she says no. There was nobody else in the house. I checked the hallway to see if anything fell and might have somehow fooled me but there was nothing there. The front door was locked so even if by some odd chance someone decided to run into the house, scratch the door and run out without me hearing the front door, they couldn't because they weren't able to get in. I've racked my brain for years trying to figure out what the heck happened and I can't think of anything. The only thing that makes sense is that whatever it was can either become invisible or disappear completely. :nsm:

History. From a historical point of view, I find that Christianity has far more support than other secular events which are never questioned because they're not controversial. Some people claim the evidence isn't "extraordinary" enough, but as you can probably tell, I think the line people draw between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" is horribly misplaced. They need to send you city kids out in the world. :tongue:
Another objection is "why do you believe in God but not Zeus?" Who says I don't? :wink: I also believe my God beat up everybody else's god.

Philosophy. When I think about it, a creator makes more sense than no creator.

Nature of existance (or universe, in the broader sense of the word):
is it chaotic (there are no rules to what happens) or ordered (there are rules to what can and can't happen)? If the former, God exists, as does everything else that you can think of (including Holding's world :tongue:) Such an universe would be filled with paradoxes. Perhaps it could even have God existing and not existing. I usually do not go with it as the universe seems to have laws and I can't exactly debate for or against an universe that by definition has nothing you can debate about. If it is the latter, there are rules and some of them have been observed.

Does time have a beginning? This is directly linked to the above. If the answer is no, the universe is chaotic by default as time with no beginning is an absurdity.

Can events occur in no time? If the universe is chaotic, yes and no. If the universe is ordered, yes. There is no time in a singularity, and if events could not occur, the singularity would be unable to expand as it would be stuck in the same state forever. If events do occur, they would all occur simultaneously as there is no time. The action would come at "the same time" as the reaction. All actions within no time would occur at the same time, including the creation of time.

Can energy be created? Current laws of physics say no. If yes, no rules can exist as it is nonsensical.

Is abiogenesis true? I love this one. If it is not, then life must be created (either directly by the first being, or through a link of events: IE: Alien 1 makes Alien 2 who makes Man). If we take the "energy cannot be created or destroyed" law of physics as true, then there must be at least one eternal lifeform. Is abiogenesis true? If yes, then any events that can happen in no time will happen in no time as they have no time restrictions (and we know that the more time a probable event has, the more likely it is to happen; if the event has no time restrictions, it will happen), which includes the "formation" of life within a singularity. Say, God. This might not resonate well with most Christians but you did ask about God. :wink:
Of course, there is always the possibility that it is impossible for life to appear in no space but that is one of the things we'll likely never find out.

My apologies for my poor spelling. It happens from time to time.
I meant hypothesis of course.

Why shouldn't god be treated with interest by science? What else do you have to validate the claims that god exists?

History. Philosophy (they both make some use of science, of course) Trying to use science to validate the claim is futile as our tools cannot see beyond the universe.

Well, I think that there is a considerable difference between God and a black hole. For instance, I can't look at god through a telescope. ;)

You can't look at a black hole through a telescope either. You can see its effects on nearby matter though. Of course, I'd argue that you can see God's effects as well, and don't even need a telescope. Look out the window. :wink:

[Goth_S]

Rather than make a bazillion seperate replies, I just condensed everything into this post. I hope I replied to everyone!





ok g_s, lets talk about spiders, and different kinds of spiders, in a way a little bit like saul kripke might talk about them

the word "spider" as you use it refers to a number of arthropods you have come across
if you used "spider" to refer to an arthropod you had not come across before, how would you know that you had intended to use "spider" to refer to that arthropod, and not "crab"?

you havn't come across this new athropod before, so how could you have known that "spider" referred to this arthropod?

how do you know that the word means "spider" and not "crab" when you only have a finite number of examples to tell you what a spider is?

say you have never seen a spider 20cm long before. how would you know that the word still applies?

perhaps "spider" only ever referred to a class of arthropods not in excess of 199mm in length?

so perhaps the sight of a spider above 199mm in lenght threw you a little bit, and you mistakenly applied "spider" to a class of arthropod to which it had not previously been intended to apply, such as "hairy black crab"?

how, on coming on an opportunity for a new usage of a word relating to arthropods, do you choose between "spider" and "hairy black crab"?
what, exaxctly, about your past usage compels your present usage?

nothing


Untrue!

Humans are naturaly adept at detecting patterns, and like with like. Certaintly not every spider is the same, but they all share determining characteristics. We have many spider species, and each with their own name, based on their distinguishing characteristics. We call the entire class "spider" due to the similarities across all sub-types.





but lets say that you had in your mind a rule stating that "spider" means "an eight-legged arthropod with two torsal sections and no claws"

then you have to say, though, how you would know that "two torsal sections" means "two torsal sections totaling less than 133mm in length" as opposed to "two torsal sections of any lenghth" or weather any object can be above 80mm and still be a torsal section.

simply, you have defined "spider" with "torsal section", so you have to define "torsal section", and then the terms used to define torsal sections, and so on.

it is possible in all cases to provide two definitions of a class of stuff wich say give the same name to the first 299 members of that class that you come across, and then give a different answer for the 300th
the same applies weather the definition is word or picture based
you dont have any logical way of predicting what you're going to name new cases in a class

saying that you have a tendency to give a particular form of spider-like answer when presented with particular forms of arthropod-related questions faces most of the same problems, even assuming that you and everyone else who uses the word never makes a mistake while using it, as the mistake would be an indication of how you tend to use the word, and the definition is sourced from the tendency

so meanings of words are not logically predictable across cases, or at least new cases, because meanings have no described logical course


They do indeed have a logical course. Except of course, when we're making a name up. At which point, any criteria is acceptable.

And I'm still afraid I do not understand what this has to do with god. (?)





no
you spent about 2 hours on it that is all


Oh, I'm at work when I write most of these, so when I have to deal with a client, I just leave it at the control panel. It's where I reply to threads that I've subscribed to. Makes life quicker for me, rather than searching the forums for relavant topics.







Hey Goth_S,

I've been following most of your interactions with people in this thread, and while some of your judgments on the church are correct, you seem to make some decisions too prematurely. Anyway, I appreciate your participation and comments. I did want to comment on the scientific issues you've had with the idea of God, particularly the first law of thermodynamics.

You believe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, this is true. This would also fit well with your belief in an eternal universe. The problem, however, is that the amount of energy available for work in this universe is running down, something known as entropy - the second law of thermodynamics at work. Perhaps a good analogy is that of a top, which has been started and is running out of spin until it topples. Our universe is the same.

Because the universe is running out of avaiable energy, it shows that at one time it was "wound up", and because of this it is impossible for it to be eternal, because it would have already lost all the available energy and reached equilibrium (I realize how incosistent it is to speak of "already" in an eternal universe, but this gets into the problem of traversing an infinite number).

Thanks again for your comments and enjoy T-Web.


This is actually not true. The universe goes through periods of speeding up, and slowing down.

:)








It's in the technical sense that you are incorrect. Matter would be better described as a form of energy. That form can be changed into another form (hence nuclear weapons!) It's a bit like saying that sound cannot be created or destroyed.

Matter is by itself, a form of energy. Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. But it can be changed.
So I still contend that I was correct, merely that I should have worded it differently.

Do you still dissagree? If so, please explain. :)




:huh: God has a desire to act. He has the energy to do that action. That energy is some form of motion.
How do you know that? Physicists do not know what the universe is ultimately made out of. There is a lot more for us to discover. You cannot reasonably make a blanket comment that rules out the supernatural entirely (at least, not without stepping into the realm of blind faith).

Err.....


God = energy? What form? What type? What do you have to support this assertion?




Some further comments based on your conversation with Darth (this is the problem with living in a different time zone, everyone moves on without you!):

You appear to have a wrong view of what the laws of physics represent. They are our current best attempt at describing the behaviour of the universe as we have so far observed it. There may be circumstances in which they can be bent or even broken (for a long time Newton's laws of motion were considered the last word on motion, then situations in which they failed were discovered and Einstein's relativity took over. Now physicists are looking for an extension of that theory because it too fails under certain circumstances - specifically event's at the quantum level).This fact raises a question; you spoke of an "intagible [sic] being that defies all laws of physics". How can you claim that when the known laws of physics are in no sense the last word on the matter? Does God defy the laws of physics? As we know them maybe. But so what. God is a situation we have no understand of and no experience of. How can we even begin to talk about how the laws of physics will interact with such a being?

By no means do I propose that we know everything there is to know about physics. I simply said that god violates phsyics *as we know it.* However, my problem, is what you say things like, "We have no understanding of, and no experience of" this is somewhat self defeatest. How do you propose anything about god? What do you know of god?
Can it be put to the test?

If I stated that God was made out of bannana jelly, and therefore could not have created anything what would you offer in counter?

Basically, what in the universe gives you pause, to consider a third party entity was responsible for it? And what do you use to seperate this entity from natural laws?




Also, I'd like to point out that the big bang theory does not break the laws of physics, rather the current mathematical formulations break down (give nonsense answers like infinity) when trying to deal with that situation, hence the efforts of cosmologists to develop new theories (such as string theory) that can handle that situation. I am inclined to thing God could be described as being in a similar situation, but in his case we will never be able to develop any such theory that could explain him! He's simply to far beyond our experience.

Bah.
I don't accept that for a moment. String theory stands due to factors we can acknowlege and observe. Granted, it remains a theory, because it cannot be *proven* 100%, but it has enough reasonable grounds to stand on it's own two feet.

I'm afraid the universe is silent on the concept of god.


Finally:Superman, obviously, by virtue of the fact that he's an indestructible, well, superman! :teeth:

Jonathan.


No way! Batman's got a hundred compartments to store kryptonite!





I think she was referring to something like the oscillating-universe theory.


That's a good possibility.








This will likely be my last post in this thread, as I will ask the leadership to ban me from this site for a while so it stops distracting me and I can work on some writing I have to do.

*chuckle*





Dictionary definition is good:
The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind

Well, then my previous understanding was at least partially correct.
However, this is still hardly valid evidence for god.
What you call god, I call natural occurance. So it's a hard case to make, to be sure.

could you elaborate on how the experience of God is perceived, and how we can seperate it from natural occurance so that we an be sure it's the work of a diety?



How is that even remotely like the scientific method? It's quite the opposite. You instantly make a decision based on a preconceived notion and don't bother to look into the alternative as your mind is already made up.

I meant in quick response. 3 kids....a 4th is posited. Perhaps I should have stated that said 4th kid is miles away for the example to be valid. I usually do. Ah well...my bad.

In any event, the most rational response is still to assume something in close proximity to have done it. After examination, whatever answer remains, no matter how bizarre it might seem, will probably be your answer.

In contrast however, we as a society have posited a 4th child, that is highly illogical, instead of checking the room for immediate culprits.




How do you apply the scientific method to figure out if somebody loves you?

I put them under a polygraph machine, or an MRI scanner. ;)

Both can detect chemical responses. One to let me know if a lie is spoken, and the MRI let's me know what part of the brain is being stimulated. If it's love, or lust...I'd know.




We don't just dumb it down, we don't use it at all. When was the last time you went out to do research and see if a news report about somebody's dog was accurate? I use the scientific method when it is useful and when the subject is of enough importance to be worth the time.

Sure we do. Do you beleive the so called "news" in the tabloids? I hope not...
But how do you take a glance at them and know they are fake? Personally, I run through a quick list (unconsciously of course) and compare the covers with previous knowlege. Based on past results, I can conclude rather quickly that the information presented has a high probability of being false.

It's completely acceptable to make extrapolations based on past knowlege, in determining probabilities.


The fact that an omnipotent god doesn't have a time requirement for creating anything and can do so at his leisure? I see a similar reaction from some YECs who state that my god is weak because it took him 6 billion years to make us. I ask why it took god 6 days and not a second.[quote]

But can either assertion be backed up with supporting evidence?
Are you to propose that your god can beat up their god?

...and in less time? ;)



[quote]I am unsure as to what you mean by "flawed". Some people, oddly enough, think that utterly irrelevant subjects like errors in the number of goats Abraham are grounds to dismiss the entire bible. Plus, I didn't say Genesis was flawed. :wink:

If the bible is the infallable word of god, and it's flawed, then it's not infallable, now is it?
6day creationism is pretty central to the genesis story. And nothing supports YEC beleifs.



Nope. Nothing biological.

Nothing biological...what?

The question was are humans complicated organisms, that could not have been created without a creator?





I am unsure as to what argument you are referring to, but if it's old I probably don't like it. :teeth: Fine tuning would be something I consider evidence of some sort of intelligent design behind the universe.


*chuckle*

I was reffering to religion. ( I don't like it either. :wink: )




A great deal of things. Some I've forgotten (that might seem odd but I don't give the subject much thought anymore as short of some spontaneouos divine revelation from an atheist, the matter is closed for me). I even had a particularly interesting philosophical argument that you'd have liked, but I can't quite remember how it goes. :teeth: Anyway, I'll try to list what I can remember. I realise that some of these are not about God, but they are still somehow related as they help destroy the absurd skepticism (I'd say agains the supernatural, but I hate the word supernatural) I see in many westerners.


Supernatural seems a fair aproximation to me. God is most definately not "natural."



Bizarre events. You'll find that the further away you move from civilisation, the more frequent they become. One particular event that I remember and that I still can't figure out was when I was young (about 12). I was at my grandparents house doing something in the bedroom (might have been reading, I can't remember). The door to my room had one big piece of grained glass (or something like it) in the middle. One side was smooth but running your fingers on the other side produces a scratching noise. Anyway, I was sitting in my room when I hear the scratching noise. I look up and see a hand scratch the window twice. The glass horribly obscurs anything on the other side, so all I saw was a very dark hand. I sit there for a couple of seconds then rush to the door and open it. Nobody there. I look all over the house to see who is home. My grandmother was knitting and watching TV in the living room. I asked her if she had been in the hallway a few seconds ago and she says no. There was nobody else in the house. I checked the hallway to see if anything fell and might have somehow fooled me but there was nothing there. The front door was locked so even if by some odd chance someone decided to run into the house, scratch the door and run out without me hearing the front door, they couldn't because they weren't able to get in. I've racked my brain for years trying to figure out what the heck happened and I can't think of anything. The only thing that makes sense is that whatever it was can either become invisible or disappear completely. :nsm:


Now that you're older, do you still place faith in the senses of that 12 year old?





History. From a historical point of view, I find that Christianity has far more support than other secular events which are never questioned because they're not controversial. Some people claim the evidence isn't "extraordinary" enough, but as you can probably tell, I think the line people draw between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" is horribly misplaced. They need to send you city kids out in the world. :tongue:
Another objection is "why do you believe in God but not Zeus?" Who says I don't? :wink: I also believe my God beat up everybody else's god.

I'm afraid I don't understand.



Philosophy. When I think about it, a creator makes more sense than no creator.

Then why does the creator not require a creator?



Nature of existance (or universe, in the broader sense of the word):
is it chaotic (there are no rules to what happens) or ordered (there are rules to what can and can't happen)? If the former, God exists, as does everything else that you can think of (including Holding's world :tongue:) Such an universe would be filled with paradoxes. Perhaps it could even have God existing and not existing. I usually do not go with it as the universe seems to have laws and I can't exactly debate for or against an universe that by definition has nothing you can debate about. If it is the latter, there are rules and some of them have been observed.

