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!
I did not put here for to make fun of bro Lofton to face our unbelief
but that you socks done
It would been better to say nothing at all
look at the words Christ spoke in his defense right before the hung him on the cross
He spoke no words loving his enemy completely
state you do not agree but it punching hate calling him names
when you ever learn
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Please tell me what Socks has done other than disagree with the initial post in a thoughtful and articulate manner. You were the one who attacked him as being prideful. Those are your words so be accountable for them. You didn't like the language Socks used? That's really too bad, but it doesn't make it wrong. It was descriptive, it was accurate and it expressed how he perceived Loftus' attitude. Kudos to Socks for making it an interesting read. That doesn't make him prideful. You were the one that had no problem lauding yourself as an example of overcoming pride while erroneously judging Socks. When Wordwolf tried to engage you.....you accused him of allowing his religion to blind him? Blind him to what? Agreeing with you or agreeing with Loftus?
Who has made fun of "brother' Loftus? Disagreeing with him and disliking his attitude are not the same as making fun of him. Where did anyone make fun of him? Where did anyone call him names Roy? Where did anyone hate? Those are your accusations, and they are coupled with your judgements on Socks, Wordwolf, and myself. You even used Jesus' rebuke to Peter on me. If you remember, Jesus rebuked Peter for being mindful of the things of man and not of God. I wasn't the one who posted an agnostic/atheist ramblings in the doctrinal forum for some kind of wisdom provoking lesson. What did you expect?
If you really want to take a look at Jesus..... He OFTEN rebuked people for their lack of faith Roy. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Please don't cherry pick Jesus' words to make a point. I think we all have a grasp on the gospel basics, but let me remind you that while Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, forgiveness is contingent on belief, acceptance, and faith in that sacrifice. That is because it is worthy of faith. It was a hefty price.
Just for the record, I don't consider Lotus an enemy. That thought never crossed my mind....why would it? I consider him in error, somewhat lost and probably incredibly conflicted, but how is he my enemy? That is just extreme.
And if it is better to say nothing at all, then why did you post a provocative, challenging, and inciting post smack dab in the middle of a doctrinal discussion forum populated with Christians? Wouldn't it have been better not to say anything?
You have a prolific voice Roy, but it seems not many care enough to treat you as a equal or hold you at least a tiny bit responsible or accountable for what you say. Take a look at your own judgements and words on this thread before asking others when they are going to learn. People usually master a subject before they try and teach it to others.
I was reminded in an email today of how precious that faith was when I first believed, and I think that the moment by moment confirmation of confidence in the Lord is what keeps that newness alive my relationship with Him (or them, God, Jesus, Holy Spirit).
Same with speaking in tongues. I must constantly remind myself and struggle to overcome complacency in regard to speaking in tongues and prayer with my understanding, which I believe is the way we "pray without ceasing" -- instantly confirming our dependence and craving for the Lord and His kindness into our lives and into the lives of our family, friends, and other loved ones.
Just a little comment about this "pride" thing. First off, I can't imagine anyone is full of "pride" every moment of everyday, that is extreme and extremes usually hide a different issue. There is a HUGE difference in being proud of an accomplishment....doing something well, taking some pride in one's appearance and the pride that the bible speaks of which stems from self-righteousness. That is the pride God hates. It keeps people from seeking HIM.
Being lowly of spirit is not being self-effacing, religious, or accepting as legitimate whatever idea, psalm, hymn, or revelation someone throws out there. It isn't putting aside our ability to think, consider, or express ourselves in a colorful and vibrant manner. Being lowly of spirit isn't reveling in our own wisdom, or confessing our sins in an inappropriate venue for all to see. Being lowly of spirit doesn't take away our ability to discern.
Being lowly of spirit or humble before God is a recognition of our state of complete spiritual bankruptcy and our need for His divine grace.
All pride is not a sin, the same goes for anger, doubt, fear and the like. We need to be careful when seeking to reinvent ourselves.....regeneration is the work of the spirit, not the flesh. It is easy to become the thing we are trying to master when God is not truly involved. Self-flagellation is not the road to righteousness, but it can lead to depression, anxiety, panic and other serious problems. None of which is God's heart for us.
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 )
Ten Reasons Why Most UnBelievers Don't Seriously Question Their Unbelief (or atheism)
Why don't most unbelievers seriously question their unbelief? Does it take a special type of individual? Does it require some personality trait that unbelievers don't have? Does that make believers different people? Could it be intelligence? Could it be that believers have a higher self-esteem than others? Is it that we don't need social approval? I do think that the following ten reasons are necessary conditions:
1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often unbelievers respond to theistic arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their unbelief
2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to not believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Why can't they see it in themselves?
3) A very large percentage of unbelievers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their unbelief, which can be decisive. This can only make them more entrenched
4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. Any educated person will tell you this.
5) This ignorance is due to the fact that unbelievers fear to accept the existence of God and judgment. So in order not to admit they displease God, they do not seriously question their unbelief. Unbelievers also fear to believe because of the social pressure among their like-minded friends
6) The biggest reason unbelievers don't seriously question their unbeleif is because of where it could lead them, to accountability to God. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might lead them to accepting that there is One they must answer to.
7) Unbelievers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, the feeling that if there is no life after death, they do not need to prepare for it in the present. This demand on their lives now is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong
8) The nature of unbelief itself. It cannot answer the most basic elements of life- the moral code that is built into all humans, the existence of human consciousness, the impossibility of appearance of life by chance that forces them to implausible and improvable theories like multiple universes, and the like. It can never accept the impossibility of its decrepit theories, and so slips into denial.
9) Then too, there is the concept of a nonexistent God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Anthropocentric Escape Clause. Because unbelievers will not accept the possibility of God, believers must prove their faith is "scientific" by their definition before they will consider it to be probable. This is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their unbelief pretty much unfalsifiable.
10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if unbelievers believed they would ipso facto need to accept a moral code which is universal and has objective standards, rather than socially constructed. But the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the theory of social constructs leads to horrors like those carried out by Naziism, which established and followed its unique social code.
I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all.
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
We all have some pride and not of God!
02-01-2012
I have pride in myself as you have pride in yourself but it does come from God it is a fleshly part us that is learn. Otherwise we devolved into thinking a basic way because of religion, beliefs, unbelief, that we focus the way we think. None of this spiritual it all fleshly base on ideals of our inner self which is why Jesus pointed it to Peter.
Matthew 16:23 But he {Jesus Christ} turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Peter was thinking with his flesh the pride of self was controlling his heart Peter was not learning from Christ example of love. Peter was pulling from that which he was taught the false beliefs that came from his religion his flesh but Christ wanted Peter to pull from the love that was going to be inside of Peter. Every man has a flesh side of himself the Satan in side of our beliefs but pull from the seed of Christ.
Acts 8:23 For I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Lets look at another man that let pride get his way in this man was perceive by apostle Paul in the bonds of fleshly desires inside his bitter flesh. This man was thinking like Peter just thought he was letting Satan control his heart to fleshly desire when he should been looking the spirit that was alive in of him. Thank you my friend with love and a holy kiss Roy.
here my understand of both statements self Pride sure bro L. had his but I do not want his I got my own Pride to deal with about you
the main reason is christians a taught to follow, not to think for themselves.
that's why they're reffered to as the flock.which just another word for herd.
i always thought ironic how wafers were always being told they were thinking for themselves as long as they agreed with twi.
and not some other denomination.
