socks

Not familiar with this particular movement by brand name, no. From the "organic church" website: http://www.organicchurch.com/ The concept of organic church is just like anything else organic, unspoiled by human hands. In his book, Frank Viola says that an Organic Church is not a theater with a script, but a lifestyle, an authentic journey with the Lord Jesus and His disciples. He also indicates that an Organic Church is born out of spiritual life, not constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Browsed a bit, that's about it. I sort of get what they're talking about, although the idea of a gathering of humans that's "unspoiled by human hands" seems a kind of quirky idea if not impossible. Human handling of any kind changes what it handles if we're talking about things that grow. If one chooses to eat the berries that grow on the bush in spring, drink their water as it flows from the ground and sup on the fish that swim into their arms, that an organic life lived would be. Anything else probably has some handling to get from the environment to the table. But yeah, organic I guess meaning the source material feeding it is primarily spiritual with the least amount of added whatever, so it's organically grown from the best sources. To johnj's point - my word for it long term would be "unwieldy". The organic thing sounds good on face value but to link another buzz word, "sustainability" .... how will it perform long term? Saying that the church is a spiritual entity - I get that. Saying that the members of that entity exist as described in say, Ephesians - I get that. Saying that the best and primary way for those members to exist and function is in a small slice of that, I'm not so sure about that. A part of the greater whole, yes. But if I over emphasize the smaller slice I risk disconnecting from the larger whole. So at least the smaller slice would have to remain an active part of the larger whole, on some level. Where I might agree, not sure if this is one of the intents of organic churching, is that the large, "corporate" gatherings as they're called don't serve all interests and needs as a total solution. And those larger churches, denominations inevitably will have some tradition, some form and function that may or may not be appropriate. Same will go for the smaller home groups too though. To be truly "organic" in today's society one has to disconnect from the social grid and network of services and go literally "off the grid". That may be good for some and for a time but long term? Not even necessarily healthy, IMO. Same could go for this kind of thing. A mix, rather than an either/or this/or that approach works for me and seems to be allow for maximum flexibility and function.

Y'know, Sky, I think this year was the entire 4th corps. The year was split in two - first 1/2 in Indiana, and 1/2 back at the Way Nash in New Knoxville. One of the stated reasons was to help with the Family Corps there, the other as part of "continuing" the WC training. It was a very difficult year I would agree, on several fronts. And VPW wasn't there all the time, he came and went. RC coordinator was Bob M, with Dave S-ge the 4th corps coordinator. By this time I'd say the Corps program was bottomed out. I'm sure others would disagree or feel that it had never had value but as far as the effort being made it was really really really all over the road, disorganized between Kansas, Colorado, Indiana, whatever they were doing in New Mexico and of course back at the ranch in New Knoxville. The lack of a coherent enterprise wide vision was evident and there was all of that movement from one campus to another throughout the residence training, it was inefficient to say the least, and a mess from an educational standpoint. "WOW", sure, but how the effort was actually stacking up to make a significant contribution to that was unclear to put it mildly. You don't need all that crap to do that. And if the program was failing on different fronts so badly the previous graduates were thought to need further training - well that spoke for itself. Considering to look at it for what was really "broken" though had already started as you state and I do think many of us were at cross roads of various types. Steve S and I talked about this a couple times, and the idea that this put him and others in neutral and that nothing of great value was being done or being offered, "nice" on some counts but wasted time on most others. It just wasn't working, although the machine was moving forward. In fact at that point it seemed clear that a Way Corps program was no longer necessary, if the original goals were still being acted towards The Way was an organization dedicated to sustaining itself, and all that goes with that, the politics, bureaucracy, obfuscation etc. etc. etc.

Yeh, it's like tossing a salad, figuratively speaking. In '68, PFAL on film was only a year old. The previous first effort was pretty lo fi - there were some promo copies floating around for awhile years ago, but I'm sure they were destroyed or are under lock and key now as it looked really home grown. VPW took some sound advice and scrapped that one and they got the financing for the film version we all saw. After years of doing live versions it was in the can, tape and film. The content had been offered over a period of years before that but the filmed product itself was only a year old. Prior to that the record's scattered mostly likely because the Way was still in early build stages with a much different membership demographic. Picture VPW in his home basement, then getting the family land set and on paper, financing the groundbreaking for the "BRC", beginning to build, etc. He wanted to come off like a player and had some experience but it was a mix of then-and-now, and then wasn't that long ago yet...course to teenagers it seemed like a deep past. There was no "worldwide Way", there was a guy and his family and close supporters in start up phase. PFAL was a class, an event that could only happen when VP taught it. The idea of PFAL as a piece of media that could be mobile and offered in multiple places at the same time was a very specific vision. I'm sure that for those who saw the value of it as a means for people to learn the bible it was a very significant step forward. The Way as an organized entity with presence in other cities was much different then, no Corps, no Ambassador program, no leadership meetings, none of that yet. But obviously VPW had that in mind himself as his efforts in California, Indiana, Florida, other states quickly took on a structure resembling any business expansion. Where it may have been a "move of the Word" to participants, the organizational model was simmering up as it grew. And it would not have grown as it did without California and then New York. Although relatively small numbers-wise, the cross pollination across the nation happened quickly - within just a couple years Way Corps 1 was underway, VPW's intention to have "50 men", trained and assigned out across the country was exploding in numbers and the New Knoxville farm was already over run with people, outsizing it's capacity as a small family farm plot of land. For anyone who came on the scene after 1967 it seemed like a work in progress, and very open to new ideas. Yet as everyone saw in virtually every effort that was undertaken for the next 10 years or so VPW was at the center, insisting on direct control. IMO that earlier period was impacted by the formalizing of PFAL on transferrable media, tape and film, allowing for it to run in multiple locations at the same time. This first step allowed VPW to concentrate on building the business around it, the properties, the programs, etc. etc. You could see this transition in how VPW's public personae morphed, changing from hot bible preacher mode to ruthless CEO to funky hunter-dog guy to golf shorts and knee socked weird guy, back and forth week after week. In 1968 he dressed like an uptight preacher in navy blue suits and seemed quaintly disconnected from the times but anxious to embrace diversity, encouraged it even. But push came to shove and soon enough that changed. I can't honestly say what the numbers in 10 year increments would show after analysis. I'm not a real data guy but have some familiarity with that discipline, so I don't know what it would show other than growth patterns. What those patterns show in relation to different criteria would be an interesting view and set alongside known major events. (for instance - what if say, after Advanced Class '79 for 6 months was examined - what results and artifacts if any are there to be seen and then what do they mean? or the roll out of Martindale's new Foundational series.....) Some things would probably be obvious but others may be not so, the obvious. Dunno, it's been a thought that's pattered around the lobes for years. WW's links might indicate some stuff there.