But this isn't true! Natural events dictate what can and cannot happen, and have a direct relationship with how it happens.



Does time have a beginning? This is directly linked to the above. If the answer is no, the universe is chaotic by default as time with no beginning is an absurdity.

Time = motion.

Without motion, there is no time.
In an infinite universe, there has always been time.

How is this absurd?
This is under the assumption that everything requires a "beginning."



Can events occur in no time? If the universe is chaotic, yes and no. If the universe is ordered, yes. There is no time in a singularity, and if events could not occur, the singularity would be unable to expand as it would be stuck in the same state forever. If events do occur, they would all occur simultaneously as there is no time. The action would come at "the same time" as the reaction. All actions within no time would occur at the same time, including the creation of time.

Can energy be created? Current laws of physics say no. If yes, no rules can exist as it is nonsensical.

Energy always existed.


Is abiogenesis true? I love this one. If it is not, then life must be created (either directly by the first being, or through a link of events: IE: Alien 1 makes Alien 2 who makes Man). If we take the "energy cannot be created or destroyed" law of physics as true, then there must be at least one eternal lifeform. Is abiogenesis true? If yes, then any events that can happen in no time will happen in no time as they have no time restrictions (and we know that the more time a probable event has, the more likely it is to happen; if the event has no time restrictions, it will happen), which includes the "formation" of life within a singularity. Say, God. This might not resonate well with most Christians but you did ask about God. :wink:
Of course, there is always the possibility that it is impossible for life to appear in no space but that is one of the things we'll likely never find out.


But this also isn't neccessarily true. Lightning has been shown to create Amino acids, the basic building blocks of life!
No creator required.

Well, no creator with a conscience. ;)




History. Philosophy (they both make some use of science, of course) Trying to use science to validate the claim is futile as our tools cannot see beyond the universe.

It's a far better set of tools to use, than pure speculation and religion, no?




You can't look at a black hole through a telescope either. You can see its effects on nearby matter though. Of course, I'd argue that you can see God's effects as well, and don't even need a telescope. Look out the window. :wink:

A cute counter, but I'm sure you acknowlege the inherrant fallacy in such a statement.




-------------------------------------------------------






I look forward to everyone's replies, respectively. :)

[Darth Executor]

Got about 10-15 minutes to go. Before I do the rest of the stuff I have to before I'm banned, I'd like to address one thing.


Now that you're older, do you still place faith in the senses of that 12 year old?


Not "that 12 year old", me. I'm not sure what age has to do with it. I was under the impression that 12 year olds have eyes and ears, and are capable of sensing the same events that an adult can.

[Goth_S]

Got about 10-15 minutes to go. Before I do the rest of the stuff I have to before I'm banned, I'd like to address one thing.



Not "that 12 year old", me. I'm not sure what age has to do with it. I was under the impression that 12 year olds have eyes and ears, and are capable of sensing the same events that an adult can.


Yes, but their understanding, as well as perceptions are clouded. They are not capable of applying advanced thought to common problems.


Chances are, a bird or something was on your window. I highly doubt that jesus came to tap on your window.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, but their understanding, as well as perceptions are clouded.

No it isn't.

They are not capable of applying advanced thought to common problems.

I brought it up precisely because I applied advanced thought to the problem. Nothing could have been there according to the laws of the skeptic but something was.

Chances are, a bird or something was on your window.

It wasn't a window, it was a glass panel on a door in the middle of the house. The fact that a bird could not have immitated the motion twice aside, a bird had no possibility to get in as mosquido nets and bars are set on all the windows.

I highly doubt that jesus came to tap on your window.

Not tap, scratch. And I doubt it too. I never said it was Jesus. In fact, I don't know or claim to know what it was.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I dissagree with your example, for the reason that none of these atrocities were rooted in logical thought. The jews did not pose a threat to germany as hitler stated, nor did blacks as we did in the 50's.

Actually if you look at the claims of Hitler, white supremisits, and other similar groups, the problem usually isnt with their logic(which is actually internaly consistant) but with their basic assumptions. They assumed beforehand that these people were inferior, and their actions followed that assumption.

I'v found the same problem when dealing with more intelligent skeptics(such as you Goth_S), their internal logic is consistant enough, but they assume beforehand that God doesn't exist and/or miriacles dont happen.

When dealing with people like this you have to attack their basic assumptions, thats how segragation was ended, that how segragation ended, because people begain to realize that blacks were not inferior.

[Goth_S]

No it isn't.

Oh? I take it as a child you were never scared of the boogy man, or convinced that Santa Clause was real?


I brought it up precisely because I applied advanced thought to the problem. Nothing could have been there according to the laws of the skeptic but something was.

Nothing? It couldn't have been the house settling, or a bird, or something falling on it? It's not possible a trick of acoustics didn't make you *percieve* the sound was there, when it originated from somewhere else?



It wasn't a window, it was a glass panel on a door in the middle of the house. The fact that a bird could not have immitated the motion twice aside, a bird had no possibility to get in as mosquido nets and bars are set on all the windows.

And we can assume that absolutely nothing natural caused it?
I've got ghost stories of my own, but I'm still convinced that there is a logical reason for such things, even if it doesn't appear as such myself.

Many poltergeist phenominon have been attributed to underground water movements after all....


Not tap, scratch. And I doubt it too. I never said it was Jesus. In fact, I don't know or claim to know what it was.


Then I dare say that positing it as anything supernatural is a far cry from logical.



Actually if you look at the claims of Hitler, white supremisits, and other similar groups, the problem usually isnt with their logic(which is actually internaly consistant) but with their basic assumptions. They assumed beforehand that these people were inferior, and their actions followed that assumption.

I'v found the same problem when dealing with more intelligent skeptics(such as you Goth_S), their internal logic is consistant enough, but they assume beforehand that God doesn't exist and/or miriacles dont happen.

When dealing with people like this you have to attack their basic assumptions, thats how segragation was ended, that how segragation ended, because people begain to realize that blacks were not inferior.


The problem is their logic is not logical. The philos of racism is entirely based upon assumptions that are NOT supported by any logic, and therefore, by it's very definition the conclusions reached are not logical by any means.


It's illogical to start with a god by default, simply because we do not have the answers to some of life's bigger questions. Especially when nothing in this world provides solid evidence for such assertions.

[Darth Executor]

Oh? I take it as a child you were never scared of the boogy man, or convinced that Santa Clause was real?

The former never and I no longer believed in Santa Clause by that time. Even if both conditions were met I fail to see what this has to do with my experience. Being scared of the boogy man and seeing and hearing him are two different things.

Nothing? It couldn't have been the house settling,

Not unless a piece of the ceiling fell down, scratched the window, flied back up, fell down to scratch it again and teleported through the floor so that I wouldn't find it.

or a bird, or something falling on it?

You said bird before. I told you why it was impossible. If a mosquito couldn't get in, I don't see how a bird could. As for something falling, see above.

It's not possible a trick of acoustics didn't make you *percieve* the sound was there, when it originated from somewhere else?

What trick ouf acoustics could do that? I had confirmation from my sight AND hearing.



And we can assume that absolutely nothing natural caused it?

I certainly can't think of anything, and I've been racking my brain several times every year since it happened.

I've got ghost stories of my own, but I'm still convinced that there is a logical reason for such things, even if it doesn't appear as such myself.


Why does a ghost have to be illogical? I think you're purposefully erecting a mental barrier against things you perceive as "supernatural" that prevents you from believing it regardless of the evidence.

Many poltergeist phenominon have been attributed to underground water movements after all....

I'd love to see the water phenomenon that can scratch my door twice and leave no trace.


Then I dare say that positing it as anything supernatural is a far cry from logical.

Why? Whatever it was, it had one of the following abilities:

Turn invisible at will
Teleport
Walk through walls
Shapeshifting (not any kind, the kind that allows something to become small enough to get in through small cracks like a key hole)

I'm sure I can think of more possibilities but you'll find all of them "supernatural". I'm not gullible and I'm not stupid. I've thought of any possibility you'll come up with in five minutes and dozens of others you haven't.

[Darth Executor]

Well, it's time I left. Next time Faramir gets on I'm gonna be banned and I have some stuff to do. See you guys in about a week.

[Goth_S]

The former never and I no longer believed in Santa Clause by that time. Even if both conditions were met I fail to see what this has to do with my experience. Being scared of the boogy man and seeing and hearing him are two different things.

How do you think the stories originated?


Not unless a piece of the ceiling fell down, scratched the window, flied back up, fell down to scratch it again and teleported through the floor so that I wouldn't find it.

Aye, I responded before I read your statement that it was indoors.


You said bird before. I told you why it was impossible. If a mosquito couldn't get in, I don't see how a bird could. As for something falling, see above.

Same as above.


What trick ouf acoustics could do that? I had confirmation from my sight AND hearing.

A shadow. Do you deal with sound? I love music. I spend a considerable amount of my time constructing it, and studying sound and it's use.
You'd be amazed at what you can do. Ventrilloquism (throwing your voice) happens alot in nature, due to how sound bounces around, and how the ears perceive it.



I certainly can't think of anything, and I've been racking my brain several times every year since it happened.

I'm sure you have, but I dare say that it's more logical to presume natural occurances, than supernatural ones.


Why does a ghost have to be illogical? I think you're purposefully erecting a mental barrier against things you perceive as "supernatural" that prevents you from believing it regardless of the evidence.

Because the evidence is circumstantial. And no ghost story ever told, has ever been substantiated.


I'd love to see the water phenomenon that can scratch my door twice and leave no trace.

Perhaps nothing scratched your window, you merely perceived it as such.




Why? Whatever it was, it had one of the following abilities:

Turn invisible at will
Teleport
Walk through walls
Shapeshifting (not any kind, the kind that allows something to become small enough to get in through small cracks like a key hole)

How many things in factual existance, posses these properties?


I'm sure I can think of more possibilities but you'll find all of them "supernatural". I'm not gullible and I'm not stupid. I've thought of any possibility you'll come up with in five minutes and dozens of others you haven't.


I've never stated you were gullible, nor stupid. If your interested, I'd be happy to tell you some of my ghost stories. I'm sure they'll knock yer socks off. And though I cannot explain them, I'm positive they have a rational explanation, free of supernatural causes.

[jpholding]

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that it's in error so much as that it is unsupported.

I have the data a) in my background b) in public knowledge as support. If you want it, go out and spend some time doing what I do. I'm not writing it all out multiple times for people who pretend the problem doesn't exist or have been so sheltered that they do not know it exists.


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding; I was assuming this article was supposed to be something of a stand-alone piece

Nothing on my site is a stand-alone piece. As for not scouring my site, one should certainly do that for full advantage of the resources, and scour scholarship as a whole so that they can live in an informed way, if they wish to go as far as they can. Jesus didn't bless the couch potatoes.

I just love it when I get emails from angry atheists who read my piece on the secular references to Jesus and then complain that I didn't touch the comparisons to Mithra.

Arguing by condescension is beneath you and wastes both of our time.

It's hardly condescending to point out a lack of hard experience.


I'm not sure we agree on what a pastor's job is supposed to entail, then.

A pastor is a shepherd. A shepherd drives off wolves, among other things.

Today's pastors as a whole are so busy counseling neurotic sheep that they don't even know there are wolves, and would be eaten by wolves themselves. Many of the angry apostates I oppose are former pastors. Hmmm? How'd that happen, I wonder, if there isn't a problem? I guess that new gym didn't help any after all.

First, I was under the impression that you were actually interested to hear comments on your article

Not from people who don't think there is a problem.


My "so what" was specifically talking to someone who goes through their whole life without hearing about Mithra, either from believers OR skeptics.

Blimey good for them. What happens when Junior goes to college and hears about it? What happens when he logs on the Net and finds this intellectual porn all over the place? I guess they're too busy reading their Bible (which they can't even interpret properly) to be concerned about anyone but themselves and their own "spiritual growth".

Would such a person's life be less fully lived for the lack of awareness that some skeptics think Christianity is really borrowed from Mithraism?

By a minute degree, certainly. Awareness is always a plus, never a disability. But of course, we have people who don't even grasp the doctrine of the atonement, or the Trinity, etc. We have people who think God really has a human body, based on Gen, 1:26, and they're Baptists, not Mormons. We have people who think the four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luther and John, and that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered on horseback. We have tens of thousands of gifted women being denied the ability to teach because of a walleyed, "it was written yesterday" reading of passages like 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We have pastors preaching sermons that assume that figures like Samuel thought and acted like modern Americans, and creating nonsense like Purpose Driven Life from the ashes, thereby dishonoring God by forcing His Word to say what it doesn't and turning it into an Rx for our own unique psychological disorders. "So what" that for me, eh?

No one should fall away from the faith because of challenges from skeptics, and I've said this repeatedly and emphatically.

Then you'd best stand behind proactivity as opposed to reactivity.


Wow, and I thought the atheists I debate with hit below the belt! Is this how you welcome all new posters in this group?

Only those who deny the problem. Because they eventually become part of it.




No, doing things like praying, worshipping, serving, volunteering, reading the Bible, etc.

It would take a great deal of searching to find people doing this alone to the exclusion of trivia. Of course, "reading the Bible" for example doesn't do a lot of good if you have no idea what it means. "Worshipping" is useless if you worship an Arian Jesus (or maybe we should apologize to Arius, eh?). By the way, the Mormons do all the things you list above, as do the JWs, and so did the Jim Jonesies and the Branch Davidians. So which one do you want to sign up for?

Then why not say that in your piece, instead of simply indicting churches that build gyms as if this were bad-in-itself?

Anyone who reads that out of what I said is looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm going to make this simple.

I challenge you to a formal debate here on TWeb in which I will play the role of an atheist.

I will attack your faith, and you will not be permitted to use any apologetics resources to defend yourself. After all, there's no need to be prepared for that until you've already been shot down. :teeth: You can only do the following in reply:

* pray
* read your Bible
* volunteer
* worship

How's that?

[Goth_S]

Nothing on my site is a stand-alone piece. As for not scouring my site, one should certainly do that for full advantage of the resources, and scour scholarship as a whole so that they can live in an informed way, if they wish to go as far as they can. Jesus didn't bless the couch potatoes.

I just love it when I get emails from angry atheists who read my piece on the secular references to Jesus and then complain that I didn't touch the comparisons to Mithra.


Yes, yes YES!!!

If your going to attack something, it's got to be taken into context with everything else that is connected to it.
One cannot make the assumptions based on a singular statement if one does not know the context.

The basic tennants of exegesis.

All too often, things are attacked, with little understanding of their foundation. This is a common problem amongst athiests, as well as the average christian, and is probably responsible for a number of the abuses of the bible.




A pastor is a shepherd. A shepherd drives off wolves, among other things.

Today's pastors as a whole are so busy counseling neurotic sheep that they don't even know there are wolves, and would be eaten by wolves themselves. Many of the angry apostates I oppose are former pastors. Hmmm? How'd that happen, I wonder, if there isn't a problem? I guess that new gym didn't help any after all.