People often put themselves in subjection to others without thinking. I would imagine you do so as well......as you probably follow the laws of land and societal norms without parsing each and every statute or custom we as a society live by. Christians come to put themselves under subjection to the Lord willingly, consciously, through examination, reflection, and decision. That hardly makes it a non-thinking proposition. In truth, it is the opposite. Being in subjection to the Shepherd, we sheep come to this of our own free will and that is not the same as blind or empty faith. It is not the same as following without thinking The triune nature of God is the perfect example of how being in subjection works as being unity. Probably well beyond this particular conversations limit, but an example nonetheless.
I mentioned John Lennox in an earlier post......he gives a talk on faith in God......pretty enlightening. Is Faith Delusional? I hope someone gets a chance to listen and to enjoy!!
And Socks....I looked at the book you mentioned.....I am interested in how we can train our brains!! :) We had a crash course in neural pathways when my eldest went through some trials. Retraining through consequence, being a mentoring parent, and the consistency it takes to effect genuine change .... actually helped me as much as it did her....but, it is not an easy thing to do. We are all still a work in progress. Life is seldom easy!
Yes, indeed geisha. It's a good book, I'm enjoying it.
Oh to be a man of no faith! Free from the treachery of the well that promises water but in whom lurks deceit for there can be no water but the water that resides in my belly! The foolish lower their bucket only to be disappointed time and again, let sand be their drink! Yes, to be free from the untenable promise of "tomorrow" for tomorrow never comes! Only now, this moment! A past that haunts like the ghost of those who never really were and a future that rolls like the fog, beautiful from the hillside but cold and without body when it arrives. Now, only now! and this! That which is and nothing else! Therein lies the sublime pleasure of Reality, relieved from the yoke of faith. Free! Free! Free at last!
Follow? Yes, faith no more, Christianity specifically is about following. "To follow is to choose" is how I might put that.
Following starts with a choice and continues that way. To disconnect the processes that produce the choice to follow would become counter productive. Then, a member of a flock wouldn't be following, they'd be - dunno, maybe getting pushed along in the press perhaps or falling out of bed one day and forgetting to get back in later, which happens too I guess. While I wouldn't think to add to the canon of scripture I might footnote what seems to be obvious in the admonitions of Jesus, the phrase "Follow Me, and bring your mind and brain, you're going to need both". Indeed, without either the choice to follow would not be possible.
In fact the use of history, quotation, parable, metaphor, question-and-answer by Jesus all indicate an interest in inciting thought and reason to serve this seemingly foulest of things, "faith".
We lose something if we redefine "follow' to exclude thought and choice....think about it - to follow is to travel and to travel is to reach a destination.
Sight seeing tours do abound (keep an eye on your luggage!) but in life's journeys we aim to arrive somewhere, if that be only to the end.
We don't want to lose that part of following, be it alone or in a group. Jesus describes Himself as "the way" - there is a destination.
Ultimately though, to be as "children" and accepting those little ones as we might ourselves want to be accepted...... "Talitha cumi"....!
There is also a very fundamental benefit to being part of a group. Try eating only what you grow or pick or gather or catch. Reading only what you write. Seeing only what you place in front of yourself. Sleeping only under the stars on the bed you make.
It may be one of the most basic realities, that we are all each of us, only one, in and of ourselves and in that way we are alone, like it or not. So the urge to gather, to share, to "become as one" is not all that strange, and perhaps one of the most natural inclinations we have. True, normal, essential to survival.
"Survival of the fittest"....? Can an independent thinker survive in a group? I would contend such a one can and will and to the extent each one is will be the extent to which that one flourishes, to the benefit of all.
"The relationship between faith, reason and evidence..."
Evidence based faith...."what grounds do I have for that faith"....
Interesting video, there's a great deal of common ground we tread there. This states well that the core lesson of life is to learn to build the capacity for faith.
"Some faith can be blind....and blind faith can be very dangerous".
The quote from John would be well placed at the start of that book, to set context.
I also noted the statement about a "delusion about history" within atheism", today. The tendency towards generalization in regards to the specific tenets of different religions of different ages, people, cultures, is sophomoric but widely accepted, as if the roar of the dissent is more appealing to the quiet discourse of thoughtful conversation. Noise over sound, both audible and both can drown out thought.
I'm not a scientist, mathematician, or theologian. I see Lennox's logic, that the compelling argument for why things are the way they are being the universe "just is" or "because that's the way they are" is insufficient, less a reason and more a description of the result. Of what, I ask? If nothing, so be it. But if it were of nothing then where does that place me? I'm fine with being the current iteration of anything, but not of nothing, that doesn't quite make sense. There's an essential kernel there that's required whether I like it or need it or not, in my view.
No one measures the distance traveled of something that had no start. That the one who measures doesn't care what was before the "0" in his graph doesn't mean there was nothing and without it there would be no 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. If it were me I might be able to say "that's not my area of interest" but I would not be able to say that there was nothing there.
I can see an atheism that would say "I don't want to concern myself with that area". I can't see an atheism that would say "there cannot be an area there to concern myself with". That seems hmmm, wrong, on face value.
Did I call Lofton's writing "nonsense".............? No.
Did I make fun of his writing skills? ......................... No.
I originally stated that in what he had in what you posted, a
"crappy attitude".
I expanded on that later to include "sucky" and a couple other words.
I still think so, stand by that and have no reason to change my mind. I think-
His attitude towards those of "faith"..........
Is crappy. Sucks. I don't like it and won't tolerate it from others or on behalf of others. I definitely won't go through this charade again but as for Lofton, he's no different than anyone else, IMO. And his frame of mind, attitude - sucks, IMO.
And actually exemplifies the very things you are talking about - but for whatever reasons you don't see it. That's fine,I just want to point that out - that from my perspective you don't allow in others what you allow in him.
I'm sorry people make fun of your writing skills Roy. I know you try and none of us do more than that.
However - I am not making fun of his writing skills, this has nothing - nothing - not a single thing - nothing Nothing to do with his writing sklls and the skills he uses to write his ideas out. He is in fact competent in his writing skills, IMO, and does a fine job getting across what he means. It's what he means, the meaning of his words, that doesn't wash with me.
I didn't make fun of Loftons' writing skills, I did disgree with him, take his ideas in that post to task and offer a point by point set of thoughts on what he did write.
And for the record, it doesn't matter to me what you say to me about anything, agree with me, disagree, or whatever you want to do. I expect you to be honest and straightforward, no more, no less. A lot of people won't even do that, so in my world, if you do that you're a leg up on a lot of people. :)
Did I call Lofton's writing "nonsense".............? No.
Did I make fun of his writing skills? ......................... No.
I originally stated that in what he had in what you posted, a
"crappy attitude".
I expanded on that later to include "sucky" and a couple other words.
I still think so, stand by that and have no reason to change my mind. I think-
His attitude towards those of "faith"..........
Is crappy. Sucks. I don't like it and won't tolerate it from others or on behalf of others. I definitely won't go through this charade again but as for Lofton, he's no different than anyone else, IMO. And his frame of mind, attitude - sucks, IMO.
And actually exemplifies the very things you are talking about - but for whatever reasons you don't see it. That's fine,I just want to point that out - that from my perspective you don't allow in others what you allow in him.
I'm sorry people make fun of your writing skills Roy. I know you try and none of us do more than that.