The pattern yes. The numbers ballooned at one point and then leveled. Most of the people on GS now probably didn't know Peter Wade, for instance or ever meet him. They came on after his departure, same with many others. The big exodus began mid-80's as we now know and hit stride late 1986 lasting for what, couple years of consistent activity. If not for Chris Geer it would have taken longer but would have happened inevitably albeit at a slower pace and arguably could still be going on in the absence of that upset of the apple cart. A good filter might be event/cause rather than event/person (not to reduce the importance of a person but a single person's leaving would not have the same impact from person to person). For instance: - Wierwille hands over the CEO position to Martindale. (transfer of acting authority) - Wierwille dies (one way to leave the Way). - - Chris Geer guns for the BOT's. (posthumous posturing puts chokehold political pressure on pompous puppets of the Way) - Martindale declares war on the Corps and anyone within spitting distance. (Paranoid Post-POP ....ing contest from the Big Unit of the Way) - Martindale gets sued with his pants down. (curtain of shame pulled away to reveal CEO's true colors, giving new insight into how the "yardstick of success" was being measured) - etc. This is just idle participling, of the possible relationships, etc. It would be interesting to know the numbers of new growth, new "grad" entrants to the Way's records, in 10 year increment starting in 1868. 68 - 78, 79 - 89, 90-2000 and then the first 10 years of the 00's. That would probably cover the history of the GS audience. Either way it's going down, will continue to go down until it bottoms out. After I left in '89 I gave it 10 years. It was out of gas much sooner, although it certainly kept rolling.

My 6 cents on the future of the Way Nash and how it's business profile will shape over the next 5 years - I see the dynamics at work there going in a predictable direction, based on what they do - and what they don't do. The internal organization will continue to build a tight bureaucracy, political, driven by the need to maintain it's self in stasis and generate sufficient income to support the headquarters and it's board, "department heads" and minimum required staff. Basically keep itself fed, the roof overhead and the lights and heat on. The external organization will just be what they're facing to the public now - "biblical research", some classes and outreach efforts, the same memorialized offerings of past work reworked that gets refreshed for any given year. How connected to the internal org a local coordinator is on the field will determine how much they pump the Way's headquarters vision. Some states and areas will be easy - peasy no pressure, others more hard core hard line. In some ways much like it has always been but - no outreach, no real growth, no increase in numbers and therefore no new income projected. On one hand the "real" Way will be the gang on Weirwille Road, not interested in maintaining any standards or a specific vision, interested primarily in maintaining it's own existence. The "field" will eventually dissipate into small loosely connected pieces and end up nearly non-existent in any practical way.

Being the low life, tawdry cad that I am, I have always always ALWays wondered what in the world went through the minds of the parents who, after going through all of the possible names for their upcoming child, decided on "Oral". That being said, I'd drink too. No, actually I'd just change my name to something less uh, weird.

Innerestin' geisha. I've been nibbling at a book I got last fall - "You Are Not Your Brain" - ever heard of it? "Neuroplasticity" and a kind of practical application of it. How our brains adapt. I got to it through some of Oliver Sacks's stuff, "Musicophelia", his work. Ego is of course, the sense of self we all have. And everyone appreciates themselves, we have to. Everyone appreciates other things, they have to. Pride and fear are good examples of qualities that, by another name, would not carry the negative connotation they do for many of us. I'm familiar with the negative meanings but they are not automatically negative terms. "Pride" is a common knee jerk response that comes up when there are disagreements between people. I think the biblical uses of those kinds of words in context are very clear and understandable. A worthwhile study. I see a lot of the religious poking at each other that "you're prideful" etc. is not useful, it's just people rangling over something they disagree on and inevitably someone throws out the "pride" thing. I challenged Roy's use of it because it seemed that the discussion veered into focusing on that rather than the original post or the response to it. We started talking about what we were talking about and why and the way it was being talked about - instead of talking about the topic. Plus, my position wasn't directed by what I'd call "pride". I've just thrown out some stuff, some well cooked, some still baking, some half baked. But I can't help it if Loftus reads like an over inflated bag of stale hot air, euphemistically speaking of course, (takes one to know one right? ha!) and seems to have his tees in a wad over what other people do with their faith which wouldn't be any of his business were he not a former religious figure - other than that he's a citizen with ideas and an opinion......thus my response, etc. etc. etc. etc. Etc. and stuff. Loftus in that article was pointing out the irrelevancy of faith and did a poor and kinda weird job on it. I claim to have faith and I COULD DO a better job of refuting and challenging it. Loftus and others like Dawkins are on a mission - and they openly state they want to reduce and eliminate if possible the religious, theological, "faith based" voice. Dawkins himself marginalizes it to the point that he states he can't see why those kinds of opinions and ideas would be worthwhile in any serious discussion about anything and feels that debate only serves to validate the religious side and make it look like a reasonable viable point of view. I tried, hey. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. (most of the time )

