21st Century Devil ?

[headheart]

HH,
An atheist in the mold of Dawkins, that is a tough nut to crack.

Hi franktalk,
That is true. There are millions who have become his devotees, due to his book 'The God Delusion'. The challenges that he has put forward, though some of them are in the form of attacks on soft-targets (namely fanatical religious groups, right across the board) have to be answered intelligently. Certainly many of his questions are theological and some philosophical. I am not familiar with them all but it certainly does appear to me that he is crying out to religion to be relevant to a world in crisis. It is the same voice of conscience that Keith Green responded to when he called out to the Church for world missions to a world in deep crisis. That was 1982, this is 2009 and we are in BIG TROUBLE!!!!

Of course we are told that by grace those chosen will seek God. But we as Christians have a duty as well to be an example and spread the Word. Now in spreading the Word we can convey the meaning of scripture in a modern context. Not really sure if it is the presentation that is the problem. I will ponder that.

Yes, that is precisely what Pastor Rick Warren considered and out of which he has formulated the P.E.A.C..E. plan I am sure it is something that Professor Richard Dawkins approves of. For it is a shining forth of the love of Christ into the suffering and madness of our time.
He is not the only one, but he certainly has mobolized many Christian into worldwide action. Howbeit, actions speak louder than sermons.
It is still my contention that we need to be primarily concerned with presenting the Gospel of Salvation and not to idle on ideas like 'by grace the chosen will seek God'.
It is out of this that coupled with a genuine compassion for the world (not organized sin, enegized by Satan) that we may have a message that shines through into the hearts of many, many Atheists. (like Prof. Richard Dawkins et al.)

There are two world views that we can have.
One is that there is a spiritual existence and the world is a subset of that. The other one is there is not a spiritual side and the only reality is the physical world.

Mmmm.

Once one accepts that there is not a spiritual side of existence then they are in line with Dawkins.

Yes, he does seem rather determined to force that opinion every time he opens his mouth to speak. It is dead giveaway. He will probably come undone once he begins looking deeply enough into what is losely called 'The Paranormal'. I see he also is using a buffer by appealing to Modern Psychiatry. In the end if he is to make any impact he will have to do a Houdini, and well we all know how that ends. Dear Thomas....

The logical conclusion to atheism is nihilism which makes this existence a waste of time or the one and only shot. In either case the atheist is free to choose their own moral code. I say this because in a deterministic world there are no moral codes except the ones that society agrees upon. Once the atheist adapts a moral code then we have to find out why they did that. Are they driven by fear of the law and only follow other's moral codes because they don't want to be punished? I must assume for this argument that the IT guy is a normal member of society. I would ask how they came to have moral codes? Did they grow up with some around them and adopted them as their own? It is important for them to know the source of those codes and their own reasons for making them part of them self. I could go on till my computer runs out of electrons but I will stop here and see if you want me to continue.

Yes, I have listened to some of his questions regarding the moral argument. I must admit that I need to go and polish my old apologete boots a bit to keep up with you, but I hope and trust that others that are deeply knowledgeable in the matter of the Moral Argument will accurately respond to Professor Dawkins' specific questions.

Now back to my opening post. Have your watched the movie 'Joseph's Gift' ? Did you read my last post, perhaps we might take a simpler route and just see if there is a way to present the historical telling of this event in a Movie. I know I am being stubborn, but it was after all what I had in mind. Oh, who cares go ahead....

ps. I will be reading over C.S. Lewis' arguments from the moral position and one other. I look forward to reading what you write, and please try to ignore my crazy style of writing.


Shalom,
HH.

[franktalk]

HH,

I hate to be doom and gloom but we are heading for far worse days ahead. Now that I have said that it should not stop us from doing what we can.

I don't plan on taking on the whole moral argument issue. I was just asking if the IT guy had thought about that as he made up his mind what he was going to believe in. Many atheist are thinkers and can figure out the logic of various arguments by them selves without to much help. The problem is they think with just their head and not their heart. But that whole issue of what that means is way down the path in our discussion.

Your writing style is wonderful, don't stop or change. A true character is hard to find these days. It seems that the world is trying to make us into some uniform shape with uniform thoughts. I don't think God made us that way.