However - I am not making fun of his writing skills, this has nothing - nothing - not a single thing - nothing Nothing to do with his writing sklls and the skills he uses to write his ideas out. He is in fact competent in his writing skills, IMO, and does a fine job getting across what he means. It's what he means, the meaning of his words, that doesn't wash with me.
I didn't make fun of Loftons' writing skills, I did disgree with him, take his ideas in that post to task and offer a point by point set of thoughts on what he did write.
And for the record, it doesn't matter to me what you say to me about anything, agree with me, disagree, or whatever you want to do. I expect you to be honest and straightforward, no more, no less. A lot of people won't even do that, so in my world, if you do that you're a leg up on a lot of people. :)
It is really nice that Roy apologized to you Socks....and I think you deserve an apology for some of the harsh and unfounded things you have been accused of on this thread. But, apologizing while comparing himself to you and asking who is more Christ like is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
I have tried to understand what happened on this thread.......it is a mystery to me.
Even if you didn't say it.....saying that Loftus' post reads like nonsense is not name calling. In some detail, you defended your position in a clear and articulate manner, and I believe you did show Loftus' words to be nonsense. Instead of addressing what you said....Roy complained about the length of answer! It is a no win situation.....you are the villian.
Not only did I name several thinking and well respected Christians.....I posted a video of one in particular who explained his search. John Lennox learned TWO languages, lived in Communist countries and has spent YEARS debating, discussing and defending faith with atheists.He knows EXACTLY WHY he believes in God, the bible, and has freely and with great thought....chosen the Christian faith. He clearly communicates that fact. He is a scientist and a mathematician who teaches at one of the world's most respected educational institutions. He is a Christian whose existence reveals Loftus to be nonsensical in his assumptions. I could names so many more. Loftus' post does READ LIKE NONSENSE. It isn't even presented very well. It reads like a huge giant insult by someone with an axe to grind.
If we want to compare your words to Jesus..... you are MILD in comparison to some of the things He said about a lack of faith. Roy has quoted Jesus speaking to Peter. Peter left everything in his life to follow Jesus and Jesus called him Satan. Despite being stuck on the pride thing in regards to this verse, it is also speaking about Peter's lack of faith. Peter had just been shown something by God, that the truth he did speak had come directly from God. Peter had JUST declared Jesus the Messiah, and then Peter went on to rely on his own insight. He had a better plan for Jesus. That is how he was being prideful....trusting in his own misguided wisdom concerning the things of God.
One of the things Jesus rebuked people for was their lack of faith. "O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? " Jesus used harsh language and he didn't approve or give credence to every opinion. Even those of His beloved disciples. Jesus didn't defend atheism or an atheists thoughts as precious, important or even worthy of respect and then call it loving to do so.....
We are able to separate a person's words from their humanity and respect the person as being created by God and disagree without it being personal. Let a Christian have an opposing view point and express it and the sky is falling. What I want to know is what Roy thinks is so valid about Loftus' post that he has to defend it. It must be important to him because no one challenged Loftus right to an opinion or his right to think what he will....we SIMPLY didn't respect his opinion. We challenged its tone, tenor, and logic. The horror!
There is no point to this thread and I am not sure of the initial intention either....but I think it is best left to fade away. Who knows what you will be accused of next....I don't want to watch it!!
This horse is still moving, let me fix that. (and thanks. But I will openly admit I'm not Christ Like, so we can breathe easy, I make no claims on that count and never will.)
As to the writing skills of Loftus - I think he wrote rather well, and put down what he meant clearly and succinctly. I had no trouble understanding what he said and based on his other books and writings I think I got a clear idea of what he meant in this. So, as a writer, he did fine at least by me. I got his points.
He wears his credentials rather large, I've seen. I don't. I actually don't have any to flaunt so it's easy but I won't blather on about the number of books, lectures, hours spent, days pondering or years working. Everyone does what they do. When the rubber hits the road we all fall out of bed pretty much the same way.
That he screws around with some of the material he uses deserves to be challenged. His use of Socrates for instance - now anyone who wants to challenge my version is welcome to and it is challengeable - but I don't agree with Loftus's interepretation - that the more one knows the more one should doubt. I don't see that the socratic method is directly a use of doubt but I suppose I could be squeezing it a little or a lot........to question yes that's different than doubt though. Learning would require ongoing analysis IMO, yes and the effect of even mastering a field to one's own best ability invokes the understanding that there is still yet more to learn if one is to progress. But to doubt as a result of what one knows through learnng - in the way that I think Loftus uses it here - is simply wrong and more of an extrapolation on his conclusions, that faith is wrong and that one should doubt their faith. (and I don't believe that issues of spiritual faith are best served by external analysis as I alluded to, a subjective internal method is required and more authentic for the components of mind and thought. ) But faith as a quality of human life is normal for all humans.
The fact that a "Socrates" is quoted leaves lots of room to quote a Jesus for that matter - since it's not known if a man Socrates ever actually existed. So in that way I still find it very ironic that anyone would invoke "Socratic" ideas in that way, I don't. I did at one time but my general investigation of philosophy has caused me to steer away from that.
LIkewise - and this is just me - I don't always quote Jesus directly because I believe at this point that many of the basic ideas - but not all - of what Jesus is written to have said are things that can be drawn from many sources including the Torah - that's not rocket science IMO. However the "living logos" idea is very defining to Jesus Christ and provides a context to the words of the gospels that gives them meaning.
Loftus has the same problem a lot of us do - he's so sure of himself or wants to be that he uses the word "most" in this piece - "most" Believers don't seriously question their faith.....
You can't do that. You can, I do, he does obviously but it clouds any discussion to generalize in that way. As soon as I jump to "most" I have to validate that and the points he makes won't fully validate that way IMO. Plus any time you tell someone "you're just like everyone else" - they're likely to say no they're not. Because they're not.
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
Are we antidiscrimination unto God?
02-08-2012
Are you discrimination unto God the person that was given credit by most people as creative your life? Should we bow down unto God’s ways or is his ways the only right ways No would be the answer I would give? Jesus Christ and God taught us by Principles rather than must do laws but a principle of love rather than a must do law or commandment.
God did not us bond under laws that we could not obey that why Jesus Christ us to love our enemy because we do not know why our enemy is attacking us. When I was in the Way ministry we had a statement we would down the other person’s thought “scripture and verse” which not help anything.
Saying a law that all people do not want will get us nowhere but moving it from laws to principles we can all agree with. We all live by some principles and love is easy principle to justified because if not loveable you do not do it. But what not loveable to one may not be loveable to another otherwise what one like another may not like to antidiscrimination to all is being loveable to all no matter what they believe or do not.
In the way ministry we gave no right to unbelief but God does otherwise we discrimination unto our own believes which was mocking God. How can we continue to discrimination our beliefs or unbeliever discrimination theirs? To be fare to all we must discrimination against nothing at all.
Otherwise we make laws not principles that can never be obey by anyone but a principle is not a law. When the Christian changes it from principles to laws the Christian mocks there believe in God and when atheist changes their unbelief to hope they mock their unbelief. Otherwise believe what you want and unbelief what you want because God does not discrimination and never should you.
So let the atheist have there say and let us the Christian listen with an open heart because one needs to be heard by given them place to voice their heart you might changed their heart. But if not give one a place they will never hear your views at all because it will be one sided only. So open it up to debate with love and a holy kiss Roy.