*applause*

[jwarrend]

I have the data a) in my background b) in public knowledge as support. If you want it, go out and spend some time doing what I do. I'm not writing it all out multiple times for people who pretend the problem doesn't exist or have been so sheltered that they do not know it exists.

I didn't say the problem doesn't exist, I said that your piece has as its motivation an unsubstantiated assertion. It doesn't matter that you in your mind believe it to be true, or that you have access to materials that support it. All I'm asking is that you provide some support for the basis of your assertion IN THE PIECE ITSELF.


Blimey good for them. What happens when Junior goes to college and hears about it? What happens when he logs on the Net and finds this intellectual porn all over the place? I guess they're too busy reading their Bible (which they can't even interpret properly) to be concerned about anyone but themselves and their own "spiritual growth".

You are not at all understanding what I am saying, and I don't think it's for lack of adequate communication on my part. Yes, apologetics is important. Yes, there should be more intellectual content from the pulpit. No, you cannot use the pulpit to innoculate people against every single possible challenge to their faith that they might encounter. Yes, if someone hears about Mithra that person's church should have a mechanism in place for them to get the answer. Don't you agree that there's a difference between "more intellectual rigor would be a good thing" and "we should have full-on apologetics eminating from the pulpit"? Are you advocating the latter? No. But in the spectrum between "no intellectual substance from the pulpit" and "full-on apologetics from the pulpit", I think we both are closer to the latter but your are further towards that end then I am. Is there something wrong with not agreeing with you about the degree to which apologetics should be the subject of preaching from the pulpit?


By a minute degree, certainly. Awareness is always a plus, never a disability.

I agree with that to a certain extent, BUT it's impractical to investigate every single possible challenge to the faith that has ever been raised and still have time in the day to do the other things we need to do. That's why I'd favor an approach whereby the principles of exegesis and apologetics are established, and where there is a mechanism by which other challenges can be addressed.


But of course, we have people who don't even grasp the doctrine of the atonement, or the Trinity, etc. We have people who think God really has a human body, based on Gen, 1:26, and they're Baptists, not Mormons. We have people who think the four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luther and John, and that the Sermon on the Mount was delivered on horseback.

That's a very good point. I agree that there's no excuse for a mature Christian not to be conversant with these and many other basics.

"So what" that for me, eh?

Again, you're welcome to disagree with my remarks, but I'd ask that you keep them in their context. I've already explained what I meant when I said "so what", so your throwing it out as a barb is intellectually dishonest.


Then you'd best stand behind proactivity as opposed to reactivity.

I doubt you can find an in-context quote where I say otherwise. I certainly do agree that proactivity is the right approach, and that's why I agree with your site and agree with the thrust of your message. I am quibbling over the presentation of your piece. I am suggesting that it would be more effective if stated as an exhortation or encouragement to your fellow believers, rather than as a chastisement to people who don't happen to have the same love of apologetics that we have. I guess it's ultimately a "more flies with honey than with vinegar" complaint. And I don't think the piece establishes (or even attempts to establish) the basis for the vinegar in the first place.

I suppose I've made my point and should just drop it.


Only those who deny the problem. Because they eventually become part of it.


I suppose an apology (or at least, a reduction in further snarkiness) was too much to hope for. Why is saying "please justify your generalization" the same as saying "there is not a problem"? Why is "I agree with the aim of your piece but not the degree" the same as "I don't care about this problem and am likely to, directly or indirectly, exacerbate it"?


It would take a great deal of searching to find people doing this alone to the exclusion of trivia. Of course, "reading the Bible" for example doesn't do a lot of good if you have no idea what it means. "Worshipping" is useless if you worship an Arian Jesus (or maybe we should apologize to Arius, eh?). By the way, the Mormons do all the things you list above, as do the JWs, and so did the Jim Jonesies and the Branch Davidians. So which one do you want to sign up for?

Why do you feel it is acceptable to argue in this way? And do NOT say "it's ok for me to be rude, on the grounds that Jesus was rude to the Pharisees". There is a big difference in context. The Pharisees were not interested in a legitimate intellectual discussion with Jesus; they were just trying to make him look bad by asking loaded questions. Which of us is relying on that technique more in this conversation? (In fairness, yes, that is a loaded question!)


I challenge you to a formal debate here on TWeb in which I will play the role of an atheist.

I will attack your faith, and you will not be permitted to use any apologetics resources to defend yourself. After all, there's no need to be prepared for that until you've already been shot down. :teeth: You can only do the following in reply:

* pray
* read your Bible
* volunteer
* worship

Actually, I had a debate very similar to this one a few years back with Adam Marczyk (aka "EbonMuse"). He argued in favor of the Earl Doherty formulation of the Christ myth, which I hadn't at that time been exposed to. I suggested we debate with no outside help, but he didn't agree to that (I think in part because he was too familiar with Doherty to really be able to separate his arguments from Doherty's). But I debated my side with pretty much an RSV and a Strong's concordance (I'm not even sure I used BlueLetterBible.org), and I did ok (at least to demonstrate to my own satisfation that his position was untenable, which is I suppose the most that can have been hoped for). As I've read more on the subject, I've certainly learned more.

But that's neither here nor there, because you're erecting a straw man. I never said that those activities (prayer, worship, etc) should be engaged in and apologetics should be avoided. (As an aside, you do agree that they are an important part of the Christian experience, yes?) I said merely that systematic inocculation of all possible challenges *from the pulpit* was not a productive strategy.

Could you please (if you have time) find a couple of quotes by me, taken in context, where I've advanced the position that you're representing me to be favoring?

-Jeff

[Cynic Sage]

Actually, I had a debate very similar to this one a few years back with Adam Marczyk (aka "EbonMuse"). He argued in favor of the Earl Doherty formulation of the Christ myth, which I hadn't at that time been exposed to. I suggested we debate with no outside help, but he didn't agree to that (I think in part because he was too familiar with Doherty to really be able to separate his arguments from Doherty's). But I debated my side with pretty much an RSV and a Strong's concordance (I'm not even sure I used BlueLetterBible.org), and I did ok (at least to demonstrate to my own satisfation that his position was untenable, which is I suppose the most that can have been hoped for). As I've read more on the subject, I've certainly learned more.


Could you link to it. I'm somewhat interested.

[jwarrend]

Could you link to it. I'm somewhat interested.


Sure, here you go: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/browse_frm/thread/aa03949d13392655/fc04a2284a003ab2?&rnum=1#fc04a2284a003ab2

I should just point out once again that I entered the debate with no prior exposure to the Christ myth, a Revised Standard version of the Bible, and a concordance. If you're looking for a more rigorous refutation of Doherty's thesis, JP's work is much better! But it was a fun debate, I learned a lot, and Adam was a good adversary, as was Sarah Whippmann who took over when Adam fell out of the discussion.

-Jeff

[jpholding]

Yes, yes YES!!!

I'm sending pearls for that. :teeth:

[jpholding]

I didn't say the problem doesn't exist, I said that your piece has as its motivation an unsubstantiated assertion. It doesn't matter that you in your mind believe it to be true, or that you have access to materials that support it.

Silver tray service? I'm not here for that or to grease the track for those who have not taken the same trip I have.

No, you cannot use the pulpit to innoculate people against every single possible challenge to their faith that they might encounter.

Why not? It's taken me only 8 years to compile my material; add on Glenn Miller, creationist/ID stuff, and material on cults from places like CRI and you get maybe 20 years of work. It would surely take far less than that to do all that I ask -- give at least summary material with references to that which offers more depth when needed.

Is there something wrong with not agreeing with you about the degree to which apologetics should be the subject of preaching from the pulpit?

I never disagreed with such. The problem remains that the level remains at ZERO in far too many cases, with pastors and churchgoers who think "apologetics" means "I'm sorry I'm a Christian" or that it is "of the devil" or some other such rot.

That's a very good point. I agree that there's no excuse for a mature Christian not to be conversant with these and many other basics.

That's apologetics as well -- in the original form.

I am suggesting that it would be more effective if stated as an exhortation or encouragement to your fellow believers, rather than as a chastisement to people who don't happen to have the same love of apologetics that we have. I guess it's ultimately a "more flies with honey than with vinegar" complaint.

After 9 years of effective use of "vinegar", I've found that the only people I turn away are those whose minds are already made up. On the other hand, people who truly and honestly seek -- and I include a number of Skeptics here, including some who frequent this board -- appreciate what I do.

So perhaps is it that taste buds need to be adjusted. :teeth:

Why is saying "please justify your generalization" the same as saying "there is not a problem"?

It suggests, in light of the magnitude of the problem, that you're very much missing something that is all too obvious. But maybe it is only obvious in the foxhole and not out in the open air where the bullets flying by are being mistaken for a choir tuning up.

Why do you feel it is acceptable to argue in this way?

Why do you not want to answer the point? Mormons, JWs...they all praise, read the Bible, pray, la la la la, etc. If it's a loaded question, you saw the gun clearly enough to dodge the bullet if you could, no?



Actually, I had a debate very similar to this one a few years back with Adam Marczyk (aka "EbonMuse").

Ebon Bon the Bungler? I'll let others check that debate and give their impressions -- I find the Google format of posting headache-inducing.


But that's neither here nor there, because you're erecting a straw man. I never said that those activities (prayer, worship, etc) should be engaged in and apologetics should be avoided.

I don't think I said you did either. The issue is one of depth. I see zero happening in most places, 10-20% of what is needed is most of the rest. You would seem to favor somewhere between 20-50. I want 50-70, with the note that "apologetics" doesn't mean just Mithra but also a proper understanding of the Bible itself. And again, THAT sorely lacks as well. And more. The bookstores are full of decontextualized nonsense. Sermons on radio and TV are full of such nonsense. And someone who sees the long term will see how it comes out, to wit:

1) Pastor interprets 1 Cor. 14 to say women can't teach.
2) Gifted female teacher denied post.
3) Gifted teacher is unable to teach students who would otherwise have gotten good from her teaching.
4) Would-be students are not as mature or prepared as they could have been; their dedication and service lacks. They don't need to become apostate, either...they can just lack confidence and assurance in evangelism, or in acting out the revolutionary principles of the Gospel.
5) The lives they would have affected....

More people need to read the ditty that starts, "For the want of a nail..."

(As an aside, you do agree that they are an important part of the Christian experience, yes?)

In many of their current forms, I do have serious doubts. But that's another issue.

[jwarrend]

It suggests, in light of the magnitude of the problem, that you're very much missing something that is all too obvious.

What I meant it to suggest was that it's just good practice to support one's assertions. We can agree to disagree about how self-contained a piece of writing ought to be.


Why do you not want to answer the point? Mormons, JWs...they all praise, read the Bible, pray, la la la la, etc. If it's a loaded question, you saw the gun clearly enough to dodge the bullet if you could, no?

We were talking about what should be eminating from the pulpit. What does the fact that non-Christian groups pray, praise, etc, have to do with the fact that Christian pastors need to devote preaching time to instruct Christian believers in the correct ways to praise, pray, fast, give, serve, etc? Your question is a non-sequitur.


Ebon Bon the Bungler? I'll let others check that debate and give their impressions -- I find the Google format of posting headache-inducing.

That was my only debate with Adam, but I found him to be one of the most polite and respectful debaters that I came across. I couldn't comment too much on the cogency of his argumentation, since as he himself admitted, in that discussion he was mostly just using Doherty's arguments.

I actually like the thread format in Google; it's much easier to keep track of what post is in response to what.

-Jeff

[papabryant]

Howdy, Goth!


That's a sizeable number of people to quarantine.

At one time it wasn't. Political maneuvering by gay rights activists prevented quarentine proceedues from being implemented.

I still think it could be done today - although I reject William F. Buckley's call to tattoo a scarlet "a" on the bohunkas of those infected.

I cannot sanction such actions. Forcible removal of a populace that requires care, is hardly ethical.

If it is to provide care it isn't. Quarentine serves two purposes: preventing the spread of the disease and easing the burdon of those infected by keeping them close to medical care.




Out of sight, out of mind, no?
I fear for the rights of the quarantined, and the methods used to do such procedures.

Which is why I reject Buckley's solution. But I fear we threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. While the concern is legitimate, I think it was manipulated by gay leaders for political hay, and IMO, the deaths of every gay victim of AIDS I lay at their feet because they chose to use the fear of discrimination for political gain instead of treating AIDS/HIV as a disease.

Would you quarantine your wife? Your children?
If it was the best way to take care of them, and prevent others from getting sick in the process...

Yes.

Without hesitation.

To a point. Abstinance works, and I've got no qualms telling people to stop having sex. How they are told this, however, is in question.
Scare tactics from god, are not getting the A-ok from me.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that this is the manner abstinance is being taught there:

An article showing an abstinance program in Zambia is working

http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=11953&ThisURL=./aids.asp&URLName=AIDS%20and%20Health

and a negative view on Uganda's program that STILL acknowledges its success, while trying to lay claim that condoms are the real hero (then why is Zambia beginning to succeed, when condoms are not part of the program there?)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-040525-abstinence-only-africa.xml

You may find those interesting. :teeth:


I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you clarify?

Sure. I have the potential within me to murder. We all do. But there is a difference between having the potential to murder and being a murderer.

Likewise, there is a difference between someone who doesn't have AIDS having gay sex and someone actually having AIDS and engaging in sex. I may disaprove of homosexuality, but that is a matter that effects only them, thus its a matter of conscience between them, their partner and God. But when they have AIDS, and they knowingly have sex with someone who doesn't, EVEN IF THAT PERSON WANTS TO CATCH THE DISEASE (for whatever reason) because at that moment sex becomes a weapon that can destroy another person's life, even if unintentionally.


IF this were true, then I would find it an extremely alarming practice. I've never heard of such things. Nor have I seen anything in any major media group that would indicate such practice. However, there are allready laws on the books to protect people that have been infected by someone intentionally.

In most states, it's classified as a felony, for attempted murder.

http://www.isitaboutsexblog.com/archives/gift_givers_and_bug_chasers.php

And an article from Rolling Stone

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828217/posts


What sort of things do you think could be done to prevent such mind-sets?
Do you beleive these behaviors would stop if society didn't view homosexuals at large, as second class citizens?

No, because I don't think gays are concidered second class citizens, at least not by the cultural "elites". (I also think the fact that this behavior isn't limitted to places hostile to the gay lifestyle is a telling sign - Amsterdam and San Fransisco are gay friendly and it happens there.) Larger society may be different in this regard, but larger society doesn't set the standards of the culture, except at the ballot box and occasionally at the theater turnstyles.

I think evangelical Christians are concidered second class citizens by those elites. "Persecution" seems to make the same point.

The elites are the ones pushing the Gramsciist agenda, IMHO. There is no "smoke filled room" where radical atheists, gay rights leaders, Howard Dean followers, marxist college professors, and environmentalists get together to plan and plot against Christians and Jews and Joe Sixpack. They simply share an Ideological principle to "think globally and act locally".



Then I beleive it would be even harder to substantiate his existance in the first place.

Actually, no. This relates to your discussion on the Big Bang. I wrote a research paper for a philosophy class that you might be interested in - particularly the appendix: a side by side comparison of science's decription of BB and formation of life on Earth with Genesis 1.