Most atheist are grounded (they think) in science. I suspect your IT guy is the same. I can just imagine the justification to be an atheist by their knowledge of science. But what they don't realize is that science itself sits on a misty fog. Nothing solid about it. Let me point out a few of the things about science.

1. Time exist in steps called a quantum moment. So all of our reality is really a fast moving computer simulation.
2. Most think that the existence is continuous. Not true. If you subdivide something enough there is a point where it cannot be divided again or it loses locality. Planck length is the limit. By losing location it could appear anywhere in the universe.
3. Light changes its state based on future events.

I could go on and on but the point is that our understanding of existence is not based on rock but a totally unknown mystical world of the very small and the very big. When someone studies science and only stays in the bounds of low speed and some what large parts then a deterministic world view emerges. But it sits on total unknowns. So the average atheist fools them self with a slice of the science pie. Instead of sitting on stone they sit on fog. You will notice that Dawkins never writes about the world of the very small or the world of very large. But in the middle where averaging takes place. He does not want to open Pandora's box and expose the truly mystical nature of what we are made of.

These comments may attract some science sharks. I will deal with them.

[headheart]

HH,

I hate to be doom and gloom but we are heading for far worse days ahead. Now that I have said that it should not stop us from doing what we can.

I don't plan on taking on the whole moral argument issue. I was just asking if the IT guy had thought about that as he made up his mind what he was going to believe in. Many atheist are thinkers and can figure out the logic of various arguments by them selves without to much help. The problem is they think with just their head and not their heart. But that whole issue of what that means is way down the path in our discussion.

Your writing style is wonderful, don't stop or change. A true character is hard to find these days. It seems that the world is trying to make us into some uniform shape with uniform thoughts. I don't think God made us that way.

Most atheist are grounded (they think) in science. I suspect your IT guy is the same. I can just imagine the justification to be an atheist by their knowledge of science. But what they don't realize is that science itself sits on a misty fog. Nothing solid about it. Let me point out a few of the things about science.

1. Time exist in steps called a quantum moment. So all of our reality is really a fast moving computer simulation.
2. Most think that the existence is continuous. Not true. If you subdivide something enough there is a point where it cannot be divided again or it loses locality. Planck length is the limit. By losing location it could appear anywhere in the universe.
3. Light changes its state based on future events.

I could go on and on but the point is that our understanding of existence is not based on rock but a totally unknown mystical world of the very small and the very big. When someone studies science and only stays in the bounds of low speed and some what large parts then a deterministic world view emerges. But it sits on total unknowns. So the average atheist fools them self with a slice of the science pie. Instead of sitting on stone they sit on fog. You will notice that Dawkins never writes about the world of the very small or the world of very large. But in the middle where averaging takes place. He does not want to open Pandora's box and expose the truly mystical nature of what we are made of.

These comments may attract some science sharks. I will deal with them.

Thank you for your generous words and thoughful response.

Yes, I think like everyone on earth. There is that sense that if there is a natural law or human nature, and there is this evil propensity, maybe there is something dark behind that door.
He certainly has been careful to avoid dealing with it.
Then again who knows what goes through the mind of another.
He is complicated Anglican fish, ..

Yes?

Interesting that C.S. Lewis in M.C. Book II, at the end of chapter 2, 'The Invasion', says the following...

**probaby best to read the whole chapter...and in particular what is before this...

Enemy-occupied territory-that is what this world is.

Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.

When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and intellectual snobbery. I know someone will ask me,

"Do you really mean, at this time of day, to reintroduce our old friend the devil-hoofs and horns and all?"

Well, what the time of day has to do with it I do not know. And I am not particular about the hoofs and horns. But in other respects my answer is "Yes, I do."
I do not claim to know anything about his personal appearance. If anybody really wants to know him better I would say to that person, "Don't worry. If you really want to, you will Whether you'll like it when you do is another question."

Hey, I would not worry about too much Scientific sparring here, this forum is pretty mellow. (says he hoping for a little action)

Time to chill..spot you in the morrow.
HH

[Vigilante]

I am not thinking of actually altering the Scriptures themselves, merely taking what is there and exaggerating it to the dire proportions we now see current in our world.

That's what every Bible teacher does. So I guess I still don't understand what you want. You want to read a passage and have it already altered to sound modern? You can't do that without altering the history. Maybe you can give an example of what you think should happen.

Therefore in order for it to have current day application, it needs to be brought to life within that context.