This horse is still moving, let me fix that. (and thanks. But I will openly admit I'm not Christ Like, so we can breathe easy, I make no claims on that count and never will.)
As to the writing skills of Loftus - I think he wrote rather well, and put down what he meant clearly and succinctly. I had no trouble understanding what he said and based on his other books and writings I think I got a clear idea of what he meant in this. So, as a writer, he did fine at least by me. I got his points.
He wears his credentials rather large, I've seen. I don't. I actually don't have any to flaunt so it's easy but I won't blather on about the number of books, lectures, hours spent, days pondering or years working. Everyone does what they do. When the rubber hits the road we all fall out of bed pretty much the same way.
That he screws around with some of the material he uses deserves to be challenged. His use of Socrates for instance - now anyone who wants to challenge my version is welcome to and it is challengeable - but I don't agree with Loftus's interepretation - that the more one knows the more one should doubt. I don't see that the socratic method is directly a use of doubt but I suppose I could be squeezing it a little or a lot........to question yes that's different than doubt though. Learning would require ongoing analysis IMO, yes and the effect of even mastering a field to one's own best ability invokes the understanding that there is still yet more to learn if one is to progress. But to doubt as a result of what one knows through learnng - in the way that I think Loftus uses it here - is simply wrong and more of an extrapolation on his conclusions, that faith is wrong and that one should doubt their faith. (and I don't believe that issues of spiritual faith are best served by external analysis as I alluded to, a subjective internal method is required and more authentic for the components of mind and thought. ) But faith as a quality of human life is normal for all humans.
The fact that a "Socrates" is quoted leaves lots of room to quote a Jesus for that matter - since it's not known if a man Socrates ever actually existed. So in that way I still find it very ironic that anyone would invoke "Socratic" ideas in that way, I don't. I did at one time but my general investigation of philosophy has caused me to steer away from that.
LIkewise - and this is just me - I don't always quote Jesus directly because I believe at this point that many of the basic ideas - but not all - of what Jesus is written to have said are things that can be drawn from many sources including the Torah - that's not rocket science IMO. However the "living logos" idea is very defining to Jesus Christ and provides a context to the words of the gospels that gives them meaning.
Loftus has the same problem a lot of us do - he's so sure of himself or wants to be that he uses the word "most" in this piece - "most" Believers don't seriously question their faith.....
You can't do that. You can, I do, he does obviously but it clouds any discussion to generalize in that way. As soon as I jump to "most" I have to validate that and the points he makes won't fully validate that way IMO. Plus any time you tell someone "you're just like everyone else" - they're likely to say no they're not. Because they're not.
I have to disagree that this post is well written, succinct and clear. He introduces his post with a series of provocative questions and then fails to answer them in the body of the post. They are just left hanging there. He begins with the assumption that MOST believers don't question their faith and fails to give any clear evidence or examples to support this assumption, so again, we are left waiting. When he does address something he feels is relevant......it is with very vague generalities and some allusion to personal experience, so we are left with him as the authority and basically asked to take his word for it. We are left having to take his assumptions on faith.
We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an avid debater and prolific author. Dr. Craig is very up front about his education and journey, so some of us are even familiar with that aspect of the equation and when Loftus alludes to the nameless, faceless Profs he has dealt with, my mind jumps to Dr. William Lane Craig. It is difficult for me to reckon a brilliant and recognized scholar like Craig to a lack of critical thinking skill. Loftus loses credibility with this unsubstantiated and off-handed dig at Christian scholars. It sounds petulant and makes me think there is some personal axe to grind we are simply not privy to.
He throws out another explanation for his generalization and assumptions with the idea of indoctrination. Having been in a high pressure group that uses indoctrination techniques and having some experience with the Christian church at large I have the faculties and experience by which I can discern between the two groups. They are not the same animal......and having been in TWI I think I may actually suffer from some hyper-vigilance in regard to indoctrination. His theory is shallow and it is lacking.
There are so many issues with his post. . . . . and to me it reads a little desperate and it reads like it is written by someone with an a huge chip on his shoulder. There is a back story here somewhere that would shed some light, but we are not given enough information to understand where he is coming from. It is disrespectful to the reader, be it Christian or atheist, because it is so lacking in the evidence needed to support his haphazard and outrageous claims. He certainly doesn't consider his readers intelligence. We are asked to take far too much on faith to take him seriously IMO.
The more you learn the less you know....... in some form or another makes its way into a great many sermons, Christian writings, and discussions. I am not sure the exact words attributed to Socrates....I thought it was something about wisdom, but Loftus did not use that quote by chance, and he simply twisted for his own purpose. I thought it was just another dig at Christians because we really do hear it all the time. Good catch!
"We don't live in a vacuumand some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an avid debater and prolific author. Dr. Craig is very up front about his education and journey, so some of us are even familiar with that aspect of the equation and when Loftus alludes to the nameless, faceless Profs he has dealt with, my mind jumps to Dr. William Lane Craig"
Really, a good point.
The article says that one with faith uses everything but reason and logic to define and defend their beliefs and faith. "Believers" deny, avoid, use "special pleadings" and have all sorts of personal motivations and weaknesses driving them, per JL.
Atheists such as JL - none of that. According to JL, it's all reason, logic, facts just the facts, blue sky all the way.
It's a case made that conveniently drops any personal motivations from one side and loads the other side up to sky with them.
How convenient.
I suspect that JL has turned to demeaning the opposing side simply because he's come to an irreconcilable difference in belief, in personal life, professionally, perhaps in all. Now he demeans the other side and attempts to reduce it to lesser force, marginalizing it's validity and thereby moving it off the table.
But for JL I think it's clear he's not going to the next course, he's going to keep picking at that plate - and likely for both personal and professional reasons.
The ideas and issues are not served by that kind of approach, from either side.
One could say that "most former graduates of theological institutions are conflicted and unreasonable".
That wouldn't be true though. It would conveniently disparage them however and reduce their value towards any discussion. Much as he does in his article to those "believers" he talks about.
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
Are we antidiscrimination unto God?
02-08-2012
Are you discrimination unto God the person that was given credit by most people as creative your life? Should we bow down unto God’s ways or is his ways the only right ways No would be the answer I would give? Jesus Christ and God taught us by Principles rather than must do laws but a principle of love rather than a must do law or commandment.
God did not us bond under laws that we could not obey that why Jesus Christ us to love our enemy because we do not know why our enemy is attacking us. When I was in the Way ministry we had a statement we would down the other person’s thought “scripture and verse” which not help anything.
Saying a law that all people do not want will get us nowhere but moving it from laws to principles we can all agree with. We all live by some principles and love is easy principle to justified because if not loveable you do not do it. But what not loveable to one may not be loveable to another otherwise what one like another may not like to antidiscrimination to all is being loveable to all no matter what they believe or do not.
In the way ministry we gave no right to unbelief but God does otherwise we discrimination unto our own believes which was mocking God. How can we continue to discrimination our beliefs or unbeliever discrimination theirs? To be fare to all we must discrimination against nothing at all.
Otherwise we make laws not principles that can never be obey by anyone but a principle is not a law. When the Christian changes it from principles to laws the Christian mocks there believe in God and when atheist changes their unbelief to hope they mock their unbelief. Otherwise believe what you want and unbelief what you want because God does not discrimination and never should you.