What? If I, socks, have said it, can it be wrong? Really? When did that start? Come on Roy. Okay, let's get this squared away: You have unbelief. I have unbelief. Everybody has unbelief. Face it. I did. Okay - everybody all at once - face....your....unbelief. And remember to remember that you have unbelief. Now what? Jesus made a pretty good career out of challenging the misguided and incorrect statements and actions of those religious people He encountered within the context of the Torah. (your article didn't deal with any biblical issues or topics, which is why I didn't use that as the counter to his points, however Loftus does address his topic from the standpoint of someone who was a Christian and who now does not maintain those beliefs any longer and he writes with Christians in mind, he says). Jesus actually dealt differently with Romans and non-Jews than He did with Jews. In the records where interactions with non-Jewish Romans are recorded he didn't rip on Roman citizens or laws that much - look at when asked if they should pay Roman taxes - he said sure, if you think you should, do it, render the taxes - He in fact paid taxes as stated in Matthew 17 "so as not to offend them". He spent a lot of time with his Jewish brethren however, including confronting those He felt were teaching error from the Torah, and imposing harsh and ungodly restrictions on God's people, and those who had turned the Temple, His "Father's House", into a den of thieves and very directly confronting them I might add. Those people were often offended by HIs words and actions. Duh. Romans weren't Jews, they didn't automatically care about any of it and what they did wasn't in response to what they would have thought God and the Torah taught. They were Romans and had other beliefs. Loftus speaks as a degreed former pastor and self credited insider authority. You described him as a man of God. If I had to follow the example of Jesus I would address his dissertations directly when I encounter them in the same way Jesus did with His Jewish counter parts. I did. I'm not going to hammer on you over this and that was never my intention although I've asserted my opinions and thoughts, clearly I hope. I'm done. It's been fun. Thanks for the space.We'll chat again, I'm sure, peace!

This all reminds me of that Great Question of Life, and my own personal favorite answer: Question: Why did the chicken cross the road? Answer: What chicken? Other screeds floating in the temporal lobe paste: If Lofton is a "man of God" I'm a hat pin in a pepper mill. I loathe the modern use of the term "man of God". There are men, there's a God. No need to get them mixed up. I only know one way - call 'em like you see 'em. There's never any lack of people to inform me of how wrong or right I am and with that kind of help, how can I lose?

I don't have any question as to why you posted this Roy. It's a Doctrinal forum for posting things. It's difficult to understand if you think otherwise but you shouldn't equate disagreement with disapproval. For the purposes of this board you can post and you do. Rather than play a guessing game, yes, it's easier when you clarify it but it doesn't matter to me that you do or don't. Since you did, I commented. I can live without reading anymore of this stuff, trust me. Yeah, illusion. That I don't agree with, not for me anyway. "diffusion" describes the phrase "see through a glass darkly". diffusion is not abstraction or distortion. Christianity is focused on a relationship - the nature of it is intangible compared to say, sitting next to a friend. The friend is there. The relationship is shared between us and is there too but not the same way. Physical, "spiritual", one might use those words. Christ is "in" me, not sitting next to me in the same way as the friend would be. The presence and the relationship is an internal one. That relationship is pure and true as is. As I would be a "son of God" the relationship is full and complete. The quality of the relationship can grow, become richer and clearer. In that the "see through a glass darkly" is not a distortion, nor an illusion. It's not even just a matter of development or a lack of development. It's simply an acceptance in it's purest state. I might describe this "diffusion" in the relationship as the light that comes from regular lamp in a room, with a regular tungsten bulb - warm, close, inviting, useful, soft. It's not as bright or illuminating as a full on mercury lamp, 10,000 watts. But no less real or useful, no less meaningful. This is how I see the bible's phrase "we see through a glass darkly". Outside of that it's not an illusion, either. That's what you seem to want to say, so fine. Go for it. Everyone has good days and bad days in a relationship but the relationship remains unless it's ended and destroyed. God is faithful and just, and always "here". It's pretty simple to me if I don't complicate it. I have the problems, that goes with the territory. But there's a consistency in the relationship I can have that isn't governed by those problems, that is strong and stable. I prefer to rely on that, weak or strong, good days bad days. When I do life is good for me. When I don't, it's not as good, sometimes not at all. More often than not though, it's good. .