It converted my professor. :teeth:

The Paper: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/kalam-and-teleological-arguements-as.html

The appendix: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/appendix-1-to-kalam-and-teleological.html



I will finish my response later, when I have more time. I have birthday money to spend! (Call of Duty for the PC!) Peace!

[Goth_S]

Howdy, Goth!
At one time it wasn't. Political maneuvering by gay rights activists prevented quarentine proceedues from being implemented.

I still think it could be done today - although I reject William F. Buckley's call to tattoo a scarlet "a" on the bohunkas of those infected.

I dissagree...highly.

33.4-46.0 million people were estimated to be living with AIDS in 2005, with the number of newly infected people ranging between 3.4-6.2 million people.

Quarantine at this point, is not an option. Not in any manner that could possibly be considered humane by any stretch of the imagination.


If it is to provide care it isn't. Quarentine serves two purposes: preventing the spread of the disease and easing the burdon of those infected by keeping them close to medical care.

Uh-huh....
Why bother curing anybody when time will do the trick?



Which is why I reject Buckley's solution. But I fear we threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. While the concern is legitimate, I think it was manipulated by gay leaders for political hay, and IMO, the deaths of every gay victim of AIDS I lay at their feet because they chose to use the fear of discrimination for political gain instead of treating AIDS/HIV as a disease.

I agree completely that AIDS wasn't given the respect it deserved. However, I place blame on the religious right for catagorising AIDS as "gods answer to homosexuals."

Weren't they surprised when AIDS turned out to be an equal opportunity killer?



If it was the best way to take care of them, and prevent others from getting sick in the process...

Yes.

Without hesitation.

That, in a word, terrifies me.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that anybody that went into quarantine would not come out alive.
AIDS is struggling as it is to get funding for research and results have been slow in coming. Getting an entire risky demographic behind walls that's doomed to die as it is, is hardly a money generating sympathy machine.

Not to mention, with an incubation period of 7 years, forced incarceration of victims would be a very costly process, and I dare say the methods used to root out carriers of the virus would bend the constitution to it's breaking point.

There is absolutely no way that any quarantine procedure would ever be carried out in a manner that could ever be laughingly reffered to as "ethical."



There is no evidence that I'm aware of that this is the manner abstinance is being taught there:

An article showing an abstinance program in Zambia is working

http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=11953&ThisURL=./aids.asp&URLName=AIDS%20and%20Health

and a negative view on Uganda's program that STILL acknowledges its success, while trying to lay claim that condoms are the real hero (then why is Zambia beginning to succeed, when condoms are not part of the program there?)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-040525-abstinence-only-africa.xml

You may find those interesting. :teeth:


I beleive that abstinance is the best and most effective manner of containment. Condoms come in a close second. I just don't want it done under the flag of the cross.



Sure. I have the potential within me to murder. We all do. But there is a difference between having the potential to murder and being a murderer.

Likewise, there is a difference between someone who doesn't have AIDS having gay sex and someone actually having AIDS and engaging in sex. I may disaprove of homosexuality, but that is a matter that effects only them, thus its a matter of conscience between them, their partner and God. But when they have AIDS, and they knowingly have sex with someone who doesn't, EVEN IF THAT PERSON WANTS TO CATCH THE DISEASE (for whatever reason) because at that moment sex becomes a weapon that can destroy another person's life, even if unintentionally.

Hmmmm.....

Like I said, suicide is fine by me, provided there aren't any perepheral victims.
But....that's me.

However, I'm more concerned with mutation cycles. The more people get infected, the more cycles the virus is allowed to progress through.
There may come a time when AIDS is bred with something as easilly transmissable as the Flu virus. Then we're all going to die.

This by itself, is the sole justification that I could see for forced quarantine.
But that would be a major undertaking, and only advisable in the most severe circumstances.


http://www.isitaboutsexblog.com/archives/gift_givers_and_bug_chasers.php

And an article from Rolling Stone

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828217/posts

The first link yeilded this:

Whereas fear, depression and a severe lack of intimacy seem to be some of the reasons that infection is being sought out,

What causes this? Society at large, DOES view homosexuals as lesser citizens I assure you. It doesn't take more than 5 seconds to find anti-gay polemic. Heck, I bet it would take less than that if you stayed on these forums.
The arguments presented against homosexuality are typically juvenile, derogatory, and based highly on assumption and intolerance dressed up as pious virtue.

I hold that more accountable than anything.

As for the intentional spread of disease....well...

Their only killing themselves. I really don't care about suicide. I figure everybody has a choice to live or die. Either get busy with one or the other, but don't get in my way.
However, such intentional transmission is indeed putting a cramp on humanities attempts at destroying the disease.

I agree that something should be done. What that would be however, I don't have the experience to say.



No, because I don't think gays are concidered second class citizens, at least not by the cultural "elites". (I also think the fact that this behavior isn't limitted to places hostile to the gay lifestyle is a telling sign - Amsterdam and San Fransisco are gay friendly and it happens there.) Larger society may be different in this regard, but larger society doesn't set the standards of the culture, except at the ballot box and occasionally at the theater turnstyles.

Mmmmm....

A challenge then.
Go somewhere you'll likely never return and act homosexual for a day. The results might surprise you.


I think evangelical Christians are concidered second class citizens by those elites. "Persecution" seems to make the same point.

The elites are the ones pushing the Gramsciist agenda, IMHO. There is no "smoke filled room" where radical atheists, gay rights leaders, Howard Dean followers, marxist college professors, and environmentalists get together to plan and plot against Christians and Jews and Joe Sixpack. They simply share an Ideological principle to "think globally and act locally".

Err......

A quick look around tells me it's quite the opposite. Christians are the majority, and so far, have been able to weild a considerable amount of power.
I hardly see any valid evidence for the claim that christians are somehow treated as "second class citizens."

Actually, no. This relates to your discussion on the Big Bang. I wrote a research paper for a philosophy class that you might be interested in - particularly the appendix: a side by side comparison of science's decription of BB and formation of life on Earth with Genesis 1.

It converted my professor. :teeth:

The Paper: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/kalam-and-teleological-arguements-as.html

The appendix: http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/appendix-1-to-kalam-and-teleological.html


You cannot honestly contend that this converted a professor! What was this, Bob's technical community college of refrigerator repair?



This, is fallacious in it's construction. It depends upon the assumption that god is a viable answer in the first place. It does not, however, prove god's existance.

(9) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.

This assumption is fallacious, as it is the assumption that the universe:
A) must have had a beginning
B) could not have had an infinite regression, due to an endless existance.

Also the assumption that the universe is not necessary in its existence, the Big Bang is not necessary in its existence, and that god is "uncaused."
Especially considering that the variables that god is based on, are based on religion, which is based on.......?

It's a brilliantly over-played use of circular logic.


Also, that it only takes refference of what god is, by two (?) religious references.

It operates on entirely too many assumptions, none of which are substantiated. This does not prove god, it merely proves that you can plug in data, to a fabricated equation based on undefined variables.

Something that comes into existence displaying intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.

Define "inteligible order" and can it be substantiated?

Any conclusion you wish to come to, is entirely your own perception, rather than truth. The human body after all, is TERRIBLY designed! Any engineer would kill the designer on sight!

-A back designed for 4 legs, not two.
-A terrible construction of the eye

etc. etc.

"Intelligable order" is inherrantly a disengenous statement. Is a snowflake, which is mathematically perfect, "intelligable order" or is it merely what had to happen, based on the variables?

If an apple falls from the tree, was it designed to fall? Or is that merely a cause and effect relationship between gravity and mass?

Hint: It couldn't happen any other way!


I welcome the possibility that I simply didn't get it, but from the outset, the conclusion (as well as the formula) is inherrantly flawed.
Please correct me if my conclusions are not warranted.





I will finish my response later, when I have more time. I have birthday money to spend! (Call of Duty for the PC!) Peace!


Groovy!


EDIT:

P.S.

Would you mind terribly, if I sent those links you gave me on god's existance to a few friends? I've got a pal at Raytheon that would probably be able to point out any errors or merits better than I could.

[A Cup of No]

This is actually not true. The universe goes through periods of speeding up, and slowing down.

:)





Can you explain what you mean by "the universe speeding up and slowing down", and how it relates to what I posted above concerning the problems with an eternal universe and its implications for your idea about the first law of thermodynamics?

Thanks Goth, and nice avatar!

[OU812]

I suppose an apology (or at least, a reduction in further snarkiness) was too much to hope for. Why is saying "please justify your generalization" the same as saying "there is not a problem"?


Because, why would you ask for justification, if you believed that there was a problem?



jwarrend, Holding knows what he's talking about. I've been to many Baptist and 'non-denominational' churches here in California, and his list of problems are dead-on........

[jpholding]

What I meant it to suggest was that it's just good practice to support one's assertions. We can agree to disagree about how self-contained a piece of writing ought to be.

:shrug: I assume an informed readership. My bad. Giving too much credit is a mistake I make regularly.


We were talking about what should be eminating from the pulpit. What does the fact that non-Christian groups pray, praise, etc, have to do with the fact that Christian pastors need to devote preaching time to instruct Christian believers in the correct ways to praise, pray, fast, give, serve, etc?

It means that it is all ultimately meaningless prattle unless one's doctrinal and exegetical house is in order (save the grace of God to those who are ignorant in innocence). What's the warning that ended with, "Depart from me, I never knew you..."?

Hence, an aspect of apologetics (defense of doctrine, in particular the identity of Christ) lies at the base of any properly directed service. No non-sequitur there. Just a wake up call.

[jpholding]

Thanks Goth, and nice avatar!

Guess how YOU can get one. :tongue:

[papabryant]

There is a difference between dogma being in tandem with logical thought, and trying to bend logical thought to dogma, which is what I see most often.
I agree with the principle, although I do not see logic bent to dogma as much as you do, although that may be due to perspective for both of us.


And if we're going to follow the bible, and make rules off it, what's to stop you from enforcing your beleif in god?

The same that protects us from the John Birch Society or MoveOn.org... the Constitution. Which was created by a society adhering to the principles found in the Bible, namely the principle of free will.

See, God may call for us to follow Him, but it is our choice whether or not to do so. This is unique among ALL of the world's religions, since even Judaism has a tribal aspect to its practice. And while there are rewards for following God and punishments for the actions we commit when we don't (which is a complete oversimplification, I know), ultimately its our choice to do with our soul what we wish. It's ours.

The same principle, applied to the political realm, is at the heart of the inalienable rights of man to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We have the choice to do with our lives what we wish. It's ours.

And this principle, rooted in the Biblical worldview, is at the heart of the Constitution.

I dissagree with your example, for the reason that none of these atrocities were rooted in logical thought. The jews did not pose a threat to germany as hitler stated, nor did blacks as we did in the 50's.

The premise upon which these things were based, was illogical, hence my argument still stands. Xenophobia follows no intelligent formula.

You are incorrect here, since Hitler's view of the Jews was a threat to his racial purity goals. The principle wasn't illogical, it was immoral.

Logic can be used to justify ANYTHING. It is logical in economics to limit expenditure and get maximum production out of the labor pool. Old people and the maimed and insane cost more money to take care of when infirmed than they can produce wealth and economic spending when they are healthy. The Nazi answer was euthanasia. Logical, but immoral.

This does not mean logic has no value, just that it is a tool in the hands of whoever uses it. Thomas Hardy said that intuition was the logician's first piece of evidence. Intuition is hardly logical by itself, but coupled with a sound reasoning strategy it can lead to a "logical" conclusion. The Socratic method of learning is the most logical form of education, yet it can just as often lead to pooled ignorance as to logical insight.


I say they should dictate the course of action. Altruism is a logical system after all.

And who wouldn't want our laws to have to go through the scientific method considering some of the bizzare laws on the books, and the reasons behind them.
hehe

Well, not by the logic of Ayn Rand, who saw altruism as nothing more than a system by which social Darwinian "survival of the fittest" could be thwarted.

Although by your last sentence here, you may be on to something! :lol:

I'll look for it on Amazon. Thanks :) Its an excellent book on the subject. You may also want to google Mike Adams, a professor at UNC-Willmington who writes columns on the subject of anti-Christian bias in academia.

I have no problem with protected speech however. I'm more than willing to take a bullet for your right to have religion. But I expect you to return the favor, for my right to freedom from religion.

Agreed, although I'd prefer neither of us get shot.


There is a considerable difference between comparing viewpoints, and arriving at a conclusion, than taking the word of an intangible being that cannot be challenged.

The problem is I get accused by the media/academia/the Democratic Party/ACLU/FFRF etc. of imposing my viewpoints just by wanting to participate and offer my views for comparison.

And who said God's word cannot be challenged? Certainly not God, who commanded "come and reason with me". What been found is that when we do reason with Him and ask questions, His answers have been right every time. Remember the definition of Biblical Faith - pistis - is "Trust based on verification or trustworthiness", not "belief in something that cannot/has not be proven."

No, because they are concepts not dieties of supposed substance.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5213

The article would go further to answering this objection than I could.



And the nation will vote against god? Uh-huh.
Logic is the only infallable.

Are we after fairness or results? Its your job to convince people to vote your way, just as it's my job to convince people to vote my way.

Would it be fair to say that only Christian views are allowed to be aired on the evening news? Skeptics are not allowed to express their views lest someone be convinced and vote the opposite of how I want the results to go? The reverse is just as bad.

You cannot silence a viewpoint opposite of your own simply because you want the results to go your way. At that point you have become what you fear - a totalitarian who will not allow dissention from a dogmatic point of view.

Its a logic trap that far too many people fall into because of its seductiveness.


There's a difference between a church with a large congregation (and thusly, a large pool of resources) and a church with a multi-million dollar swimming pool, complete with jacuzi and wetbar.

I personally think that money could be better spent. However, I'll not complain about a private institution using funds as it pleases.
I will however, take offense when they tell me I'm a "bad person" because I used my pocket change to buy bubble gum, instead of giving it to the red bell-ringing santa during christmas.

I don't begrudge the swimming pool, just how its used. If its is STRICTLY for the members, hey, you have an "amen, sister" outta me! But if it is also used to teach children how to swim, or made available to a local orphanage, or for physical therapy for the VA hospital, then the pool is a blessing for the community in keeping with the highest of Christian morals and ethics. Simply because there are other needs that you and I both would call more pressing doesn't mean the pool is wrong.

Nor is the sound system or video screens - if you have 2000 members you want them to hear the sermon, and screen are probably more cost effective than 2000 hymnals. But bragging that you have the best sound system, but not having a prison ministry, or food bank... As I said - Preach it, sister.

Quarantine at this point, is not an option. Not in any manner that could possibly be considered humane by any stretch of the imagination.

Here we will have to agree to disagree - I think it is not only unethical NOT to quarentine, it is medically unsound - we quarentine all other infectious epidemics as standard medical practice.

Uh-huh....
Why bother curing anybody when time will do the trick?

How you read THAT out of my post I won't begin to try and explain.

Quarentines are used to stop the further spread of the disease and put those suffering close to medical care until a cure can be delivered. Period. It is the most humane thing you can do for both those who suffer and those who might if nothing is done. Your own numbers speak to the truth of this - had we quarentined HIV when it first became epidemic would we have 46.0 MILLION people infected? We spend more on AIDS research than on colon cancer research, and that kills more than AIDS - the fact that the cure so far eludes us doesn't mean we abandon sound medical practice.