So let the atheist have there say and let us the Christian listen with an open heart because one needs to be heard by given them place to voice their heart you might changed their heart. But if not give one a place they will never hear your views at all because it will be one sided only. So open it up to debate with love and a holy kiss Roy.
There we go with the debate again. I appreciate your post Roy, thanks.
Anytime you, Loftus or anyone else actually wants to discuss anything related to or in that article, go for it. So for, not much of that's going on here.
You're right about one thing - no one that Loftus is talking about is going to hear him out with that funky attitude he's got, he's trying to make people look foolish, and no one likes that.
Tell you what - you get Loftus to clean his act up a little and I'll meet you both half way. Otherwise, you're not going to like what I have to say about him or his ideas. I've been kind so far. I can let it go at that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
30
11
3
Popular Days
Jan 24
11
Jan 23
9
Jan 26
9
Jan 28
8
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 21 posts
year2027 30 posts
geisha779 11 posts
waysider 3 posts
Popular Days
Jan 24 2012
11 posts
Jan 23 2012
9 posts
Jan 26 2012
9 posts
Jan 28 2012
8 posts
Popular Posts
socks
"We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an
socks
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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Please tell me what Socks has done other than disagree with the initial post in a thoughtful and articulate manner. You were the one who attacked him as being prideful. Those are your words so be accountable for them. You didn't like the language Socks used? That's really too bad, but it doesn't make it wrong. It was descriptive, it was accurate and it expressed how he perceived Loftus' attitude. Kudos to Socks for making it an interesting read. That doesn't make him prideful. You were the one that had no problem lauding yourself as an example of overcoming pride while erroneously judging Socks. When Wordwolf tried to engage you.....you accused him of allowing his religion to blind him? Blind him to what? Agreeing with you or agreeing with Loftus?
Who has made fun of "brother' Loftus? Disagreeing with him and disliking his attitude are not the same as making fun of him. Where did anyone make fun of him? Where did anyone call him names Roy? Where did anyone hate? Those are your accusations, and they are coupled with your judgements on Socks, Wordwolf, and myself. You even used Jesus' rebuke to Peter on me. If you remember, Jesus rebuked Peter for being mindful of the things of man and not of God. I wasn't the one who posted an agnostic/atheist ramblings in the doctrinal forum for some kind of wisdom provoking lesson. What did you expect?
If you really want to take a look at Jesus..... He OFTEN rebuked people for their lack of faith Roy. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Please don't cherry pick Jesus' words to make a point. I think we all have a grasp on the gospel basics, but let me remind you that while Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, forgiveness is contingent on belief, acceptance, and faith in that sacrifice. That is because it is worthy of faith. It was a hefty price.
Just for the record, I don't consider Lotus an enemy. That thought never crossed my mind....why would it? I consider him in error, somewhat lost and probably incredibly conflicted, but how is he my enemy? That is just extreme.
And if it is better to say nothing at all, then why did you post a provocative, challenging, and inciting post smack dab in the middle of a doctrinal discussion forum populated with Christians? Wouldn't it have been better not to say anything?
You have a prolific voice Roy, but it seems not many care enough to treat you as a equal or hold you at least a tiny bit responsible or accountable for what you say. Take a look at your own judgements and words on this thread before asking others when they are going to learn. People usually master a subject before they try and teach it to others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
---- On the subject of questioning my faith....
I was reminded in an email today of how precious that faith was when I first believed, and I think that the moment by moment confirmation of confidence in the Lord is what keeps that newness alive my relationship with Him (or them, God, Jesus, Holy Spirit).
Same with speaking in tongues. I must constantly remind myself and struggle to overcome complacency in regard to speaking in tongues and prayer with my understanding, which I believe is the way we "pray without ceasing" -- instantly confirming our dependence and craving for the Lord and His kindness into our lives and into the lives of our family, friends, and other loved ones.
And if you run out of things to pray for, there are heartrending prayer requests here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/forum/7-the-prayer-room/
Edited by Kit SoberLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Kit Sober
I myself do things wrong every day we I need to pray
with that in mind I am glad you answer this
you remind of a loving person I sure not all the time
But I do not to get you puff up or me puff up
where pride of self takes over
because we all are prideful every moment of the day me and you and everybody
this is what I was trying to share with socks and geisha
I am prideful just as must as anybody
I open my self up for all to see I guess they do to their ability
in some ways fear hold me back from open up all the way like socks and geisha and you and me
Lotus was not here to defense what he thought so did it
I was sharing not to cut him down as you saw this I was because he was honest
I sure Christ was debating him as must as he could hear Christ
but once he wrote it was over it was wrote
so I think you for letting me talk
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Just a little comment about this "pride" thing. First off, I can't imagine anyone is full of "pride" every moment of everyday, that is extreme and extremes usually hide a different issue. There is a HUGE difference in being proud of an accomplishment....doing something well, taking some pride in one's appearance and the pride that the bible speaks of which stems from self-righteousness. That is the pride God hates. It keeps people from seeking HIM.
Being lowly of spirit is not being self-effacing, religious, or accepting as legitimate whatever idea, psalm, hymn, or revelation someone throws out there. It isn't putting aside our ability to think, consider, or express ourselves in a colorful and vibrant manner. Being lowly of spirit isn't reveling in our own wisdom, or confessing our sins in an inappropriate venue for all to see. Being lowly of spirit doesn't take away our ability to discern.
Being lowly of spirit or humble before God is a recognition of our state of complete spiritual bankruptcy and our need for His divine grace.
All pride is not a sin, the same goes for anger, doubt, fear and the like. We need to be careful when seeking to reinvent ourselves.....regeneration is the work of the spirit, not the flesh. It is easy to become the thing we are trying to master when God is not truly involved. Self-flagellation is not the road to righteousness, but it can lead to depression, anxiety, panic and other serious problems. None of which is God's heart for us.
Just saying......
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
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
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
there is no one without pride
we all have pride of being right
we have pride in our belief
we have pride in our self
we have pride in things that we do not know because we call them right
pride is never of God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Ten Reasons Why Most UnBelievers Don't Seriously Question Their Unbelief (or atheism)
Why don't most unbelievers seriously question their unbelief? Does it take a special type of individual? Does it require some personality trait that unbelievers don't have? Does that make believers different people? Could it be intelligence? Could it be that believers have a higher self-esteem than others? Is it that we don't need social approval? I do think that the following ten reasons are necessary conditions:
1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often unbelievers respond to theistic arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their unbelief
2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to not believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Why can't they see it in themselves?
3) A very large percentage of unbelievers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their unbelief, which can be decisive. This can only make them more entrenched
4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. Any educated person will tell you this.
5) This ignorance is due to the fact that unbelievers fear to accept the existence of God and judgment. So in order not to admit they displease God, they do not seriously question their unbelief. Unbelievers also fear to believe because of the social pressure among their like-minded friends
6) The biggest reason unbelievers don't seriously question their unbeleif is because of where it could lead them, to accountability to God. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might lead them to accepting that there is One they must answer to.
7) Unbelievers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, the feeling that if there is no life after death, they do not need to prepare for it in the present. This demand on their lives now is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong
8) The nature of unbelief itself. It cannot answer the most basic elements of life- the moral code that is built into all humans, the existence of human consciousness, the impossibility of appearance of life by chance that forces them to implausible and improvable theories like multiple universes, and the like. It can never accept the impossibility of its decrepit theories, and so slips into denial.