Momentus is the bird droppings from a seagull that flew by Jesus once on his way to the sea. There's a lot of movement in churches to have an "open door" entry level kind of outreach and shoot for big numbers. Church for those who don't like church, that kind of thing. Some succeed, some don't. Success in numbers doesn't mean anything worthwhile is getting done. Driscoll shouts a mean sermon and is described as a "theology buff". Great. I think a high risk area for pastors is when the personal desire to reach and help others pushes them to redefine scripture, to enter into doctrine and theology, areas that they aren't equipped for. I should say, some are some arent. But I've met people that have gone through some churches ministerial programs where the areas of theology sound like they are mostly skim jobs with no depth of inquiry or real learning and the emphasis was on outreach and building a church congregation (sounds familiar). Later then in the midst of the challenges of dealing with real people, they grapple with deeper issues and aren't prepared. Rather than expand their resource base and direct their people to the right resources with other's expertise, they declare organizational autonomy and attempt to impose their new visions on the church. (sound familiar?) I read some of the church pastors say the same thing we did years ago - "Jesus didn't have to ask a committee if it was okay to teach!" Yeah, but he was Jesus. And He did ask the Father and do the Father's will always. I'm not going to bet my next paycheck on somebodys' word the mean well and know better. "I meant well" wouldn't cut it with brain surgery. It's tragic some of these guys push forward so aggressively yet so scatter box in the arena's of people's emotional and spiritual lives.

Agreed Roy, but I'm fuzzy on what you mean by "illusion"...we seem to differ on the definition of "illusion", which may be why I don't quite understand what you mean.........

Yeah, I be breaking that one. Sue me.

I wanted to add - file this with the fish wrap, it's not any big deal, I just wanted to get it out of my head and somewhere else. I've read some of Lofton's stuff and at the expense of sounding uh, prideful, it wasn't worth my time and although he seems to have kicked up a little dust ball in some Christian communities, I'm not sure why as he doesn't have a really grounded, clear or powerful voice of opinion. That opinion of mine has nothing to do with his "atheism". Richard Dawkins states his positions quite well and his feeling that post-Darwin an atheist has natural selection and evolution to explain through any "intelligent design" beliefs is worth noting. In fact for me it was Dawkins who put 2 and 2 together for me in regards to understanding natural selection as a nonrandom process and a means to account for diverse, complex life - but - in a universe of possibilities it's still fascinating to consider that that process of natural selection has remained so consistent and that it hasn't broken the boundaries out so far as to develop - over these billions of years involved in evolution - any truly diverse or divergent possibilities. Put another way, why then "natural selection" as a driving force? The known universe that the theory covers is known to be what it is, not what it isn't. There are basic laws, consistencies, strengths, inclinations but not others. Ultimately the explanation is "because that's the way it is", the way it has become. And I would still ask the question why that way and not others and why not others at the same time, co existing with each other in a universe of laws even broader than our own now? And the answer would still have to be "because that's the way it is" and perhaps even that it couldn't have been any other way once the ball got rolling...... Which is kinda kludgey. But I don't take Dawkins lightly. Lofton doesn't appear to be rooted in any specific foundation of ideas or thought pattern which is surprising. He's obviously educated, intelligent and has experience, but he does seem inclined to spin off into all sorts of postulations of his own creation. That's fine by me, he's got as much right as anyone. However I don't see a real depth of reasoning, he's all over the road like a pis sed off cow, shot gunning. He seems to be grappling with his own demons. Maybe this is his way of working them out, I don't know but I get the feeling there's more under the hood than what he states. Either way, since I don't get much from his stuff I don't pay much attention to it. This is way too much for me, to be honest but my brain got buzzing and it's a poor effort at best, easlily shot full of holes. (kaboom!)