I agree completely that AIDS wasn't given the respect it deserved. However, I place blame on the religious right for catagorising AIDS as "gods answer to homosexuals."

Weren't they surprised when AIDS turned out to be an equal opportunity killer?

Would you also be surprised that many of those same idiots in the "religious right" also opened the first care centers for AIDS victims? Went in to comfort the dying when others even in the Gay community were afraid to comfort their own? Read the news stories from back in those days.

How admittedly stupid statements like "AIDS is God's answer to homosexuals" can POSSIBLY compare with the active lobbying of gay leaders NOT to quarentine the infected to stop the disease from spreading when the numbers of infected was under 20 thousand... maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that anybody that went into quarantine would not come out alive.

We do it for many other infectious diseases today, like viral menengitus, and the viral forms of TB. IF caught early enough we can save those infected AND prevent further spread of the disease, while comforting those who suffer until they are cured.

AIDS is struggling as it is to get funding for research and results have been slow in coming. Getting an entire risky demographic behind walls that's doomed to die as it is, is hardly a money generating sympathy machine.

This is not true. It is the propaganda of the gay leadership in order to illicit sympathy for an agenda. AIDS research recieves more funding than ANY other disease research.

In terms of numbers of people in the U.S. who die due to various diseases, figures from 2001 show heart disease (700,142), cancer (553,768), and stroke (163,538) topping the list. HIV/AIDS, which is ranked 22nd on the list of causes of death, killed 14,175 people in 2001.

However, when CDC funding in 2001 is examined, HIV/AIDS tops the list by far with $854.06 million. Funding for diseases like heart disease, cancer and stroke lag far behind.

NIH spending also seems out of whack. Based on 2003 budget figures, that agency allocated roughly $194,000 per death caused by HIV/AIDS. For heart disease research, the NIH spent approximately $2,871 per death.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Lb8jWUtscyUJ:www.independentconservative.com/category/junk-science/+AIDS+research+funding+Stossel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11

http://www.fairfoundation.org/news_letter/2005/january/2005_01january.htm

I beleive that abstinance is the best and most effective manner of containment. Condoms come in a close second. I just don't want it done under the flag of the cross.

Why? Who cares who gets credit for it, as long as the lives are saved.

What causes this? Society at large, DOES view homosexuals as lesser citizens I assure you. It doesn't take more than 5 seconds to find anti-gay polemic. Heck, I bet it would take less than that if you stayed on these forums.

I didn't say anti-gay rhetoric doesn't exist, I said the elites that drive our culture are gay friendly and Christophobic. And they are the ones in the position of power I mentioned in an eariler posting. Its why they are the dangers to freedom as I see it.



The arguments presented against homosexuality are typically juvenile, derogatory, and based highly on assumption and intolerance dressed up as pious virtue.

I hold that more accountable than anything.

Probably as juvenile, derogatory and based on assumptions, intolerance and misinformation as most "Christian crimes against humanity" websites I run accross. What is unfortunate is when principled opposition is lumped in with the bigots; one can oppose homosexuality without hating gays just as much as someone can be a nonbeliever without hating Christians. But as I've said before, the bad guys make it hard on the good guys.

Certainly in gay unfriendly places the attitudes can be a factor, but it doesn't explain the same behavior in gay friendly places.


As for the intentional spread of disease....well...

Their only killing themselves.

That's a more cavalier attitude than I have. We are our brother's keeper, there are just limits to how far we can go to protect someone.


I agree that something should be done. What that would be however, I don't have the experience to say.


Here here. :cheers:

A quick look around tells me it's quite the opposite. Christians are the majority, and so far, have been able to weild a considerable amount of power.
I hardly see any valid evidence for the claim that christians are somehow treated as "second class citizens."

That's why I suggested Limbaugh's book. A meaningless example would be the flap over "season's greetings" at Target. A more meaningful one would be the 4th grade school girl who read her Bible at lunchtime quietly, only to have a teacher take the book away from her, rip it up, stomp on it, throw it in the garbage and call the girl an "idiot" and "Stupid" for "reading that trash" in front of all the other kids in the cafeteria, then had the kid expelled and the mother threatened with arrest. The teacher was NOT fired.

You cannot honestly contend that this converted a professor! What was this, Bob's technical community college of refrigerator repair?

No, The University of North Florida, a state-run school, where I am a Philosophy/ancient near eastern history double major with a 3.8 GPA and a 3 time National Dean's List nominee (only .5% of all college students make the list once.)

This, is fallacious in it's construction. It depends upon the assumption that god is a viable answer in the first place. It does not, however, prove god's existance.

It does nothing of the kind - it does assume one of the basic principles of philosophy - the principle of causality. And, I hate to inform you, because you really are a nice person and this is going to sound so mean (unintentionally :blush: ) - but if you still adhere to the notion of an eternal universe you're 55 years behind the times. The idea of an eternal universe is dead.

As to the variables God is based on - note it is SCIENCE that describes how the universe is constructed, not religion. We simply compare the two most likely religious stories AS SUGGESTED BY SCIENCE with what science says happened. The Biblical story fits perfectly.

You can repeat the process with other religions to see if you get a closer fit-which would be a great way to invalidate the hypothesis - in fact, it would be the only way.

Define "inteligible order" and can it be substantiated?

Sure thing; Intelligble order is a series of criteria in which both the mathematical probablility of each individual criteria occuring AND the probability of all of the criteria as a whole occuring are so mathematically remote as to render chance the least likely reason for their occurance.

Would you mind terribly, if I sent those links you gave me on god's existance to a few friends? I've got a pal at Raytheon that would probably be able to point out any errors or merits better than I could.

Sure! A philosophical work like this is never complete, so any problems I haven't thought of that might need rethinking... With my blessings, dear! :teeth:

Peace,
Tom

[Goth_S]

As it's 5am here in texas, I don't have the mental stamina to reply in depth, so I'll have to do that tommorrow. Been up all night studying, and I'm a bit brain dead at the moment.


However, I would like a rebuttal to my challenge of your paper concerning proof of god.

I do not beleive that it is a logical paper for a few reasons:

-It relies on the judeo-christian explanation of god
-It uses this explanation to tie it into big bang
-my question was for proof of god

One cannot use an unproven variable to prove itself.
Your paper (IMO) only provided a somewhat logical explanation for how god could coincide with Big Bang theory.
While I concede, that it is a well thought out paper, concerning god and his possible relation to big bang under the assumption that the judeo-christian explanation for god is correct, it did NOT prove god's existance which was the question I asked.

One cannot use a variable that has no substantiation, to prove itself.
I see the paper as an excersise in circular logic in that vein.

IF god truly exists, and IF god is portrayed accurately in the bible, then your statements would appear to be a logical extention.

But again, this does not prove the existance of god, nor does it support such assertions that such a being exists. Furthermore, it relies entirely upon the assumption that the Judeo-christian verison of god is correct.

I will be forwarding it to my professor of physics, my professor of philosophy, and a few friends in the Navy and Raytheon for further inspection, if you don't mind. I don't consider myself an expert in such matters, so I defer to the experts.

I want to get a few opinions, before I either mount a full scale assault on it, or applaud it for it's merits.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

This assumption is fallacious, as it is the assumption that the universe:
A) must have had a beginning
B) could not have had an infinite regression, due to an endless existance.


Since we're bringing this up now, I'll just state my problems with Infinite regression. The main problem I have with ig is that it can never be proven, how can we know that there are still an infinite more number of causes, as opposed to one more?

Further, if you apply Octam Razer, ig loses out to every other possibility out there(including God).

[papabryant]

As it's 5am here in texas, I don't have the mental stamina to reply in depth, so I'll have to do that tommorrow. Been up all night studying, and I'm a bit brain dead at the moment.


However, I would like a rebuttal to my challenge of your paper concerning proof of god.

I do not beleive that it is a logical paper for a few reasons:

-It relies on the judeo-christian explanation of god
The Kalam arguement is a Muslim arguement to start with, but remember this paper takes the concept of first cause - whatever that may be - and assigns it the name "God" - it doesn't start with the Judeo-Christian God.

-It uses this explanation to tie it into big bang

Again, all that is done is compare the effect of that cause to two different religious texts creation stories - stories that scientists already see parallels to - and see which fits closest to the facts as defined by science. What I have done is in effect tied the scientific method of observation to philosophy.

-my question was for proof of god
One cannot use an unproven variable to prove itself.

Which is given, because I did not use an unproven variable - I observed what science already knows and compared.

Truthfully, philosophers have been trying to refute the Kalam arguement (and Aquinas' admittedly inferior take on it) for centuries. It has never been refuted, but was ignored for a long time until William Lane Craig picked it back up.

Let me know what your friends say! :teeth:

Peace,

Tom

[Philosophickle]

Truthfully, philosophers have been trying to refute the Kalam arguement (and Aquinas' admittedly inferior take on it) for centuries. It has never been refuted, but was ignored for a long time until William Lane Craig picked it back up.

Perhaps you should start a topic in either Apologetics 301 or Philosophy 201?

I would be willing to offer my two cents, but I think this thread is being hijacked here. Just a suggestion.

[aspiretohope]

Rather than make a bazillion seperate replies, I just condensed everything into this post. I hope I replied to everyone!








Untrue!

Humans are naturaly adept at detecting patterns, and like with like. Certaintly not every spider is the same, but they all share determining characteristics. We have many spider species, and each with their own name, based on their distinguishing characteristics. We call the entire class "spider" due to the similarities across all sub-types.



They do indeed have a logical course. Except of course, when we're making a name up. At which point, any criteria is acceptable.

And I'm still afraid I do not understand what this has to do with god. (?)

"determining charecteristics" see what i said about body sections in arthropods

no God = no objecitivities
no objectivities = no meanings

and starting with God is no more illogical than not starting with God
thats cos God is too fundamental
you can't reason towards a fundamental
you can start with it, and reason out from there, or start with something else, and reason out from there, or do both and compare where you have arrived at
of course, the terms which two people with different fundamentals will use to judge their and others' conclusions may not be completely congruent


being human can bear comparison to being a railroad track. according to my spources, railroad tracks have short memories and soon forget that a train has passed over them. they pass their time by discussing the purpose of being a railroad track with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say

he other thing about fundamentals is that not assuming any given fundamental is not a nuteral position. you don't seem to have fallen for the "lack of beleif in God" thing very much, so i'll leave it there

to clarify what i mean by "fundamental", let us remove ourselves to the nearest trainline. according to my spources, railroad tracks pass their time by discussing their origin with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks can be divded into two classes of belief on origin. some say that they are just laid down, rust out, and die peacefull deaths in retaining walls. others say that they are there for a purpose: to serve the railway company. there comes a response that "railway company" is unsupported speculation- apparently the maintenence dudes just com along cos thats what they do. which recieves the response that "it is all for a purpose, can't you see _TA_E RAIL CO somwhat scetchily ground into your own side?" to which the respone

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say
belief in God is so qualitively different from most other kinds of belief that analogy is difficult

[Cynic Sage]

"determining charecteristics" see what i said about body sections in arthropods

no God = no objecitivities
no objectivities = no meanings

and starting with God is no more illogical than not starting with God
thats cos God is too fundamental
you can't reason towards a fundamental
you can start with it, and reason out from there, or start with something else, and reason out from there, or do both and compare where you have arrived at
of course, the terms which two people with different fundamentals will use to judge their and others' conclusions may not be completely congruent


being human can bear comparison to being a railroad track. according to my spources, railroad tracks have short memories and soon forget that a train has passed over them. they pass their time by discussing the purpose of being a railroad track with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say

he other thing about fundamentals is that not assuming any given fundamental is not a nuteral position. you don't seem to have fallen for the "lack of beleif in God" thing very much, so i'll leave it there

to clarify what i mean by "fundamental", let us remove ourselves to the nearest trainline. according to my spources, railroad tracks pass their time by discussing their origin with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks can be divded into two classes of belief on origin. some say that they are just laid down, rust out, and die peacefull deaths in retaining walls. others say that they are there for a purpose: to serve the railway company. there comes a response that "railway company" is unsupported speculation- apparently the maintenence dudes just com along cos thats what they do. which recieves the response that "it is all for a purpose, can't you see _TA_E RAIL CO somwhat scetchily ground into your own side?" to which the respone

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say
belief in God is so qualitively different from most other kinds of belief that analogy is difficult
What the crap? :huh:

[A Cup of No]

Guess how YOU can get one. :tongue:

I voted for you last month and I didn't get one. :bawl: Guess I was supposed to request it or something. Ah well.

[jpholding]

I voted for you last month and I didn't get one. :bawl: Guess I was supposed to request it or something. .

Yep. I need a description of what ya want. :teeth:

[Goth_S]

"determining charecteristics" see what i said about body sections in arthropods

no God = no objecitivities
no objectivities = no meanings

and starting with God is no more illogical than not starting with God
thats cos God is too fundamental
you can't reason towards a fundamental
you can start with it, and reason out from there, or start with something else, and reason out from there, or do both and compare where you have arrived at
of course, the terms which two people with different fundamentals will use to judge their and others' conclusions may not be completely congruent

Eerrr.....no. No my dear, this is not correct.

Positing god, as the end result, before you've started the equation, is false.
One must have evidence to support the concept that a god exists, for him to be a possible answer in the first place.



being human can bear comparison to being a railroad track. according to my spources, railroad tracks have short memories and soon forget that a train has passed over them. they pass their time by discussing the purpose of being a railroad track with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say

I....have no idea what your talking about. (?)


he other thing about fundamentals is that not assuming any given fundamental is not a nuteral position. you don't seem to have fallen for the "lack of beleif in God" thing very much, so i'll leave it there

to clarify what i mean by "fundamental", let us remove ourselves to the nearest trainline. according to my spources, railroad tracks pass their time by discussing their origin with the tracks opposite. railroad tracks can be divded into two classes of belief on origin. some say that they are just laid down, rust out, and die peacefull deaths in retaining walls. others say that they are there for a purpose: to serve the railway company. there comes a response that "railway company" is unsupported speculation- apparently the maintenence dudes just com along cos thats what they do. which recieves the response that "it is all for a purpose, can't you see _TA_E RAIL CO somwhat scetchily ground into your own side?" to which the respone

to say which track is being more logical, I am really unable to say
belief in God is so qualitively different from most other kinds of belief that analogy is difficult


I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[aspiretohope]

one must have evidence to support the idea that God does not exist, for His non-existance to be a possible answer in the first place

[aspiretohope]

people are always saying that to me

i garbled that post and was too sleepy to notice until today

[Goth_S]

one must have evidence to support the idea that God does not exist, for His non-existance to be a possible answer in the first place


Negative.

I do not propose that god does not exist, merely that the evidence does not support such assertions.

[{Tim}]

Any conclusion you wish to come to, is entirely your own perception, rather than truth. The human body after all, is TERRIBLY designed! Any engineer would kill the designer on sight!