9) Then too, there is the concept of a nonexistent God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Anthropocentric Escape Clause. Because unbelievers will not accept the possibility of God, believers must prove their faith is "scientific" by their definition before they will consider it to be probable. This is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their unbelief pretty much unfalsifiable.
10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if unbelievers believed they would ipso facto need to accept a moral code which is universal and has objective standards, rather than socially constructed. But the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the theory of social constructs leads to horrors like those carried out by Naziism, which established and followed its unique social code.
I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
We all have some pride and not of God!
02-01-2012
I have pride in myself as you have pride in yourself but it does come from God it is a fleshly part us that is learn. Otherwise we devolved into thinking a basic way because of religion, beliefs, unbelief, that we focus the way we think. None of this spiritual it all fleshly base on ideals of our inner self which is why Jesus pointed it to Peter.
Matthew 16:23 But he {Jesus Christ} turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Peter was thinking with his flesh the pride of self was controlling his heart Peter was not learning from Christ example of love. Peter was pulling from that which he was taught the false beliefs that came from his religion his flesh but Christ wanted Peter to pull from the love that was going to be inside of Peter. Every man has a flesh side of himself the Satan in side of our beliefs but pull from the seed of Christ.
Acts 8:23 For I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Lets look at another man that let pride get his way in this man was perceive by apostle Paul in the bonds of fleshly desires inside his bitter flesh. This man was thinking like Peter just thought he was letting Satan control his heart to fleshly desire when he should been looking the spirit that was alive in of him. Thank you my friend with love and a holy kiss Roy.
here my understand of both statements self Pride sure bro L. had his but I do not want his I got my own Pride to deal with about you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
faith no more
the main reason is christians a taught to follow, not to think for themselves.
that's why they're reffered to as the flock.which just another word for herd.
i always thought ironic how wafers were always being told they were thinking for themselves as long as they agreed with twi.
and not some other denomination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
People often put themselves in subjection to others without thinking. I would imagine you do so as well......as you probably follow the laws of land and societal norms without parsing each and every statute or custom we as a society live by. Christians come to put themselves under subjection to the Lord willingly, consciously, through examination, reflection, and decision. That hardly makes it a non-thinking proposition. In truth, it is the opposite. Being in subjection to the Shepherd, we sheep come to this of our own free will and that is not the same as blind or empty faith. It is not the same as following without thinking The triune nature of God is the perfect example of how being in subjection works as being unity. Probably well beyond this particular conversations limit, but an example nonetheless.
I mentioned John Lennox in an earlier post......he gives a talk on faith in God......pretty enlightening. Is Faith Delusional? I hope someone gets a chance to listen and to enjoy!!
And Socks....I looked at the book you mentioned.....I am interested in how we can train our brains!! :) We had a crash course in neural pathways when my eldest went through some trials. Retraining through consequence, being a mentoring parent, and the consistency it takes to effect genuine change .... actually helped me as much as it did her....but, it is not an easy thing to do. We are all still a work in progress. Life is seldom easy!
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cp1W_3ddaJI" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Yes, indeed geisha. It's a good book, I'm enjoying it.
Oh to be a man of no faith! Free from the treachery of the well that promises water but in whom lurks deceit for there can be no water but the water that resides in my belly! The foolish lower their bucket only to be disappointed time and again, let sand be their drink! Yes, to be free from the untenable promise of "tomorrow" for tomorrow never comes! Only now, this moment! A past that haunts like the ghost of those who never really were and a future that rolls like the fog, beautiful from the hillside but cold and without body when it arrives. Now, only now! and this! That which is and nothing else! Therein lies the sublime pleasure of Reality, relieved from the yoke of faith. Free! Free! Free at last!
Follow? Yes, faith no more, Christianity specifically is about following. "To follow is to choose" is how I might put that.
Following starts with a choice and continues that way. To disconnect the processes that produce the choice to follow would become counter productive. Then, a member of a flock wouldn't be following, they'd be - dunno, maybe getting pushed along in the press perhaps or falling out of bed one day and forgetting to get back in later, which happens too I guess. While I wouldn't think to add to the canon of scripture I might footnote what seems to be obvious in the admonitions of Jesus, the phrase "Follow Me, and bring your mind and brain, you're going to need both". Indeed, without either the choice to follow would not be possible.
In fact the use of history, quotation, parable, metaphor, question-and-answer by Jesus all indicate an interest in inciting thought and reason to serve this seemingly foulest of things, "faith".
We lose something if we redefine "follow' to exclude thought and choice....think about it - to follow is to travel and to travel is to reach a destination.
Sight seeing tours do abound (keep an eye on your luggage!) but in life's journeys we aim to arrive somewhere, if that be only to the end.
We don't want to lose that part of following, be it alone or in a group. Jesus describes Himself as "the way" - there is a destination.
Ultimately though, to be as "children" and accepting those little ones as we might ourselves want to be accepted...... "Talitha cumi"....!
There is also a very fundamental benefit to being part of a group. Try eating only what you grow or pick or gather or catch. Reading only what you write. Seeing only what you place in front of yourself. Sleeping only under the stars on the bed you make.
It may be one of the most basic realities, that we are all each of us, only one, in and of ourselves and in that way we are alone, like it or not. So the urge to gather, to share, to "become as one" is not all that strange, and perhaps one of the most natural inclinations we have. True, normal, essential to survival.
"Survival of the fittest"....? Can an independent thinker survive in a group? I would contend such a one can and will and to the extent each one is will be the extent to which that one flourishes, to the benefit of all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"The relationship between faith, reason and evidence..."
Evidence based faith...."what grounds do I have for that faith"....
Interesting video, there's a great deal of common ground we tread there. This states well that the core lesson of life is to learn to build the capacity for faith.
"Some faith can be blind....and blind faith can be very dangerous".
The quote from John would be well placed at the start of that book, to set context.
I also noted the statement about a "delusion about history" within atheism", today. The tendency towards generalization in regards to the specific tenets of different religions of different ages, people, cultures, is sophomoric but widely accepted, as if the roar of the dissent is more appealing to the quiet discourse of thoughtful conversation. Noise over sound, both audible and both can drown out thought.
This article is brief but interesting - http://www.uncommond...laws-of-nature/
I'm not a scientist, mathematician, or theologian. I see Lennox's logic, that the compelling argument for why things are the way they are being the universe "just is" or "because that's the way they are" is insufficient, less a reason and more a description of the result. Of what, I ask? If nothing, so be it. But if it were of nothing then where does that place me? I'm fine with being the current iteration of anything, but not of nothing, that doesn't quite make sense. There's an essential kernel there that's required whether I like it or need it or not, in my view.
No one measures the distance traveled of something that had no start. That the one who measures doesn't care what was before the "0" in his graph doesn't mean there was nothing and without it there would be no 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. If it were me I might be able to say "that's not my area of interest" but I would not be able to say that there was nothing there.
I can see an atheism that would say "I don't want to concern myself with that area". I can't see an atheism that would say "there cannot be an area there to concern myself with". That seems hmmm, wrong, on face value.