Breaking it down, the Top 10 Reasons - another's view" 1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often believers respond to skeptical arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their faith, which includes special pleading, non-sequiturs, all or nothing thinking (i.e., the "either/or" and "black and white" fallacies), begging the question, the "you too" fallacy, and especially appeals to ignorance. They don't even know that's how they are responding. And this is what I see coming from some Christian scholars I have dealt with, even those who teach critical thinking in the colleges, which nearly stuns me. Their responses are bad, really bad, and they don't/can't see it. A quick and dirty run down on the meaning of critical thinking, compliments of the Wikipedia: Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true. Lofton's arguments are reactive, contingent on a premise he's arguing against - that where some say they believe in God he contends that there is no god to believe in. If Lofton (or for this discussion anyone) were to say "there is no god", disconnected from the assumption that there is, critical thinking would attempt to go through the process to question his assumption and determine if it be true, false or some incremental value. I would suggest for discussion that that statement would be difficult to prove 100% true without the benefit of reactive criticism to make the case. Lofton seems to indicate that he feels it's the baseline, and requires no proof. For the sake of discussion and let's say that's the case - does it indicate a lack of critical thinking on (anyone's) part to have come to that conclusion whether in whole or in part? Keep in mind that Lofton appears to be in violation of his own criticism of others, that of an "all or nothing" conclusion, that "there is no god", 100 % true. If he were to answer "because you can't prove that there IS a god", that would not suffice IMO. An inability to prove that something IS does not conclusively prove that something IS NOT. A thing can be said to exist without the dependency of recognition - in other words for say Lofton himself to be alive isn't dependent on me knowing he is. He either is or isn't. It's like the question If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?..........the first question to be answered might better be, does a tree falling make a sound? and if it does, what is that sound? Whether I hear it or not doesn't have an effect on that. 2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Christians can acknowledge this with others who believe differently in religions they consider bizarre. Why can't they see it in themselves? The reason is the same one for why the others can't see it in themselves. It's because they too are brainwashed. Only the brainwashed do not know it. Being brainwashed into thinking a certain way is a hot button topic. However he doesn't go into detail as to how this brainwashing occurs in a test group which would have to include billions of people over time, from completely different cultures, countries and eras in time. Christian religion for example has certain basic tenets, common beliefs, but they do in fact vary widely amongst all the various denominations, sects and flavors. This statement "sounds like it could be true" at first blush but is a kind of non sequitur in itself IMO. 3) A very large percentage of believers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their faith, which can be decisive. They are sure of their faith so they only look for confirming evidence. This can only make them more entrenched in whatever they were raised to believe in their particular culture. But it's an utterly wrongheaded approach to their faith. Lofton makes a valid point however his attitude trips up his logic - he states "disconfirming evidence.....which can be decisive"............examples of that decisiveness would be helpful. 4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know. I already stated why this is so messy as to be useless - the more we know should not be reason to have more doubt - that's a ridiculous conclusion and not Socratic.I could counter that while I might doubt, I don't doubt that I'm doubting - Descartes. I can't, and therefore I must exist and be sure of that existance and if I must exist and know that surely - does that produce more doubt or more confirmation? (It's also insulting to imply the lack of education of someone who would not accept his statement - is that evidence of Lofton's own attempt to brainwash his reader by using shame, guilt, fear and peer pressure tactics???) The more we know, the more we know and can continue to know if we seek to. I believe most would agree that Socrates (and others) realized that knowledge alone isn't the end game, rather learning is and the more one learns, the more I will realize there is to learn. Yet even these statements would have context. I would say that Mozart knew the bulk of what he needed to know about music, in his day. However he didn't know what he didn't know, for instance he might never have envisioned say the harmonic and rhythmic development of modern hip hop - yet that would not have meant he knew less about music because he didn't know that nor would it have caused him to doubt what he did know. 5) This ignorance is due to the fact that believers fear to doubt. It's the very nature of faith in an omniscient mind-reading God that he is displeased when they doubt his promises. So in order not to displease him they do not seriously question their faith. Believers also fear to doubt because they reside in a Christian community of like-minded believers, their friends, who can be counted on when in need, and who would ostracize them if they walked away from the faith. Social pressure among one's main group of friends keeps them in the fold and blissfully ignorant of the need to test their faith. Fear of God and fear of the judgment of others - sure, people seek acceptance however as many of us find there are communities of thought that will support all and any beliefs and non beliefs. Lofton implies that serious, deep seated and heart felt faith is largely conditional on fear of loss and peer pressure. I don't think I can buy that whole cloth but it could certainly be a factor if accounting for why people believe what they do. 6) The biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith is because of where it could lead them, to hell. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might eventually lead them to eternal torture (or however they conceive the final judgment). The thought never occurs to Christians that they don't have the slightest fear of Allah's hell, or the many sects within their own faith who claim all others are going to hell. The comparison to "Allah's hell" isn't sound - there's no reason why a Christian would factor in the blessings or consequences of a faith that's not their own because, well, it's not their own. He makes that point in that very statement - which is why I think he's such a blatherer, at least in this article. Many Christians do fear hell. I don't, so I'd be a good example of someone who doesn't fit that pattern. Yet he states it's "the biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith"..........I think I know what he's talking about but as a blanket statement? Doesn't wash. And all of the Christians I know who do believe in a "hell" are more interested in Heaven than hell so it's not a continuous day to day motivator to stay out of hell rather it's a pursuit of being in Heaven (by whatever name) 7) Believers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, living eternally in heaven with their deceased loved ones. This hope is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong, otherwise they might have to admit they will never see their dead mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters again. That's simply too painful for them to even consider. Hmmmm....file this under "huh?".........to say that with such conviction is immature. People can certainly bring themselves to accept that. I don't think that over a lifetime of faith that's the big all time gotta have it or I'll go nuts kind of a motivator. Maybe it's just me. 8) The nature of faith itself. Faith is a parasite on the mysterious. Without mystery faith couldn't exist. Wherever there is mystery there will always be room for faith because as humans we seek an explanation for the mysterious, and for believers their particular God-concept fills in the gaps. This is one of the informal fallacies I mentioned earlier. Believers require nearly all mysteries to be solved before they will consider their faith unreasonable, and that's an unreasonable epistemic standard since there will probably always be mysteries. Faith is therefore an irrational leap over the probabilities, something no thinking person should ever do with the probabilities given the available evidence. One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case. There's too much in this to address in brief - but if I were to discuss "the nature of faith itself" I would not include that faith itself is primarily useful to explain "the mysterious" or to fill in gaps. I have faith and I still have gaps. I'm not going nuts over it or requiring that my faith be the blanket explanation or answer. Some things I just don't understand. That's fine, if other explanations or probabilities suffice, that's fine too. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way either. 9) Then too, there is the concept of an omniscient God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Omnscient God Escape Clause. Because theists believe in an omniscient God skeptics must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their faith pretty much unfalsifiable. It's not that unreasonable, for the reasons I stated earlier. If Lofton were to take away the foil of an argument made against "faith", what would be his proof conclusively that there is no "God"? And would it stand conclusively against all other possibilities? 10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if believers walked away from their faith they would ipso facto have no reason to be a good people who care for the common good of a society. But the overwhelming evidence is against this, best seen in the demographics. Morality isn't reliant on a specific religion, true. When Lofton references it to faith I think he actually kills his own point - if faith isn't based on any factual evidence which I think he's trying to make the case for - then where does the morality a person falsely credits to their faith come from then? If it's from the individual, the argument becomes a moot point - if the morality exists, it exists, regardless of where it comes from. What does Lofton care then, either way? Which does beg the question - why does he care anyway? If he feels we're all so lost and dumb, and beyond fixing - have a beer, smartie pants. You got it all figured out.