-A back designed for 4 legs, not two.
-A terrible construction of the eye

etc. etc. If you don't mind, could I ask you to go into a little more detail of what you meant here? I don't recall much about the human back, but I remember reading a debate about the design of the eye, and it seemed at the time that the "poor design" argument was mistaken... :shrug: perhaps you have something I haven't heard before, though.

[Goth_S]

If you don't mind, could I ask you to go into a little more detail of what you meant here? I don't recall much about the human back, but I remember reading a debate about the design of the eye, and it seemed at the time that the "poor design" argument was mistaken... :shrug: perhaps you have something I haven't heard before, though.


Well, due to a design "flaw" a sharp blow to the back of the head, can render you blind. Not from brain trauma, but from the retinas detaching.
The eye has 6 muscles to manipulate it, when 3 would have been sufficient.
Nerves and blood vessels are in front of the retina, when behind would have been far far more efficient.
etc. etc.

Of course, we could keep going.

Eating out of the same hole that you breath out of, plants that aren't capable of utilising the entire spectrum of light to gain energy, wisdom teeth, the orchid which uses processes that other plants use, but the orchid uses them for reproduction, homosexual stabbing rape from bed-bugs, The inguinal canal which can herniate after the male testicles descend, the tyrannosaurus with it's tiny (and unusable) vestigial limbs, the exposure of the ulnar nerve at the base of the elbow, the poor design of the knee as prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the patella, a condition known as "housemaid's knee", then of course there's the fact that the adult human skull, is too thin to provide adequate protection for a brain so large and the lack of brow ridges leave the eyes poorly protected, etc. etc. ad-nauseum

[Pilgrim]

You guys are gettting really far away from the thread topic. Why not stop hijacking the thread and start a new one?

[Goth_S]

You guys are gettting really far away from the thread topic. Why not stop hijacking the thread and start a new one?




Agreed. I'll stick it in Apologetics 301, under the title "Derailment of biblical proportions."


For convenience, this was the last relevant post on the original topic:



Quote: Originally posted by jwarrend
What I meant it to suggest was that it's just good practice to support one's assertions. We can agree to disagree about how self-contained a piece of writing ought to be.


I assume an informed readership. My bad. Giving too much credit is a mistake I make regularly.

Quote:
We were talking about what should be eminating from the pulpit. What does the fact that non-Christian groups pray, praise, etc, have to do with the fact that Christian pastors need to devote preaching time to instruct Christian believers in the correct ways to praise, pray, fast, give, serve, etc?


It means that it is all ultimately meaningless prattle unless one's doctrinal and exegetical house is in order (save the grace of God to those who are ignorant in innocence). What's the warning that ended with, "Depart from me, I never knew you..."?

Hence, an aspect of apologetics (defense of doctrine, in particular the identity of Christ) lies at the base of any properly directed service. No non-sequitur there. Just a wake up call.

[Goth_S]

dup. post. doh

[RedRocky]

Simple question, but does anyone know of a page that lists the essential fundamentals that we should be teaching young people, so that when they reach their late teens / early twenties, they do not turn away because they do not know the answers to the questions people put to them.

An obvious example is creation. What others are there? Is there a page on TheologyWeb that lists what they would consider main topics that need to be covered.

Thanks.

[Cynic Sage]

Simple question, but does anyone know of a page that lists the essential fundamentals that we should be teaching young people, so that when they reach their late teens / early twenties, they do not turn away because they do not know the answers to the questions people put to them.

An obvious example is creation. What others are there? Is there a page on TheologyWeb that lists what they would consider main topics that need to be covered.

Thanks.

I guess it depends on the arguments being made agaisnt xtianity today.

In his indictment (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/indictment.html), JP mentioned things like how ignorance (or lack resources available from the church to combat such ignorance) about the science of textual criticism (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html) can leave a young xtian open to the objection of "we only have copies of copies of the NT so we don't really know what the original really said." And then there's things like DVC and such.

Not to mention things like pastors glossing over passages that would make your average seeker or Purpose-junkie feel uncomfortable (such as Ezekiel 23:19-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=23&verse=19&end_verse=21&version=31&context=context) and Psalm 137:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=137&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=31&context=context)).

[Lizard]

Comments welcome. I want to post this in a few hours but more can always be added later.

*********


DRAFT -- subject to additions

This is an article about how the church at large has failed us.

It is, of course, by no means meant to imply that there are not exceptions to the rules to be discussed. You may be part of a local church body without these failings, and if you are, you should be glad of it. But let's be honest -- most churches ARE failing when it comes to these matters we will discuss.

Here is the problem that I see re-occurs time and time again:

1. Our churches do not educate people in the basics of their faith. We seldom if ever hear about things like textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, alleged "copycat" savior gods, etc.
2. Because our people are not educated in these matters, they are caught "flat footed" when confronted with them.
3. Some people are unaffected and simply go on their merry way. Good for them, maybe. Others start having questions.
4. Their pastors cannot answer their questions because they too are generally lacking in such knowledge; their degrees are more geared towards counseling or preaching technique. Likewise Sunday School teachers and other figures of authority, who generally have even less relevant education. Persons with questions are told that eg, questioning is evil, they should have faith, etc. which is not satisfactory.
5. The lack of education also extends to the public sector, where people are not taught to think critically, nor to evaluate credibility of sources, but rather that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. The church often teaches this as well, explicity or implicitly.
6. Persons with questions come across Skeptical literature in print or online that is mostly written by persons with no better education in the relevant areas. However, because the reader also lacks the necessary education and thinking skills, the base level of what is called "common sense" (as it would often be, if indeed the facts were as the literature says) becomes persuasive precisely because of their ignorance. For example, ignorance of the process and science of textual criticism could lead to the erroneous "common sense" conclusion that there is some problem in that we have "only copies of copies of copies" of the New Testament.
7. By this time it is often too late to even provide such people with sound material by credible authorities. They are not able to comprehend even the simplest defense at times (and indeed, certain things simply can NOT be simplified so much, for otherwise they lose power and credibility as defenses), because they have not been given the adequate foundation to understand what someone like eg, a Bruce Metzger says about textual criticism. Because it violates what they have taken to be a sound, "common sense" approach by a non-authority who is equally in the dark, it is simple for them to simply dismiss answering material as some sort of desperate effort to resolve what is really a very serious problem (though in reality it isn't).

What can or needs to be done about this?

* Taking your church through "Purpose Driven Life" won't solve this.
* Reading "Left Behind" novels won't solve this.
* More contemporary music programs and "seeker-friendly" techniques won't solve this.
* Joel Osteen will DEFINITELY not solve this.
* Your average Sunday School materials, which strain mightily to make passages like Is. 42 somehow relevant to the average working person, won't solve this.
* Building a new church gymnasium won't solve this.
* Youth programs involving gimmicks and games won't solve this.
* Passing our tracts won't solve this.

Of course I'm being facetious. The only way to solve this is with a solid educational program, which is exactly what we lack in so many of our churches. It's time for fewer prefab sermons, with their rampant decontextualizations, and time for more demonstrations on textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, and so on. It's time to make such efforts a priority and not something we take after the damage is done and we need to play "catch up". It's time to be proactive instead of reactive. It's time to make these things something that is discussed from the pulpit on Sunday morning, not hidden away in Sunday night church training classes or Wednesday night Bible study. It's also time to make this part of our evangelism, and throw away or at least de-prioritize all the gimmicks like the "Evangecubes" and the poorly drawn Chick tracts.

What's a good way to test this?

* Did your church do anything about The Da Vinci Code? What, and when (Sunday morning when so many people were there, or on some obscure night when they know only a handful will show up)?
* How about the Gospel of Judas? Was anything said about it?
* Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved down their throats?
* Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus?
* If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today), or the argument stricture of i Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent" passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just glaze over?

There are some answers to this that are no good:

* "This kind of approach will intimidate people." Does it occur to someone who says this that the Gospel was a very intimidating message in its time, one that upended all of the social values of its day? Let's not water down the facts or the message behind them for the sake of making yet more converts without an adequate foundation.
* "The Holy Spirit will move people." Then you don't need to preach watered-down feelgood sermons either, do you? Obviously no one practices this idea consistently except for the sort of person who a century or so back would not send a missionary to India under the reasoning that the Spirit would do all the work without missionaries. At least they were consistent in their approach.

Consider this a call to action.

:woohoo:

I need to get out and about more. How did I miss this thread? :bugeyes: JPH, I see you have found my soapbox and raised it even higher. :soapbox: Excelent work.


I agree 110%. Pearls to you.

[jpholding]

Been a while, and I have updated this article a bit. Wish to highlight this email from a reader. . Names have been deleted or altered so as to protect the reader's identity.



You'll recall that I've been in touch with you in the past and even got your site linked on our (name and location of church) high school ministry website some time ago. I'm writing you because of the distress I'm feeling after many weeks and months of observation of changes taking place in our church of approximately #000 members, and conversations with a few fellow believers concerning those changes.....

I sat under the teaching of _____ ______ at _______ Church in ______, a member of the (denominational group)...for nearly 20 years. (The pastor) is a graduate of BIOLA and founded in sound doctrine, preaching the need for repentance and forgiveness. Two years ago he accepted a position in _____________ which, of course, necessitated the search for a new head pastor.

That search resulted in the hiring of one ____ __________, a disciple of the "seeker format" promulgated by Rick Warren and used in the mega-church from which he came, Willow Creek in Illinois.

Our services have changed over the last year since he began teaching. There's been a gradual shift in the appearance of the "primary" service held in the sanctuary....including an increased use of media and visual arts to convey messages. I don't object to this in particular....but the saturation, even for one of my preferences, has just about worn out it's novelty and, therefore, impact in conveying the message it's intended to communicate.

The seminal moment of my recognizing a need to begin a process of seeking to address other issues that are reflected in the seeker style of service came today, Resurrection Sunday.

Throughout the entire service this morning, the name of Jesus was lifted up. Praises were sung, the difference between all other religions and Christianity was pointed out (in general). The cross that bridged the gap between man and God was demonstrated in the words spoken and the set that was constructed for the service.

So what was missing?

Not once during the service, either in words sung or spoken, was the single most important reason for Christ's sacrifice spoken of. Sin.

Yes, Jesus' death on the cross was the bridge, but only as a means to a "fuller life", a "life of service", a "life after death", the "life you've always wanted".

As I write this and contemplate the words about to be typed, I've literally begun to cry. Not once was it mentioned that Jesus died on the Cross for my sin. Yes, it was said he died for me, but FOR WHAT??

So I can have a happier life here in this world? Of course that's true! So I can spend eternity with Him and with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His heaven? Yes!! Emphatically! Yes!! That is the end result of his sacrifice.

But the question stands? Why did He NEED to die for me? And that single thought, the basis of salvation, the reason He suffered on the cross on my behalf, was never mentioned. Not once.

I grew up in the United Methodist Church. I heard the same message there for the first 17 years of my life. "Jesus loves you and died for you." But no one ever confronted me with my personal responsibility in that death and the cause of it. I remember distinctly that my salvation experience was the result of being convinced of my need for the Savior because I was a sinner.

Not because I would spend eternity in darkness separated from the Creator. Not because I needed more "things". Not because my life was a horrible experience. Heck, I was making decent money, enjoying the company of numerous women, and getting high on a daily basis, so in my limited view of a __ year old white male I was doing great!

Again it was that the word was preached. I heard that I was a sinner (and why I what I was doing was a sin), I heard that Christ loved me and died for me, and that the solution to the terrible conviction I was under was a relationship with Him.

Today, of all days, I expected to be able to go to the church I've attended for __ years and hear the glorious message of Christ's salvation preached. I was immensely disappointed, as you can tell.

[Rayado]

Let's put it this way, JP: after my church's Easter service, that Ekklesia book started looking really good. :shifty:

[T-Shirt Ninja]

1. Our churches do not educate people in the basics of their faith. We seldom if ever hear about things like textual criticism, the authenticity of the Gospels, alleged "copycat" savior gods, etc.
2. Because our people are not educated in these matters, they are caught "flat footed" when confronted with them.
3. Some people are unaffected and simply go on their merry way. Good for them, maybe. Others start having questions.
4. Their pastors cannot answer their questions because they too are generally lacking in such knowledge; their degrees are more geared towards counseling or preaching technique. Likewise Sunday School teachers and other figures of authority, who generally have even less relevant education. Persons with questions are told that eg, questioning is evil, they should have faith, etc. which is not satisfactory.
5. The lack of education also extends to the public sector, where people are not taught to think critically, nor to evaluate credibility of sources, but rather that everyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's. The church often teaches this as well, explicity or implicitly.
6. Persons with questions come across Skeptical literature in print or online that is mostly written by persons with no better education in the relevant areas. However, because the reader also lacks the necessary education and thinking skills, the base level of what is called "common sense" (as it would often be, if indeed the facts were as the literature says) becomes persuasive precisely because of their ignorance. For example, ignorance of the process and science of textual criticism could lead to the erroneous "common sense" conclusion that there is some problem in that we have "only copies of copies of copies" of the New Testament.

JP, I know you specialize at whipping atheists. However, your list so far (especially number 6 in principle, as I have bolded) also accounts for why false churches like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses are able to pick off people from our churches and especially kids from our youth groups. These groups have to defend their faith often times, even though their evidence stinks. Our church laymen ought to be the ones whipping them in healthy debate.


What's a good way to test this?

* Did your church do anything about The Da Vinci Code? What, and when (Sunday morning when so many people were there, or on some obscure night when they know only a handful will show up)?
* How about the Gospel of Judas? Was anything said about it?
* Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved down their throats?
* Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book Misquoting Jesus?
* If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to understanding its role and application today), or the argument stricture of i Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent" passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just glaze over?


My church did address the Da Vinci Code, but hasn't done any of the other stuff. It'd also be good to know if the pastors can spot disturbing trends in the religious mainstream that is affecting our churches as well. A few months ago I heard one of my pastors (my church has 3, for different functions) talk of something like this. I went up and asked if he was talking about the Emerging Church. He said yes and told me about how several things that some prominent leaders in this movement said that he found disturbing. I'm glad I have a pastor who's smart enough to look out for this stuff. I wish all pastors of our churches were that way.

[jpholding]

Let's put it this way, JP: after my church's Easter service, that Ekklesia book started looking really good. :shifty:

And I'll bet they wouldn't understand why.....


However, your list so far (especially number 6 in principle, as I have bolded) also accounts for why false churches like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses are able to pick off people from our churches and especially kids from our youth groups.

Absolutely.

[Zweihander]

The Baptist church that I attend here in Abilene, TX usually sticks to sound doctrine and at least dabbles in apologetic teaching. We actually had a decent exposé on the DaVinci Code bunk the Sunday before Mother's Day in *egads!* the main service no doubt.

Yet, shortly after, they jumped right on the "40 Days of Purpose" bandwagon. A forty day stretch of small groups meeting each week to read "St. Rick Warren's" dumbed-down personalized rhetoric about finding our purpose. Our pastor who is usually the inquisitive, informed and grounded type, ate this up hook, line, and sinker. We had skits on the big-screen in the auditorium with two men from the college group who imitated the PC & Mac commercials except the theme was of course, "I've got purpose." I didn't participate in the book reading so maybe I'm giving an unfair critique regarding it, but the visual presentation just lacked substance and seemed better geared toward junior-high kids.