Again, that's what every teacher does. Jesus taught in parables, each parable was contextually modern so the people could relate. Teachers still do the same. So what kind of altering of scripture are you talking about?

Updating is certainly not what I had in mind. Presenting something that is out of date, in a more current way does not necessarily mean that one divorces the historical facts, but rather actually emphasizes them along with one’s adaptation of ideas.

I don't think it is "out of date" any more than 2+2 is out of date. Truth is truth no matter when it was taught. So I don't get what "out of date" even means. You have the story/event/history, and the lesson or moral to be learned from it. You can't change the historical event, nor can you change what the moral lesson is, so what exactly is supposed to change to make it up to date?

Now you are beginning to get my drift.
We are the teachers, and if not ‘aught to be by now’. I am a man of 51 years and have seen a few things in my life. However, where this planet is headed in the future is getting to look more and more like a very black horizon. If teaching, or preaching, or simply telling our mates in the office about something like the passage mentioned above in my opening post, cannot be brought to apply then it is dying and ready to be cast into the fire.

Still not following you. So some scripture needs to be cast in the fire?
I thought God said "all scripture is profitable"? Just some scripture is deeper and harder than others, that's all. It might require actual study and meditation, and not just quoting the text and expecting it to all just make sense instantly with no expansion.

I am positive that Jesus would have us to take His words and amplify them, or exaggerate them, or blow inside them so that the fit the world which is 400% more diabolical than it was in the day when he stood in the wilderness. One just has to look around you, with open eyes, and see the carnage and see the depravity and you know that something down here is dying, dead and ready to rotting at an alarming rate.

If people don't want to listen to God's Word, they won't want to listen no matter HOW up to date the stories are. And if they DO want to listen, they'll expand their own mind, study, and figure it out.

Do not rewrite the historical events, merely take what is there and apply it most directly to the Modern World. To guard the Scriptures with that sort of mind, is to disconnect from the mind of Christ inside you.

This is already what people have done since the scripture was canonized. I don't see what's missing.

Perhaps a little to close to the bone for some, but if we cannot connect to our youth, if we cannot place Jesus in the 21st Century alongside a 21st Century Devil, the we have lost the power to make an impact.

It is the Holy Spirit that instructs and convicts. It is God that has the power to impact. However, youth pastors are there to connect scriptural truth to modern living. Again I don't know what's missing.

The Bible certainly does not need to be updated as an historical point of reference, but it needs to be applied to our Modern World, if we are to even dream of capturing the minds of the people. Either we adapt and speak into the now, or we are going to look like a group of monks rotating a prayer wheel and singing out a tale of no application. I appreciate your thrust for a moral application, and of course that should never be downplayed, in fact it should be amplified, along with the Scriptural message.

And in what way does ANY preacher NOT do this already? Like I said before, I've never heard a sermon that didn't involve applying Biblical truths to our lives today. You act like this isn't taking place.

Keep the stories in their original style, as one should never change Shakespeare!
However, contextualize the events so they run concurrently with our time. It is what we are obliged to do if we are to be ‘little Christs’ of any substance in our times.

Ya, just what Bible teachers have been doing since the invention of Bible teachers.

The demand for magnification equal to the degredation of society is essential if our message is to be heard. Even our Lord employed exaggeration so why should we too not tastefully do so.

What church do you go to? Cause this is all I've ever heard pastors do.


I guess I'm totally disconnected from what you're saying, cause everything you want has always been done as far as my experience. Teachers read passages, discuss the context, and draw out the lesson, and apply it to our lives. That's pretty common fair. If all you do is read a text and say, "see! There ya go pal!" then I guess that's pretty poor teaching. But the solution isn't to rewrite the story so you can just quote it and not have to teach on it. Or am i missing something?


Peace

[headheart]

Maybe you can give an example of what you think should happen.

Vigilante,
If you read the comment just after my last reply to you, you would have seen that I provided clarification to my opening post. An example.
I am a little too tired to respond to your whole reply, but I think that will suffice.

Shalom, sweet dreams.
HH

[Vigilante]

Vigilante,
If you read the comment just after my last reply to you, you would have seen that I provided clarification to my opening post. An example.
I am a little too tired to respond to your whole reply, but I think that will suffice.

So you want people to write books and make movies? Is this not happening? What did you think of Fireproof?