I guess I misunderstood when you wrote: Put on the perfect will of God doing God will from your heart do not get caught in religion pride which does you no good. Be willing to debate anything letting nothing mold you with false religion, which is not right. I am going to end now but thank you all with love of God and a holy kiss from Roy. It sure seemed like you expected something. Everybody struggles for Kristssake Roy. I prefer not to focus on it and wear it like a hat. Life is a struggle period. All men are sinners, all fall short, everybody struggles. God made a way where the was no way - a way to transcend and redeem. With Christ all can be redeemed, everybody gets paid, it's Christmas for all. Loftus is putting coal in everybody's stocking when he tries to make Christians out to be basically deluded losers - and that's the tone of what he wrote, when I read it as well as others. I shared that article with another - they felt similar to me, very much the same way. But the human capacity for faith is universal and the case can be made that without it we wouldn't be able to function at all. ( and I tried with two examples I gave earlier ) Everyone has faith and everyone - and I think this can be proven fairly easily - imagines and relies on outcomes and events that they can not physically and personally guarantee - that requires a trust and faith on their parts. Loftus (and of course many others) simply don't choose (and faith is a choice) to have towards God. I don't care. And most of the time nobody cares how or what my beliefs are. However when an authority figure such as he puts forth so strongly on such a vital topic - it warrants at least a nod. See ya!

"I don't want to get too involved here, because I know some Greasespotters love and adore the Reverend Mr. Driscoll as a great man of God." Really? He reads like an a-hole. Actually, he reads like he picked up the Momentus handbook and used it - which would make him the same thing I guess. " I just mentioned it because I think the whole group of elders shows a voyeuristic interest in everyone's sexual experiences." Church porno? That's what it sounds like to me, cheap kicks. He may have such personal condemnation over something that he feels guilty about......doing this kind of thing through his "church" provides a means to have the uber thrills that denial produces. Weird. Here we are, in the middle of America where freedom chimes like a ring in a bell. And people sign "contracts" like that? I want those names for a mailing list. I have some land under the Golden Gate Bridge I want to sell them."Water front property".

Hmmm, yeah. Speaking of related doctrinal discussions, Socrates and philosophical attributions to that sweet ol' owl Soc's, Soren Kierkegaard's "Philosophical Fragments" comes to mind, specifically on the area of projecting one's own reality on others and also reality based thinking as compared to abstract thinking. (one feels doubt, they see more doubt, one feels faith, sees more...hmm, not sure what Loftus would say to that one) Some of SK's views resonate with me (and I see some strains of thought with the later Henri Bergson, who I enjoy immensely) and his idea that objectivity may not be the correct or only way to evaluate matters of "faith", and the essential components of the spiritual. As in the scientific method of examination, testing, peeling layer after layer to see the internal workings of a thing, that which is "spiritual" may not best reveal itself that way but require a subjective experience and internal view of that which is not specifically rendered externally. SK's way of working is valid IMO, and need not altogether deny either side's approach. I'm sure Loftus knows all that being the expert he is so I find it interesting that he eliminates that line of thinking. SK was a proponent of the Socratic method, but then Loftus loves to twist Socrates and appears to have it all mixed up into his own " I'mRight " stew. (love not too strong an adjective given that he misquotes Socrates and then says of it that "every educated person" would know what he's misquoted.....uhhh - that's got some love in it alright, some care and feeding, he's been petting that thought for awhile and you can tell just reading it that he likes it. A lot. )...... Back to the topic at hand, supporting a writer who notes that the faith of others probably indicates unfixable needs to have social approval and aren't as intelligent as their atheist counterparts, a nefarious and dastardly position as any I'd daresay except to those who think it's okay.......Yeah, that's cool, so cool. How's that - better? Any time you'd actually like to "debate" anything Roy, such as the items you posted earlier, please do. If what you want is to post something and get "0" responses or a lot of one-hand clapping, that's fine too. Otherwise continue to make general sweeping statements about what everyone else thinks and should do and whine about everyone else's pride.

Roy, we may disagree but we're alike in one thing - we're persistent. I'm glad we could share this space. Loftus is an interesting character. Having had no apparent reality driven basis for his choice of religions, he appears to have chosen the reality he does know. In that way he's a reasonable man in my opinion. What he then does is not reasonable in my opinion and it's why I take exception to his pseudo philosophical stance - he insists that all other possibilities are possible except for the one he's eliminated. In that he has eliminated it for himself is reasonable, that he denies all possibility of it for others is not. Again, IMO. If we are dealing with an area that is personal to the individual, he has the freedom to do that of course - for himself. As do you and I.