That and Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen (being from Houston, TX), and other feel good, health 'n wealth speakers have gained remarkable influence here in West Texas. Just check any Christian bookstore here.

Just further evidence that this "Call to Action Indictment" is sorely needed...

[Meta Knight]

except the theme was of course, "I've got purpose." I didn't participate in the book reading so maybe I'm giving an unfair critique regarding it,

As someone who read the book...trust me...you're not.

[Nazaroo]

In his indictment, JP mentioned things like how ignorance (or lack resources available from the church to combat such ignorance) about the science of textual criticism can leave a young xtian open to the objection of "we only have copies of copies of the NT so we don't really know what the original really said." And then there's things like DVC and such.


This is probably a good place to start.

First of all, congrats to JP Holding for his honest concern over these issues (his general article).

Second, as to the specific point addressed above by the recent poster:

It is good to be humble and not be caught in the position of the pot calling the kettle sooty, or even more appropriate from the point of view of Jesus' teaching,

'trying to take the speck out of another's eye while wrestling with the log in your own...'


A Case of Clumsy, Unscientific, Apologetic "Textual Criticism" of the Worst kind:

A case in point here is the following disinformation, for which I don't blame Holding at all, but which must be challenged and corrected on many points.

8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The account of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has a textual history that makes heads spin. Michaels in her commentary on John [146] offers the details: It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception); in those manuscripts where we do find it, it is not found in one place. Some have it at the end of John. Some put it after our John 7:36; one puts it after 7:44. Some have it in Luke, after Luke 21:38. So what's happening here? Do we maybe have a bit of an otherwise rejected gospel, or an inauthentic story of Jesus, in our canon?

The answer to both questions is, probably not -- and it is important to see these, indeed, as two separate questions, despite a certain Skeptical tendency to treat them as one. The story could easily have been authentic, yet made its way at first only into heretical gospels; heretics should certainly have wanted it to add a pretension of authenticity to their works. (Although, note well, we have no copy of a heretical or alternate gospel with the story.)

First, does the evidence point to this being an authentic account from the ministry of Jesus? Second, who wrote up this account? And finally, why wasn't it put in one of our canonical gospels to start with?

1. Authentic or not? Even staunch critics admit that this pericope, though obviously not originally part of John, is quite likely to reflect an authentic episode in the life of Jesus. C. S. Lewis is often followed in his observation that the record of Jesus writing in the dust has the ring of the record of an eyewitness. Why note this detail -- yet not note what was being written? (This has been a source for endless speculation: That Jesus was writing the charge out as though for a Roman trial; that he was inscribing some passage from the OT, or even listing the sins of the accusers!)

Also slightly favoring authenticity is the fact that this story seems to be alluded to by some patristic texts. Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)

2. Who's the author? Many would say there's no way to tell, but I'm not that squeamish. I think there's fairly strong evidence to link this story to Luke. This evidence would include:

* The inclusion of the story in some mss. of Luke.

* The use of unique Lukan or Synoptic vocabulary: orthros ("early" -- John 8:2; Luke 24:1, Acts 5:21; "all the people" (John 8:2; appears almost 20 times in Luke-Acts, but only 5 times in Mark and Matthew together); paraginomai ("appear" -- John 8:2; appears over two dozen times in Luke-Acts, but only 3 times in Matt, once in Mark, and once elsewhere in John); kategoros ("accusers" -- found elsewhere only in Acts, 5 times); suneideis ("conscience" -- found only here, and twice in Acts); "Mount of Olives", "scribes and Pharisees", "eldest" (8:1, 8:3, 8:9) -- unique to the Synoptics, other than here in John

 The story fits well with Luke's special interest in women.


3. Why not in the original gospel texts? The only speculation I have seen suggested is that this text was not included in a final gospel product because it seemed to have been too easy on those who committed sexual sin. However, I think a far more practical reason can be offered. In the process of composing his Gospel, Luke, following standard literary practice for the time, would have compiled notes which he later collected and collated into a full text. The pericope would be well designated as one of Luke's original "loose leaf" notes that didn't make the cut to the final gospel. Why? The pericope fits quite well in the context where it is sometimes placed in Luke (after 21:38). But it is also immediately before the Passion narrative. Luke's Gospel is just about the right size for a typical ancient scroll, so the omission of this pericope from his Gospel may have been for a no less practical reason than that Luke saw that he was running out of writing room!

This story offers no argument against capital punishment; all it does is make the "dare" of those who brought the woman even more exceptional! Not only were they challenging Jesus concerning the Jewish Law - they were also challenging Him to commit a violation of Roman law that only Rome could execute people - i.e., commit sedition! It's the same pattern that came to pass during Passion Week.



The above statement is J.P. Holding's apparent position on the Pericope de Adultera, (John 7:53-8:11).

Again, one can hardly fault him for spouting this, given the incredibly poor performance of supposedly "Christian" textual critics, who have given away the farm wholesale when it comes to basic Christian doctrines like inerrancy and Divine Preservation.

The Christian reader should be warned that the terse and unscientific footnotes in just about ALL 'modern' translations are simply trash-talk, and contain no redeeming value in the form of actual accurate information on the textual situation or the evidence for authenticity and Divine Inspiration of these verses.

Our advice to all Christians is to just black out those footnotes in their bible with a black permanent marker, and start studying the actual facts behind those absurd statements, placed there by liberal 'scholarship'.

The actual situation for the Pericope de Adultera, regarding both textual (external) and contextual (internal) evidence is far less bleak than Metzger and his crowd of doubting Thomases would have you believe.

The evidence for Johannine authorship is actually 'overwhelming' all by itself. And there is copious evidence never before examined or considered by 'blind' textual critics. If you examine this new evidence, you will see just how blind the textual critics have actually been, and how disappointingly quickly they were willing to sell John out.

We suggest the sincere Christian reader begin here, with the actual manuscript evidence:

(1) We offer you actual photographs of the top ten early manuscripts, showing an entirely different picture than the one falsely presented in your 'textual critical handbooks':

Top Ten Early Manuscripts for John 8:1-11 (http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/MSS-top10.html) <-- Click here, Now!


After you take a close look at the damaged, doctored, and deliberately defaced evidence, I am sure you will realise that textual critics have not been entirely honest about the "earliest and best" manuscripts and John 8:1-11.

(2) Next, You should take a hard look at the alleged 'internal' evidence against Johannine authorship:

S. Davidson: Internal Evidence re: John 8:1-11 (http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/Davidson2.html) <-- Click here!

The reader will come to the understanding that the alleged internal evidence against the passage is in fact a joke. A house of cards that collapses with the slightest breath of truth and spark of enlightment from the Holy One.


(3) FInally, have a good look at the incredible internal evidence IN FAVOUR of John's Authorship of these verses, beginning with the O.T. Quotation structure of John's Gospel:

http://cadesign.webworkercanada.com/CHARTS/OTQ-John.jpg

From there you can browse through the many other structural signals and safeguards preventing any tampering or removal of John 8:1-11 from the Gospel:


Culpepper's Discovery of Parallel Internal Evidence (http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/Culpepper.html) <-- Click here.
Chiastic STructures in John (http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/CHIASM.html) <--Click here.

After that, take a look at the many articles and evidences showing that John 8:1-11 is not only a true gospel account of the early ministry of Jesus' Judean ministry, but also an integral part of John's Gospel.

Pericope de Adultera Online Materials (http://adultera.awardspace.com/pa-onsite.html) <-- Click Here.

This not the place to advertise your website, plus argument by weblink is prohibited by campus decorum.

[jpholding]

This is not the place for you to advertise your views on a different subject. Take it to Apologetics 301.

[InspiredHome]

How would we go about getting this message out to the pastoral staff? My church at times leans to the fluffier stuff but then at other times get into the meatier sermons. I wouldn't even know how to begin to reach them. Is it best to stay and try to work with them or leave for a church of substance?

[jpholding]

How would we go about getting this message out to the pastoral staff? My church at times leans to the fluffier stuff but then at other times get into the meatier sermons. I wouldn't even know how to begin to reach them. Is it best to stay and try to work with them or leave for a church of substance?

You're in better shape than most. I'd just say work with them. Maybe bring some samples of junk like Acharya S or even Richard Dawkins to see what kind of reaction you get.

[Cynic Sage]

You're in better shape than most. I'd just say work with them. Maybe bring some samples of junk like Acharya S or even Richard Dawkins to see what kind of reaction you get.

I hear Dawkins is actually really good when he's commenting in his field.

[jpholding]

I hear Dawkins is actually really good when he's commenting in his field.

I wouldn't doubt it, but he seems to think his field is just about everything.

[Mountain Man]

The church I'm currently attending is starting a series on the Christian world view using a DVD set produced by Focus on the Family. It basically starts at the philosophical ground level (i.e. "Why do I exist, and if I don't exist, why do I think I exist?") and works its way up from there to help people develop a Biblically grounded world view. They showed a trailer for it a couple of Sundays ago, and it looked pretty good from what I could tell. I appreciate the idea, and the fact that my church even considers this worth doing was encouraging.

I can't remember what the series is called exactly, but I was wondering if anybody else knows what I'm talking about and what their opinion of it is. JP, does it ring a bell?

Edit: Found it. It's called The Truth Project (http://www.thetruthproject.org/).

[jpholding]

The church I'm currently attending is starting a series on the Christian world view using a DVD set produced by Focus on the Family. It basically starts at the philosophical ground level (i.e. "Why do I exist, and if I don't exist, why do I think I exist?") and works its way up from there to help people develop a Biblically grounded world view. They showed a trailer for it a couple of Sundays ago, and it looked pretty good from what I could tell. I appreciate the idea, and the fact that my church even considers this worth doing was encouraging.

I can't remember what the series is called exactly, but I was wondering if anybody else knows what I'm talking about and what their opinion of it is. JP, does it ring a bell?

Edit: Found it. It's called The Truth Project (http://www.thetruthproject.org/).

Good thing, because I'd never heard of it. :teeth:

[energyman]

I wouldn't doubt it, but he seems to think his field is just about everything.

Indeed. Whenever people like Richard Dawkins do stuff like this, I am reminded of Plato's Apology. In one section of the dialogue (it's actually more like a monologue in this case), Socrates describes himself talking to a man who knows a very great deal about his trade, but then he starts shooting off his mouth about things he doesn't know anything about and Socrates considers himself the wiser, for he does not presume himself to know the things he does not.

[Cynic Sage]

The church I'm currently attending is starting a series on the Christian world view using a DVD set produced by Focus on the Family. It basically starts at the philosophical ground level (i.e. "Why do I exist, and if I don't exist, why do I think I exist?") and works its way up from there to help people develop a Biblically grounded world view. They showed a trailer for it a couple of Sundays ago, and it looked pretty good from what I could tell. I appreciate the idea, and the fact that my church even considers this worth doing was encouraging.

I can't remember what the series is called exactly, but I was wondering if anybody else knows what I'm talking about and what their opinion of it is. JP, does it ring a bell?

Edit: Found it. It's called The Truth Project (http://www.thetruthproject.org/).

I dunno about that. Focus on the Family always seems to be more interested in getting people to vote yes/no on bill/proposition "gays v. fetus" than providing solid arguments for the faith.

That and I have trouble trusting an organization, Christian or not, that misrepresents statistics (http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140004) and keeps flip-flopping on whether or not (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610180018?f=i_related)it is a politcal organization.

[Bill the Cat]

My Boss is teaching The Truth Project at his church for the second time and he loves it. I'd also like to see if JP has any knowledge of it. Ravi is part of it, so I am tentatively a fan.

[R. Hoeppner]

In too many churches (and I visit plenty of them in my travels) the Sunday Morning sermons are generally geared to a type of 'how you should live' seminars.
My desire is that of those in Bible times who said: "We would see Jesus." Jesus the standard by which all of us are measured, and by which all of us fall far short. We christians are too concerned with our selves, "what can God do for me" so it's no wonder the world with all of it's skepticism measures the church by us. We've set it up that way - a kind of 12 step christianity--you know, 12 steps to a better marriage, 12 steps to god's blessings, 12 steps to deliverance etc. Nothing more than formulaes that mainly the authors themselves profit from. Show the world the Jesus of the Bible. Preach Jesus, teach Jesus, confess Jesus and you will see revival!

[jpholding]

Hokey smokes. I could have written this:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/12/leaving-christianity-a-christian-epidemic/#comments

....One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic pulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. You may have noticed this. I have over a dozen books giving autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving. I get emails, phone calls, and visits from the same.

No, it is not a neurotic pulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ.

Over 31 million Americans are saying “check please” to the church, and are off to find answers elsewhere. Jeff Schadt, coordinator of Youth Transition Network, says thousands of youth fall away from the church when transitioning from high school to college. He and other youth leaders estimate that 65 to 94 percent of high school students stop attending church after graduating. From my studies and experience I find that leaving church is many times the first visible step in one’s pilgrimage away from Christ.

The question that we must ask is a very simple one: Why? Why are people leaving the faith at this epidemic and alarming rate? In my studies, I have found that the two primary reasons people leave the faith are 1) intellectual challenges and 2) bad theology or misplaced beliefs.

First, I want to explain this transition process, focusing on the first: intellectual challenges. You might even find yourself somewhere on this journey.

Step one: Doubt
Step two: Discouragement
Step three: Disillusionment
Step four: Apathy
Step five: Departure

Step One: Doubt

Here is where the person begins to examine his or her faith more critically by asking questions, expressing concerns, and becoming transparent with their doubt. This doubt is not wholesale, but expresses an inner longing to have questions answered and the intellect satisfied to some degree. Normally this person will inquire of mentors in the faith, requesting an audience for their doubt.

Step Two: Discouragement

This is where the person becomes frustrated because they are not finding the answers. They ask questions but the answer (or lack thereof) causes them discouragement. Their church tells them that such questions are “unchristian.” Their Sunday school teacher says, “I don’t know. You just have to believe.” Others simply say, “That’s a good question, I have never thought of it before,” and then go on their way on their own leap-of-faith journey.

Step Three: Disillusionment

Now the person begins to become disillusioned with Christianity in general and proceeds to doubt much more deeply. They feel betrayed by those who made them believe the story about Christ. They feel that much of their former faith was naive since not even their most trusted mentors could (or would) answer basic questions about the Bible, history, or faith. In their thinking the intellect has become illegitimized and the church is therefore an illegitimate contender for their mind.

Step Four: Apathy

At this point in the journey, the disillusioned Christian becomes apathetic to finding the answers, believing that the answers don’t exist. They are firmly on their way to atheism, agnosticism, or pure skepticism but don’t have the courage to admit it to themselves or others. Many times those in this stage live as closet unbelievers, believing it is not worth it to come clean about their departure from the faith. They want a peaceful existence in their unbelief without creating controversy. Therefore, they are content to remain closet unbelievers.

Step Five: Departure

Here is where I meet this young lady I told you about. (Really, she was somewhere in-between apathy and departure.) At this stage the fact that they have left the faith has become real to them and they are willing to announce to the world. Because of their sense of betrayal, they feel as if it is their duty to become evangelists for the cause of unbelief. Their goal and mission becomes to unconvert the converted.