Thanks for the link!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
Following is what people one most debated word
what do we Follow a religion? No
most of have done that
what do we Follow a book? No and the bible a book
what do we Follow a God? No
What do we Follow a man? No
What do we Follow the man Jesus Christ? No
we Follow the love Jesus Christ taught to love one another as person is whether Atheist or Christian
we let people say what in their heart
otherwise if a person saids something we do not agree with we let them
because they get out the open
a person cannot work on what hiding inside a person
it must come in the open
Calling them names does nothing for everybody
telling why you disagree is one thing
the shorter can make your answer
Like Jesus Christ did
saying nothing for his defense
which the biggest mistakes Christians do is trying to defense what a person thinks
saying nothing is the best defense
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Glad to hear that Roy. Since no one's called Loftus any names as yet, we're in good shape.
But aren't you violating your own rule? : saying nothing is the best defense
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks socks
socks own words "reads like nonsense" socks own words
so was socks putting down John W. Loftus written skills I say so
people make fun of my written skills all the time but that does change my desire to be heard
John W. Loftus only wanted his view be heard just like me or anybody other
sure I do not agree with John W. Loftus but I also do not agree with socks
I did not write to John W. Loftus anything
was I being more like Christ to John W. Loftus or was socks
calling John W. Loftus written as "nonsense"
you see our words are more than a dirty name but own words in the judgement we make
we should make no false judgments
Now I may of Saids things wrong way to socks
for that I am sorry
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmmm...
Did I call Lofton's writing "nonsense".............? No.
Did I make fun of his writing skills? ......................... No.
I originally stated that in what he had in what you posted, a
"crappy attitude".
I expanded on that later to include "sucky" and a couple other words.
I still think so, stand by that and have no reason to change my mind. I think-
His attitude towards those of "faith"..........
Is crappy. Sucks. I don't like it and won't tolerate it from others or on behalf of others. I definitely won't go through this charade again but as for Lofton, he's no different than anyone else, IMO. And his frame of mind, attitude - sucks, IMO.
And actually exemplifies the very things you are talking about - but for whatever reasons you don't see it. That's fine,I just want to point that out - that from my perspective you don't allow in others what you allow in him.
I'm sorry people make fun of your writing skills Roy. I know you try and none of us do more than that.
However - I am not making fun of his writing skills, this has nothing - nothing - not a single thing - nothing Nothing to do with his writing sklls and the skills he uses to write his ideas out. He is in fact competent in his writing skills, IMO, and does a fine job getting across what he means. It's what he means, the meaning of his words, that doesn't wash with me.
I didn't make fun of Loftons' writing skills, I did disgree with him, take his ideas in that post to task and offer a point by point set of thoughts on what he did write.
And for the record, it doesn't matter to me what you say to me about anything, agree with me, disagree, or whatever you want to do. I expect you to be honest and straightforward, no more, no less. A lot of people won't even do that, so in my world, if you do that you're a leg up on a lot of people. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It is really nice that Roy apologized to you Socks....and I think you deserve an apology for some of the harsh and unfounded things you have been accused of on this thread. But, apologizing while comparing himself to you and asking who is more Christ like is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
I have tried to understand what happened on this thread.......it is a mystery to me.
Even if you didn't say it.....saying that Loftus' post reads like nonsense is not name calling. In some detail, you defended your position in a clear and articulate manner, and I believe you did show Loftus' words to be nonsense. Instead of addressing what you said....Roy complained about the length of answer! It is a no win situation.....you are the villian.
Not only did I name several thinking and well respected Christians.....I posted a video of one in particular who explained his search. John Lennox learned TWO languages, lived in Communist countries and has spent YEARS debating, discussing and defending faith with atheists.He knows EXACTLY WHY he believes in God, the bible, and has freely and with great thought....chosen the Christian faith. He clearly communicates that fact. He is a scientist and a mathematician who teaches at one of the world's most respected educational institutions. He is a Christian whose existence reveals Loftus to be nonsensical in his assumptions. I could names so many more. Loftus' post does READ LIKE NONSENSE. It isn't even presented very well. It reads like a huge giant insult by someone with an axe to grind.
If we want to compare your words to Jesus..... you are MILD in comparison to some of the things He said about a lack of faith. Roy has quoted Jesus speaking to Peter. Peter left everything in his life to follow Jesus and Jesus called him Satan. Despite being stuck on the pride thing in regards to this verse, it is also speaking about Peter's lack of faith. Peter had just been shown something by God, that the truth he did speak had come directly from God. Peter had JUST declared Jesus the Messiah, and then Peter went on to rely on his own insight. He had a better plan for Jesus. That is how he was being prideful....trusting in his own misguided wisdom concerning the things of God.
One of the things Jesus rebuked people for was their lack of faith. "O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? " Jesus used harsh language and he didn't approve or give credence to every opinion. Even those of His beloved disciples. Jesus didn't defend atheism or an atheists thoughts as precious, important or even worthy of respect and then call it loving to do so.....
We are able to separate a person's words from their humanity and respect the person as being created by God and disagree without it being personal. Let a Christian have an opposing view point and express it and the sky is falling. What I want to know is what Roy thinks is so valid about Loftus' post that he has to defend it. It must be important to him because no one challenged Loftus right to an opinion or his right to think what he will....we SIMPLY didn't respect his opinion. We challenged its tone, tenor, and logic. The horror!
There is no point to this thread and I am not sure of the initial intention either....but I think it is best left to fade away. Who knows what you will be accused of next....I don't want to watch it!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
This horse is still moving, let me fix that. (and thanks. But I will openly admit I'm not Christ Like, so we can breathe easy, I make no claims on that count and never will.)
As to the writing skills of Loftus - I think he wrote rather well, and put down what he meant clearly and succinctly. I had no trouble understanding what he said and based on his other books and writings I think I got a clear idea of what he meant in this. So, as a writer, he did fine at least by me. I got his points.
He wears his credentials rather large, I've seen. I don't. I actually don't have any to flaunt so it's easy but I won't blather on about the number of books, lectures, hours spent, days pondering or years working. Everyone does what they do. When the rubber hits the road we all fall out of bed pretty much the same way.
That he screws around with some of the material he uses deserves to be challenged. His use of Socrates for instance - now anyone who wants to challenge my version is welcome to and it is challengeable - but I don't agree with Loftus's interepretation - that the more one knows the more one should doubt. I don't see that the socratic method is directly a use of doubt but I suppose I could be squeezing it a little or a lot........to question yes that's different than doubt though. Learning would require ongoing analysis IMO, yes and the effect of even mastering a field to one's own best ability invokes the understanding that there is still yet more to learn if one is to progress. But to doubt as a result of what one knows through learnng - in the way that I think Loftus uses it here - is simply wrong and more of an extrapolation on his conclusions, that faith is wrong and that one should doubt their faith. (and I don't believe that issues of spiritual faith are best served by external analysis as I alluded to, a subjective internal method is required and more authentic for the components of mind and thought. ) But faith as a quality of human life is normal for all humans.
The fact that a "Socrates" is quoted leaves lots of room to quote a Jesus for that matter - since it's not known if a man Socrates ever actually existed. So in that way I still find it very ironic that anyone would invoke "Socratic" ideas in that way, I don't. I did at one time but my general investigation of philosophy has caused me to steer away from that.
LIkewise - and this is just me - I don't always quote Jesus directly because I believe at this point that many of the basic ideas - but not all - of what Jesus is written to have said are things that can be drawn from many sources including the Torah - that's not rocket science IMO. However the "living logos" idea is very defining to Jesus Christ and provides a context to the words of the gospels that gives them meaning.
Loftus has the same problem a lot of us do - he's so sure of himself or wants to be that he uses the word "most" in this piece - "most" Believers don't seriously question their faith.....