Count me in baby! I might even eat up there at the head table with the good silver and all, just to know what it feels like to be clean and sweet.

Hmmmm.... I read that original post again Roy and I would have to say the same thing again - that guy's got a crappy attitude. When they state "I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all" to me, that's a crappy funky sucky frame of mind, to say, some people and their faith are just so far gone they can't be helped, that they have low self esteem compared to others like the writer and require an inordinate amount of social approval from others . Apparently because I won't bow down to these lofty pearls of wisdom you posted I'm prideful. If feeling that way is prideful, fine. Pump me up and put a string on me. The pride accusation is a derail - why are we discussing my pride or the lack of it? You also misquoted me with geisha's post but that's okay because I agree with it. Just copy paste from me directly, please. Sometimes people do have really lousy attitudes, ideas and feelings. I don't pat people on the head and dance with them just so I can appear "balanced" or "open" when I think their ideas are wrong. I'll consider many perspectives and opinions, always have and always will. That won't mean I adopt them or consider them reasonable. You put it up - what was your intent? This is a "Doctrinal Forum". Where's the Doctrinal discussion? You spend a lot of time making note on GS that others have problems, pride, unbelief, sexual challenges and any number of other things you seem to think they don't want to admit. And now you point the finger of Pride at me. Really? What's going on Roy? I have no unbelief? I in fact said the exact opposite - that I accept things by faith in every aspect of life and don't require constant reinforcement of "belief" to accept that certain things are what they are. If I wasn't that clear, I hope that is. Far as I'm concerned that writer's making points beyond addressing a specific group of people like Way members and beyond advising them to give their beliefs and ideas an honest second look. In fact outside of using the word "believers" there's no reference in context that indicates it might deal with Way members at all. He says that the matters of a persons faith in God are misguided and wrong. But frankly, the entire platform that writer used to challenge "faith" is weak when he writes: 4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know. Those are two different things and since he's so dammed educated I'd think he'd realize it but maybe he's really just got a personal hair up his butt about something he isn't stating - he wrote - The more you know the more you should doubt Is not the same as The more you know the more you realize you don't know It's cutesy to make the statement they did but it's not correct on face value. That isn't what the quote they ascribe to Socrates said - he (supposedly) said that he knew how much he didn't know. Which is incredibly ironic to me - quoting a man who lived over 2400 years ago who is known largely by those he (supposedly) taught and lived with and now quoting what he is said to have said....in a piece that challenges the faith of others................................ Your guy there reads like just another version of what he claims to argue against - he's so sure that he doesn't know that he's sure others can't know either and if they say they do there's something wrong with them, something that may not be fixable. If his Socrates statement was recognized for what it reads as, he'd also have to accept that a lack of knowledge doesn't mean the knowledge doesn't exist. Lastly another example comes to mind - I wouldn't change my mind or doubt that I post here as "socks" - someone else might use that name but when I post, it's me. I don't doubt that, I know that, I'm doing it right now. It's not an academic conclusion, it's a reality. So can be the foundations upon which one has faith. Hey Roy - if disagreeing makes one prideful, pour it on. That's one of the hallmarks of the Way's "enculturation" - accusing someone else of being prideful because they dare to question the almighty wisdom of those who say they know better. I do it all the time. Tattoo a big ? on my head. I love ya Roy. Don't stop keepin' on. :B) Keep the faith.

? I don't see how we got from Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith to figuring out that I have unbelief, or how any of that really relates to one's "faith" which that guy you quoted seemed to deny.... Of course I have unbelief, does it feel better to state that? I don't deny it nor fear it. I'm not lying to myself, speak for yourself. Of course I have faith, and I don't question it - the gap is filled by that which I trust in, Jesus Christ. However now that I know that 1. there is a God and 2. there is a Jesus Christ, I don't question that. Others may, fine. Others may say I should question it, I don't. Others may say I need to, they're wrong. I've had a belly full of anyone telling me I need to question my faith in the things which I have found to be true, simply because it makes them feel better to say I should as if that makes me or them feel better or any smarter. Bull shi t. I don't buy that. I don't worry about it either - they don't have to live in my skin nor I in theirs. Or as I've said for many years I can't give another my faith nor they give theirs to me. Each has to have their own. Or not. Whichever way it goes is fine with me. :)