“I don’t really even care what you have to say to me,” she told me that day. “I just don’t believe anymore and there is nothing anyone can do about it.” As I thought about this young lady over the last week, only one thing keeps coming to mind: how was she a part of the church for so long without the church engaging her on these issues. You see, her issues were numerous, but foundational. She doubted the resurrection of Christ, the inspiration, inerrancy, and canon of Scripture, and the historicity of the Christian faith in general. If the church had legitimized her questions during the doubting phase and truly engaged her from an intellectual front I can’t help but think, from a human point of view, things might have been different. But once she reaches the point of apathy, this seems to be a point of no return.

My life and my ministry is committed to one thing: rooting people theologically by presenting the intellectual viability of the Evangelical faith. While I understand this is not all there is to the Christian faith, it is an absolute vital part of discipleship and foundational to everything else.

Everyone will go through the doubt phase. Everyone should ask questions about the faith. If you have not asked the “How do you know . . .” questions about the message of the Gospel, this is not a good thing. We should be challenged to think through these questions early in the faith. The Church needs to rethink its education program. Expositional preaching, while important, is not enough. Did you hear that? Expositional preaching is not enough. It does not provide the discipleship venue that is vital for us to prevent and overcome this epidemic. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that it does.

The church has been on an intellectual diet for the last century and we are suffering from theological atrophy. What else do you expect when we have replaced theological discipleship with a gluttonous promotion of entertainment, numbers, and fast-food Christianity that can produce nothing more than a veneer of faith seasoned for departure?

The solution: to reform our educational program in the church. To lay theological foundations through critical thinking. To understand that the great commission is to make disciples, not simply converts. And most importantly, we must pray that God will grant a revival of the mind knowing that without the power of the Holy Spirit, no amount of intellectual persuasion can change an antagonistic heart.

Without these, the epidemic of leaving Christ will only worsen.

:sigh: Heck, I did write that a year or more ago....

[Sparko]

Hokey smokes. I could have written this:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/12/leaving-christianity-a-christian-epidemic/#comments



:sigh: Heck, I did write that a year or more ago....

someone plagiarized you?

dang. go get him.

[jpholding]

someone plagiarized you?

dang. go get him.

He didn't, but I would gladly give permission to anyone who wanted to on this one!

[jpholding]

Got a poignant email today, to share. Used with permission, slightly altered for privacy.

Please help me. My son has left our born-again Christian church and now says that he doesn't believe that Jesus ever existed and has taken his wife and my grandchildren down this same path of destruction. I do not believe that any of them were saved before this happened but they were hearing the Word and always in our prayers.

My son also believes in every conspiracy theory that is out there - i.e. America was created to be the cesspool of the world; the world is controlled by German Jews (which includes the Queen of England and her husband) who are the elite of the Freemasons and are in turn controlled by Satan himself; Bush sacrifices babies in the basement of the White House; Bush blew up the World Trade Center with the help of his brother (not Jeb); there is an entire inhabited world in the middle of the earth, the porthole is in the South Pole; and dozens of other outragious things.

We definitely need more "Way of the Master" and singing in church, and less apologetics material in our sermons. :dizzy:

[Raphael]

As the saying goes, if you don't stand for anything you'll fall for everything.

That's a really sad email.

[jwarrend]

We definitely need more "Way of the Master" and singing in church, and less apologetics material in our sermons. :dizzy:

Indeed. Because as we all know, advocates of the Way of the Master and singing in church also promote teachings about how German Jews control the world and that there is an inhabited world in the center of the earth. Great point, JP.

[Sparko]

Got a poignant email today, to share. Used with permission, slightly altered for privacy.



We definitely need more "Way of the Master" and singing in church, and less apologetics material in our sermons. :dizzy:

wow. so he believes all sorts of inane crap without any evidence whatsoever, but doesn't think that Jesus ever existed despite 2000 years of history backing it up?

that figures.

[jpholding]

jwarrend
This message is hidden because jwarrend is on your ignore list.

Huh. Let me guess....

WHINE WHINE WHIIIINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHIIIIIINE WHINE WAY OF THE MASTER HAS DONE SOME GOOD HOW DARE YOU WHINE WHINE WHINE WHIIIINE

How close am I?

[Raphael]

Huh. Let me guess....



How close am I?
Not that close. He was just pointing out that we can't blame WoTM for that bloke believing all the conspiracy crap....being ineffective yes, conspiracy crap no.

[jpholding]

Not that close. He was just pointing out that we can't blame WoTM for that bloke believing all the conspiracy crap....being ineffective yes, conspiracy crap no.

Oh. In other words he missed the point as usual. E.g., ineffectiveness in/of the church is one of the first steps in/reasons for people falling into this kind of crap.

That's why he's on Ignore -- he can't think his way out of a paper bag. Carry on.

[jwarrend]

Oh. In other words he missed the point as usual...


...which was that with enough Crisco, you can apparently make any slope appear slippery.

[RumTumTugger]

...which was that with enough Crisco, you can apparently make any slope appear slippery.

I think JPH has got it Jwarrend, that without making sure that we follow Christ's injunction to love God with our whole being, which I have yet to see from "The Way of the Master", We will be swayed and turned by the slightest little breeze. Sorry Jwarrend, unless you teach children why we believe what we believe you will people falling for the type of crap described in that email to JPH.

Luke10:27-28 (NKJV)
27So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, wi[th all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.'" 28And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

I have seen nothing from "The Way of the Master" that does the above, so to my mind it is not following Christ's teachings at all.

Matthew 28:19(NiV)
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[fn1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

How do you make disciples of people by only reaching them through the emotions hmm? What did Jesus teach his disciples? he taught them the whys and reasons for his parables he spoke of hard things like anger = murder and lustful thoughts = adultery. I see non of that in "The Way of the Master".

Anyone remember the Four spiritual laws of the 70s and 80s? I do and I am glad folks like JPH, William Lane Craig, Glen Miller etc came along to help me know that I needed to use my whole being not just the emotions. To learn who God truly is and what true faith is.

RTT
"I know whom I believe in and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed unto him against that day"

[jpholding]

I think JPH has got it Jwarrend, that without making sure that we follow Christ's injunction to love God with our whole being, which I have yet to see from "The Way of the Master", We will be swayed and turned by the slightest little breeze. Sorry Jwarrend, unless you teach children why we believe what we believe you will people falling for the type of crap described in that email to JPH.

Based on what you quoted, the man is desperately gyrating in the wind, because he uses unqualified analogies in the place of actual answers.

We had this out in this thread earlier, as well as in the skateboard one. He denies that there is a problem, despite widespread apostasy and dwindling church attendance. He thinks we should keep crap like those skateboard ministries; well, maybe we can tweak them a little -- "Say, JP, why don't you offer to vet their skateboard keys -- uh, materials?" It takes a deluded mind to just go happily whistling along the way he does.

I'm sure those now sliding into the pits of hell will appreciate his evaluation that it's only Crisco.

It's time to post this again...

[jwarrend]

I think JPH has got it Jwarrend, that without making sure that we follow Christ's injunction to love God with our whole being, which I have yet to see from "The Way of the Master", We will be swayed and turned by the slightest little breeze. Sorry Jwarrend, unless you teach children why we believe what we believe you will people falling for the type of crap described in that email to JPH.

Well, look, I'm certainly not carrying water for the Way of the Master, and I'm all for providing an intelllectual foundation for our faith, but what you said above is simply not true. I doubt you could walk around whatever city you live in for a day and find a half dozen people who would subscribe to any of the beliefs expressed in that email, be they believer, apostate, or unchurched.

Approval of singing in the church is tantamount to endorsement of the idea that German Jews run the world as a proxy for Satan, or to culpability for someone espousing such an idea? That's the theological equivalent of declaring President Bush to be personally responsible for hurricane Katrina having happened, on the grounds that the US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty. I'd like to think we can adequately convey the need for intellectual growth in the church without trying to connect dots that are on separate sheets of paper in separate books located on completely different continents.

-Jeff

[jwarrend]

It's time to post this again...

Apparently, JP is unfamiliar with the practice of prescribed burning!

[jpholding]

Two more whiningly tedious self-justifications, perhaps?

[RumTumTugger]

JPH I see why you have Jwarrend on ignore. To bad I don't have that luxury being a mod. that last reply to me didn't even destroy the straw man he tried to build up.

JPH thank you for being willing to point out the hard truths that need to be pointed out without sugar coating it. I for one am glad you can do what I can't do. but it is because of you I have answers that I didn't have before. When my church starts trying to find speakers to come talk about the importance of knowing what and why we believe I shall certainly give them your name.

[jwarrend]

JPH I see why you have Jwarrend on ignore. To bad I don't have that luxury being a mod. that last reply to me didn't even destroy the straw man he tried to build up.

Ouch!

[sc_q_jayce]

:bump:

So last week I had lunch with a friend of mine who attended our Church plant and I got some pretty scary stuff out of his mouth, that totally twisted whatever view I had of him before.

1. After a long conversation, I essentially got him to admit that the only thing he was looking for at Church during the sermons was a heart-wrenching experience. Seriously. This shocked me. Of course when he first came to our plant he loved it and it moved him. Of course as you get used to your pastor and his style and as you grow in your faith, you experience things differently. Evidently he wants to stay perpetually ignorant so everything makes his heart wrench.

2. He blamed the pastor for being too harsh. This said, I would hardly call my pastor harsh. Heck, I think he preaches the right things and could be even harsher.

3. He seriously didn't want solid Biblical teaching and only wanted to know what kind of entertaining features were in other churches that we could emulate. Churches that would probably die to have extreme skateboarding evangelism. Ugh.

Seriously, each day I get so much more fed up with people. I tried to steer him in a better direction and he blew me off essentially saying that I was too young and had no idea what the elderly people needed in the Church.

:rant:

In any case, I showed my pastor your article and he said this:

Great article. This is exactly the tune I've been singing for a while. If I talk about sin, apologetics, God's wrath, and argument structure from the pulpit, I may be labeled too harsh or too technical (I've been called both, variously.) but if I don't, I don't do anyone any good.

I seriously wonder how to reach out to Christians and make them interested in their own faith these days. :no:

[Andius]

I seriously wonder how to reach out to Christians and make them interested in their own faith these days. :no:

In my opinion, I suspect that it is already a choiced predisposition to not be taught. It can be for different reasons, either a dislike for learning, fear of belief disilusionment, or just plain out haughtiness in one's part.

I can already relate since some Christians here where I live seek only the "experience" at the cost of the teaching (Most of them, regrettebly of Pentecostal bent :argh: , are one of the most common cancers in the LatinAmerican Church). Even my own sister has attempted to rebuke me on the basis that I sound too intellectuall and not "Christian" enough, and she has a low opinion of apolegetics. Quite frankly, one who has refused such correction is a waste of time to keep correcting, since their minds have already been made up, and have cast a calculated disgust for such person, even to the point of refusing to congregate with them if he/she is that stubborn.

Regarding what your pastor has said, it has confirmed my fears regarding how a great number of Church leaders take more the path of convenience (They desire to preserve their positions and have high church attendence at the cost of sound doctrine and teaching). It be no different from some Latin Church leaders, they would sooner invest in expensive instruments and flashy light and smoke effects to attract more people as possible to their churches in order to gain pure numbers, at the cost of good growth in knowledge (That which would be called, Spiritual Growth on their already present members. Pastors (And I may as well include some Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, since they pull off the same things as well, just a bit different though) who take such fearfull approach in leadership quickly loses my respect and submittence as my Ecclesiastical superior.

In a way, such people are sooner darkeners of knowledge, and might quickly be the cause of stumbling block for others. Thankfully, there be other Christians out there who will take heed to sound teaching, and quickly warn them of such stumbling blocks (Since it is following the procedure of casting out the immoral brother). So yah, don't be to terribly faltered with such people Jayce, since such people may as well be as good as lost, refusing to be helped when help is extended to them.

[sc_q_jayce]

I've been dealing with people like this most of my Christian tenure, but this one takes the case because I was so sure he 'got it' and I was so dead wrong.

Ah, at least I can have a nice chat about things with my Pastor.

Takes the cake? Ugh, idioms.

[JB]

Takes the cake? Ugh, idioms.

The cake is a lie anyway.

[sc_q_jayce]

The cake is a lie anyway.
:teeth:

Some Pig!

[T-Shirt Ninja]

A lot of this run-away spirituality is bothering me as well. I've noticed that stuff like New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) teachings creeping up more and more into Pentecostal churches. They basically encourage people to do things like bark, twitch, convulse on the floor and say that the Holy Spirit is telling people to do it. I have no problem when people lift up their hands, postrate themselves, or sit down in reverence because I know that they are voluntarily doing it as an act of worship and are self-controlled in that moment. I think it becomes wrong when they say, "The Spirit is causing me to bark, twitch, etc." because the Bible doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit causes people to do such things.

Not too long ago I went on a beach retreat where I saw evidence of this stuff. Specifically, I saw a table that had different books and CDs on it. A lot of the books were written by Rick Joyner. I didn't know much about him at the time and researched him after the retreat was over.

Had I knew about him what I know now, I think I would have turned that table over and openly rebuked the leaders for selling that literature to people.

[Bill the Cat]

Ninja,

Can you PM me on Rick Joyner? Someone at a fellowship I attend brought him up the other day, and I am unfamiliar with him...

[Chaotic Void]

My two bits worth (Canadian money, of course :hehe:)... I'm probably rambling, but here goes...

Around these parts, people are aware of Apologetics (as well as learning to study the word for yourself and check what people claim. There was actually a sermon series done on that not too long ago).

Unfortunately, a lot of the time people's study of Apologetics involves an unhealthy saturation of CreEvo, with little else (though if their knowledge does involve something else, Josh McDowell is about as good as it gets a lot of the time, with the occasional person who has read Lee Strobel's stuff... mind you, their resources for CreEvo aren't that great either:uneasy:).

There's exceptions, though, like one of Geisler's books as a textbook for a class, and the Apologetics/Worldviews/World Religions class that I'm currently taking at my Bible College (So far, it's okay, but there isn't much depth).

It's a lot better than most, for sure, but there still needs to be a lot of work done yet. I've not yet heard any sermons about fundamental doctrines (you'd think those would be top priority...). Heck, even some Sunday School sessions on "What we believe and Why" or "Responding to the Four Horsemen of Atheism" would be nice.

[aikidoka]

I usually leave a church when they start criticizing the reason of man and how you shouldn't question a man of God. About that time is when Benny Hinn literature starts becoming prominent in the book rack and other oddities.

I get so tired of the blind faith garbage and the laziness it enables. I hope my fiance and I can find a church that encourages learning and thinking after were married but she also cant stand it that so many say a woman can't preach.

I'm not sure how to change things. As others have said, it's part of the culture in some ways.

On a positive note, JP's writings clarified my thoughts on what Biblical faith really is, which started with my reading of C.S. Lewis some years ago.

[jpholding]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/august9/9t9045.html

Reader noted an interesting article here. It's from 1999 but it still speaks to the problem.

[Goonerman]

Any thoughts, JPH, on the Insider Movement?

[Andius]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/august9/9t9045.html

Reader noted an interesting article here. It's from 1999 but it still speaks to the problem.

Yeah, it's an embarrassement when one someone who claims to be Chri