[Adrift]

He is an atheist, who looks at this world through the eyes or Professor Richard Dawkins.
He sees the greed on on side, he sees the pain on the other, and finally he sees people who are so spiritually minded that they are no earthly good.

HH.

Ok, well in that case I'd probably not start in with satan, but I'd start with the reasons for God. Then I'd narrow that down to the Christian God and the Gospel of Jesus, then we can break down issues like the "problem of evil" and satan's role in the cause of evil (I think many apologists side step satan when it comes to the "problem of evil"). I agree with Vigilante that there's really no need to sugarcoat the truth. I don't think a Christian should feel the need to exaggerate the truth or "modernize" that truth to make it palatable. That's not to say we shouldn't work to present the gospel in a way that's often relatable, heck as Vigilante put it, Jesus was relatable. But I think people see through a sugar coat. Or worse, they take the sugar coat and build doctrine around that and forget the truth.

[headheart]

So you want people to write books and make movies? Is this not happening?

You are getting warmer.

What did you think of Fireproof?

'The Imposter' might be closer to what I am thinking about.

The object here Vigilante is to expand not simplify.

So let's see if the idea expands.

Sincerely,
HH.

[headheart]

Ok, well in that case I'd probably not start in with satan, but I'd start with the reasons for God. Then I'd narrow that down to the Christian God and the Gospel of Jesus, then we can break down issues like the "problem of evil" and satan's role in the cause of evil (I think many apologists side step satan when it comes to the "problem of evil"). I agree with Vigilante that there's really no need to sugarcoat the truth. I don't think a Christian should feel the need to exaggerate the truth or "modernize" that truth to make it palatable. That's not to say we shouldn't work to present the gospel in a way that's often relatable, heck as Vigilante put it, Jesus was relatable. But I think people see through a sugar coat. Or worse, they take the sugar coat and build doctrine around that and forget the truth.

Yes, I have already covered all that in my responses.
The ideas is not to exaggerate with the intention of losing context, the object is to take the idea and develop something that is NOW, not then. Now is different and if you cannot appreciate that yet, maybe it is time to take a long hard look all around you and watch how the houses are burning, the children are being killed,...murdered......and...It is time to WAKE UP PLANET, the void is set to swallow!!!!!! Correction..the flame throwers are turning our boots into dust and the whole building is shaking, ...no it is quake --ing and coming apart at the seems. Babylon burns but we take our turns to recite poetry ... and chatter about theology... what are we going to do???

Sincerely,
HH.
( my post to Vigilante and others.)

[headheart]

He does not want to open Pandora's box and expose the truly mystical nature of what we are made of.

I was listening to Kerry Livgren's song circa. 1980, 'Mask of the Great Deciever,' and the realization of our current demise hit me like a ton of bricks.
Never in the history of earth has Satan be so in our faces!!!!

HH

btw. I am a Baptist, without baggage.

[Adrift]

Yes, I have already covered all that in my responses.
The ideas is not to exaggerate with the intention of losing context, the object is to take the idea and develop something that is NOW, not then. Now is different and if you cannot appreciate that yet, maybe it is time to take a long hard look all around you and watch how the houses are burning, the children are being killed,...murdered......and...It is time to WAKE UP PLANET, the void is set to swallow!!!!!! Correction..the flame throwers are turning our boots into dust and the whole building is shaking, ...no it is quake --ing and coming apart at the seems. Babylon burns but we take our turns to recite poetry ... and chatter about theology... what are we going to do???

Sincerely,
HH.
( my post to Vigilante and others.)

Hmm. Like Vigilante, I suppose I'm at a loss. I'm not certain what exactly you're expecting that's not already present to some degree right now. I'll assume the talk of houses burning and children being killed all around me is hyperbole. Certainly these things are happening, but I think I'd know it if houses were on fire all around me. The days are indeed getting darker, and I'm uncertain there's anything I, personally, can do about that on any large scale. I'll admit I could be doing more in volunteering my time to those in need, and I could spend more time in prayer, but I'm no writer or film producer. What would you have me do, personally?