You can't do that. You can, I do, he does obviously but it clouds any discussion to generalize in that way. As soon as I jump to "most" I have to validate that and the points he makes won't fully validate that way IMO. Plus any time you tell someone "you're just like everyone else" - they're likely to say no they're not. Because they're not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
Are we antidiscrimination unto God?
02-08-2012
Are you discrimination unto God the person that was given credit by most people as creative your life? Should we bow down unto God’s ways or is his ways the only right ways No would be the answer I would give? Jesus Christ and God taught us by Principles rather than must do laws but a principle of love rather than a must do law or commandment.
God did not us bond under laws that we could not obey that why Jesus Christ us to love our enemy because we do not know why our enemy is attacking us. When I was in the Way ministry we had a statement we would down the other person’s thought “scripture and verse” which not help anything.
Saying a law that all people do not want will get us nowhere but moving it from laws to principles we can all agree with. We all live by some principles and love is easy principle to justified because if not loveable you do not do it. But what not loveable to one may not be loveable to another otherwise what one like another may not like to antidiscrimination to all is being loveable to all no matter what they believe or do not.
In the way ministry we gave no right to unbelief but God does otherwise we discrimination unto our own believes which was mocking God. How can we continue to discrimination our beliefs or unbeliever discrimination theirs? To be fare to all we must discrimination against nothing at all.
Otherwise we make laws not principles that can never be obey by anyone but a principle is not a law. When the Christian changes it from principles to laws the Christian mocks there believe in God and when atheist changes their unbelief to hope they mock their unbelief. Otherwise believe what you want and unbelief what you want because God does not discrimination and never should you.
So let the atheist have there say and let us the Christian listen with an open heart because one needs to be heard by given them place to voice their heart you might changed their heart. But if not give one a place they will never hear your views at all because it will be one sided only. So open it up to debate with love and a holy kiss Roy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I have to disagree that this post is well written, succinct and clear. He introduces his post with a series of provocative questions and then fails to answer them in the body of the post. They are just left hanging there. He begins with the assumption that MOST believers don't question their faith and fails to give any clear evidence or examples to support this assumption, so again, we are left waiting. When he does address something he feels is relevant......it is with very vague generalities and some allusion to personal experience, so we are left with him as the authority and basically asked to take his word for it. We are left having to take his assumptions on faith.
We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an avid debater and prolific author. Dr. Craig is very up front about his education and journey, so some of us are even familiar with that aspect of the equation and when Loftus alludes to the nameless, faceless Profs he has dealt with, my mind jumps to Dr. William Lane Craig. It is difficult for me to reckon a brilliant and recognized scholar like Craig to a lack of critical thinking skill. Loftus loses credibility with this unsubstantiated and off-handed dig at Christian scholars. It sounds petulant and makes me think there is some personal axe to grind we are simply not privy to.
He throws out another explanation for his generalization and assumptions with the idea of indoctrination. Having been in a high pressure group that uses indoctrination techniques and having some experience with the Christian church at large I have the faculties and experience by which I can discern between the two groups. They are not the same animal......and having been in TWI I think I may actually suffer from some hyper-vigilance in regard to indoctrination. His theory is shallow and it is lacking.
There are so many issues with his post. . . . . and to me it reads a little desperate and it reads like it is written by someone with an a huge chip on his shoulder. There is a back story here somewhere that would shed some light, but we are not given enough information to understand where he is coming from. It is disrespectful to the reader, be it Christian or atheist, because it is so lacking in the evidence needed to support his haphazard and outrageous claims. He certainly doesn't consider his readers intelligence. We are asked to take far too much on faith to take him seriously IMO.
The more you learn the less you know....... in some form or another makes its way into a great many sermons, Christian writings, and discussions. I am not sure the exact words attributed to Socrates....I thought it was something about wisdom, but Loftus did not use that quote by chance, and he simply twisted for his own purpose. I thought it was just another dig at Christians because we really do hear it all the time. Good catch!
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an avid debater and prolific author. Dr. Craig is very up front about his education and journey, so some of us are even familiar with that aspect of the equation and when Loftus alludes to the nameless, faceless Profs he has dealt with, my mind jumps to Dr. William Lane Craig"
Really, a good point.
The article says that one with faith uses everything but reason and logic to define and defend their beliefs and faith. "Believers" deny, avoid, use "special pleadings" and have all sorts of personal motivations and weaknesses driving them, per JL.
Atheists such as JL - none of that. According to JL, it's all reason, logic, facts just the facts, blue sky all the way.
It's a case made that conveniently drops any personal motivations from one side and loads the other side up to sky with them.
How convenient.
I suspect that JL has turned to demeaning the opposing side simply because he's come to an irreconcilable difference in belief, in personal life, professionally, perhaps in all. Now he demeans the other side and attempts to reduce it to lesser force, marginalizing it's validity and thereby moving it off the table.
But for JL I think it's clear he's not going to the next course, he's going to keep picking at that plate - and likely for both personal and professional reasons.
The ideas and issues are not served by that kind of approach, from either side.
One could say that "most former graduates of theological institutions are conflicted and unreasonable".
That wouldn't be true though. It would conveniently disparage them however and reduce their value towards any discussion. Much as he does in his article to those "believers" he talks about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God/man/Atheist or unbelief/Jesus/Christ/child of God
Are we antidiscrimination unto God?
02-08-2012
Are you discrimination unto God the person that was given credit by most people as creative your life? Should we bow down unto God’s ways or is his ways the only right ways No would be the answer I would give? Jesus Christ and God taught us by Principles rather than must do laws but a principle of love rather than a must do law or commandment.
God did not us bond under laws that we could not obey that why Jesus Christ us to love our enemy because we do not know why our enemy is attacking us. When I was in the Way ministry we had a statement we would down the other person’s thought “scripture and verse” which not help anything.
Saying a law that all people do not want will get us nowhere but moving it from laws to principles we can all agree with. We all live by some principles and love is easy principle to justified because if not loveable you do not do it. But what not loveable to one may not be loveable to another otherwise what one like another may not like to antidiscrimination to all is being loveable to all no matter what they believe or do not.
In the way ministry we gave no right to unbelief but God does otherwise we discrimination unto our own believes which was mocking God. How can we continue to discrimination our beliefs or unbeliever discrimination theirs? To be fare to all we must discrimination against nothing at all.
Otherwise we make laws not principles that can never be obey by anyone but a principle is not a law. When the Christian changes it from principles to laws the Christian mocks there believe in God and when atheist changes their unbelief to hope they mock their unbelief. Otherwise believe what you want and unbelief what you want because God does not discrimination and never should you.
So let the atheist have there say and let us the Christian listen with an open heart because one needs to be heard by given them place to voice their heart you might changed their heart. But if not give one a place they will never hear your views at all because it will be one sided only. So open it up to debate with love and a holy kiss Roy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
There we go with the debate again. I appreciate your post Roy, thanks.
Anytime you, Loftus or anyone else actually wants to discuss anything related to or in that article, go for it. So for, not much of that's going on here.
You're right about one thing - no one that Loftus is talking about is going to hear him out with that funky attitude he's got, he's trying to make people look foolish, and no one likes that.
Tell you what - you get Loftus to clean his act up a little and I'll meet you both half way. Otherwise, you're not going to like what I have to say about him or his ideas. I've been kind so far. I can let it go at that.
Till then, my friend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.