Well, yeah. It reads like a call to Atheism. Which is fine but how does that help a person other than to say a faith in God is completely wrong and a lack of faith in God is completely right? Check this statement out: One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case. What if the probabilities indicate a faith in God is the soundest conclusion? Before anyone checks that off as BS - consider these two faith based scenarios: 1. Everyday I leave my house to drive to work. At the end of the work day I drive back home, assuming that it will be there despite the fact I haven't seen it all day. I don't call a neighbor 10 times a day to make sure it's still there and get satellite photos of it to make sure it is. I know that it should be unless something has caused it to not be there. The basic forces of nature and reality that are at work in everything else tell me that it will be there with enough surety that I can drive home confident it will be there. 2. I am married and have a wife who has said she loves me. She acts like it and has done things we generally know and agree on that define that love, to indicate to me that she, in fact loves me. I don't ask her 10 times a day "do you still love me?" I don't insist that she do things all day long to clearly indicate that she still loves me and that the level of love she has for me at any point in time is the same as it was the last time I checked. I live assuming that she loves me and that if that changes, I'll find out. In #1, I accept the house is here (it was) for reasons that are both within and beyond my control - I don't control gravity or any of the other forces that would cause the house to remain in one state and in one place. I do control certain factors that govern the condition of it's existence. Between the two, the house is and will be until other forces cause it not to be. In # 2, I accept that the relationship is two way and that we both have responsibilities for it to continue. I expect it to exist until other forces cause it not to, and those are forces that are both knowable and unknowable, I don't directly control their existence. . In both scenarios, "faith" is a factor based on data that indicates that faith is predictable and reliable and doesn't require continuous affirmation or proof to exist. They both exist, in a sense, outside my own control or grasp, but affected by my relationship with them. The house is a tangible "thing" that I relate to physically - the Love is an intangible "thing", a quality that produces activity and tangibles. In both scenarios I have faith that they exist when I'm not in contact with them and when there is no immediate proof of their existence. Yet I rely on my knowledge of them that they do in fact exist My "faith" in God is similar to both - it's tangible and rooted in reality, and intangible, rooted in a relationship. Both are constant and continuous but neither require or present constant affirmation. They are simply what they are, at this time. I assume and have found that this is the case with others too and how they describe their "faith" in God and certainly in Jesus Christ as the son of God and redeemer to mankind. The past is verifiable but a past event no longer exists as an instance of reality in and of itself - in that way the past can never be reconstructed but reality being what it is a past event can be known by the artifacts it produces. The present is a known piece of data as it occurs. Perception and understanding may vary but not to the extent that I can't know what is at that moment - the house is here, my wife loves me, etc. It's the Future that gives people hiccups. Will my house be there? Will my wife love me tomorrow? Will God....be there as I have known Him to be there? The answer to all three questions can be "yes". If the question were "will I go to Heaven someday?"..........as people often ask, that's a good question. I don't have a "heaven" in my past and while this is pretty cool now I don't call it "heaven" if that's the future with God and Jesus Christ and some form of future spiritual life after death. This current life isn't over yet and other events that would change this current existence haven't happened. Yet. I can believe that based on the fact that my life construct thus far includes that iit is a sound projection - and to that extent I can invest a "faith" in it - but it hasn't happened yet and I would have to say, I'll find out in the future. In that scenario anyone who would say "no, that's all BS and isn't going to happen" I would say buy me a lottery ticket homes, if you can see the future. I can't that clearly to say with out any doubt that it won't. If it's a future that has never occurred yet there are no artifacts of it's existence that remain - there can't be. That's the nature of existence as we perceive it with the human mind - I can imagine a future, "see it", expect it to be there but there can not be any physical proof that it exists beyond any doubt because it hasn't happened yet. This is true of all things in life. I think people tend to separate "spiritual" from "physical" arbitrarily. From my perspective they're very much the same and it really depends on how we choose to view them. That's my position at this time regarding "faith". Everyone else's mileage may vary.

"I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all." Wow, that's a crappy attitude. Frankly, some of this reads like nonsense - like this statement - "The more we know the more we should doubt"... Or this: here is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. As soon as I figure out what enculturated means, I'll digest this better but on the surface it's a standard screed. (yeh, I know it's a word, just don't see it a lot and it sounds wrong when you say it, at least to me but that's okay) Why don't "Most" Believers Seriously Question Their Faith? It would depend on several things I suppose - one would be how a person comes to hold a specific thing that they define as a point of "faith". As far as I'm concerned the entire "question your faith" posit is highly over rated and not nearly as effective OR useful as it sounds. It's always trendy to say we should all question the things we "believe in" but it's only useful when approached methodically and with purpose. NO ONE I know that I respect questions what they believe haphazardly or at the recommendation of someone else simply because someone else suggests they do it. EVERYONE I know, whether I respect them or not, relies heavily on "faith" perceptions to live, at all or do even the simplest of things like go to the store and buy a box of cough drops. I also differ from the popularly held definition that says "faith" is by nature reliant on the unknown - I would contend that faith must in fact have a core essence grounded and rooted in a reality in order to exist, at all - and it is that essence from which the perception of a faith based belief proceeds. I don't really care about the article Roy, I just figured I'd chime in. Why is this important to you? Having a 'crises of faith"?

Eagle, I would agree. Our borders are borders. Crossing in and out for a day or a lifetime, there's process. That process can change over time, restrictions imposed, steps to accomplish improved and whatever it is it should be observed and enforced. Right now we do have a problem with it and there is a human component to it. The political component needs to be fixed IMO, before the human part can be dealt with effectively. Mexico is a case in point - the government isn't a bystander. Our agreements with them as neighbors has to include their enforcement of it from their side. We deal with keeping out and sending back - it's easy to make the U.S. the bad guy but we're not in relation to wanting to control the borders of our country (not that you're stating that he U.S. is the bad guy, I know you're not) but the control from the other side appears to be as important an issue. Given our own history with Native Americans and Mexico itself I think we can generate better solutions than the ones we have today. Engaging Mexico directly and pushing harder for action on their part would be one thing to do. A large part of the U.S. land was "Mexico" at one time. There are a lot of issues, challenges, opportunities and benefits from working together towards a shared good, for both sides, less so if the effort is one sided or leans too far towards us enforcing our laws to fill a gap that the Mexican government won't or can't fill.