[franktalk]

HH,

Some months ago I read a book by Sanford which describes genetic entropy, I was taken by the thought and wrote a novel based on his book. It is being edited now by my daughter for character development. I wrote it hoping to get it into a movie so the message will get out. Not so much that our genome is breaking down but there is evil in the world and it is always on the move. All of the things I write post about are in the book. World views, good and evil, spiritual warfare, and the like. I am a scifi guy and try to write that way but with a spiritual twist. I wrote another book describing my conversion from science to faith in God. All who have read it want me to try and publish it. It still needs lots of work before that can happen.

From my view point I think the Holy Ghost is concentrating in the elect and the world of evil is being unleased. So I think I know what you are asking. How can we do more so more people will be at least exposed to the truth. We must not be silent. Even if it means death. Many in the world are already on this path and are dying with their eyes still focused on heaven. In my prayers I pray for them and ask what I should do. I have thought about missionary service and I would probably be one more dead body on the stack. So far I have not been told to do that but I have been inspired to write. It feels like it is not enough.

[headheart]

HH,

Some months ago I read a book by Sanford which describes genetic entropy, I was taken by the thought and wrote a novel based on his book. It is being edited now by my daughter for character development. I wrote it hoping to get it into a movie so the message will get out. Not so much that our genome is breaking down but there is evil in the world and it is always on the move. All of the things I write post about are in the book. World views, good and evil, spiritual warfare, and the like. I am a scifi guy and try to write that way but with a spiritual twist. I wrote another book describing my conversion from science to faith in God. All who have read it want me to try and publish it. It still needs lots of work before that can happen.

From my view point I think the Holy Ghost is concentrating in the elect and the world of evil is being unleased. So I think I know what you are asking. How can we do more so more people will be at least exposed to the truth. We must not be silent. Even if it means death. Many in the world are already on this path and are dying with their eyes still focused on heaven. In my prayers I pray for them and ask what I should do. I have thought about missionary service and I would probably be one more dead body on the stack. So far I have not been told to do that but I have been inspired to write. It feels like it is not enough.

Thank you franktalk and Adrift, for your honest and powerful replies.

We have to do what Jesus did to push back the tide. Led by the Spirit we got to fasting and prayer, and we 'push the darkness back'. We cannot bow to some fate, or hoplessness. We have to pray until the skies break and Messiah comes to put an end to this. Is not our Father's house a house of prayer ?

I have been mocked by Atheists for saying this, but what is their solution ? They do not have one and so that condemn the Church. Why ? Because the Church is not doing enough of the stuff they were called out to do. We are to fight in prayer like Jacob, and we are not to stop in our prayers. It is our calling in this life. It is why He prayed as He did, for He was moving a weight so massive that it is going to change all this. We have to bear in our bodies the marks of Christ if we are then to be His disciples. I cannot think of another way.

Sincerely.
HH.

[Vigilante]

Well I don't have a problem with people creating films and music that bring theology and the love of God to our modern situations.
Here is where I see a problem though.

Sometimes when people think they are "expanding", they are really destroying. When they minimize sin, when they minimize Jesus. When they act so loving and holy with their all-inclusive "let's all love each other" and "do what you want and we accept you as you are" messages. I'm trying to think of an example, but it seems what I tend to see is people focusing on the "we all accept you the way you are" kind of thing, with no word about sin or repentance or salvation.

Maybe you mean something else by "expand", but when people try to rewrite the stories, they end up getting jacked. Think The Shack or Conversations with God kinda stuff. They think they are being modern but they just screw up deep theological issues. They think they are "expanding" into the "now" but all they accomplish is modern political correctness in religion.

I guess I'd summarize, I'm not so much for "expanding" as I am for "expounding" into the now. If films, books, and music want to recreate modern prodigal son or good Samaritan stories I'm all for it, as long as the deep messages and theology and truths are preserved.


Peace

[headheart]

I guess I'd summarize, I'm not so much for "expanding" as I am for "expounding" into the now. If films, books, and music want to recreate modern prodigal son or good Samaritan stories I'm all for it, as long as the deep messages and theology and truths are preserved.

More blah, blah, blah.

This quote sums up the thread for me.

Enemy-occupied territory-that is what this world is. Christianity is
the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in
disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of
sabotage. When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret
wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us
from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and
intellectual snobbery.

C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity - Book II - Part 2 - The Invasion

It is time for action. What are you going to do ?

For me it is to pray without ceasing, and to drive back the darkness.
Will you come and join me ?

HH