Is belief in God madness in a modern world?

Really? Are you stating that as an absolute?You cannot challenge the law of non-contradiction rev, without proving it! Because in order to challenge it, you have to infer that you are right, and I am wrong.I could give more illustrations, but it would only confuse you.Slow down and think about these things some more...

Scottness writes: RevDG says: Have you never heard of Einsteins Relativity E=MC2 ?Of course I see the sun, but what is a sun, and what is a grain of sand for that matter? I certainly cannot define it, other than in terms relative to my own understanding. Gave it up long ago... Of course! You believe it existed lifeless at some time to evolve us don't you? I don't believe in evolution but still believe this also. You got things backwards. If reality isn't absolute, then we have no standard by which to measure sickness as sick.But such a standard is not physical, but rather rational or ideational. It is information. And information is not a material entity.There is incorrect information that is either false, or misapplied. And there is correct information that is true and coherent.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Yo're letting your being offended, affect your judgement.What do you worship Rev? What is it that you shower with praise and adulation? A favorite author? A lover? An automobile?We were created to praise. We must, in order to fulfill our own hapiness, have an object of worship.

Yes I'm sorry. You're using Websters definition number 4, I am using it in the context of definition 1 and 2...

Websters: Objective1: of, or relating to an object or end (my favorite)2: existing outside and independant of the mind (my other favorite)3: of, relating to or constituting a grammatical case marking typically the object of a verb or preposition. (irrelevant) 4: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices (my other favorite)

C'mon Ringo... you are much smarter than this!The whole concept of the Bible is absolute. It is said to be the very Word from the mouth of God.The word is not as important as the concept. We can use all kinds of analogies to cet a concept accross. And that is why the Bible is so descriptive. That is why the parables are used... To get the concepts accross to those who are seeking.But if one takes a subjective view, and tries to determine for himself what is true. Then he will find himself on the side of truth's enemy.Truth does not exist to justify a man. Truth condemns him, and that is why he tries to rework it and hide from it.

depends on the translation...New International Version - 1 Verse:
The Holman Christian Standard Bible - 2 Verses:
The Complete Jewish Bible - 2 Verses:
The New Living Translation - 4 Verses:
The New Revised Standard Version - 1 Verse:
The Good News Translation - 3 Verses:
The Douay-Rheims Bible - 1 Verse:
GOD'S WORD - 2 Verses:
The Message - 9 Verses:
Weymouth New Testament - 4 Verses:
Today's New International Version - 1 Verse:First we must agree as to what the meaning of the Word is.Websters: 1: free from imperfection or mixture 2:The Word of God is by definition, Absolute.We can then insert the word absolute in the english as a synonym to describe what is ultimately a Biblical concept.Your question is nonesense. How many times does the word 'absolute' appear in Russian?The Russians do not use the word 'absolute', so the concept must not be in the vanacular.Utter nonesense!Why would you even play such game? Just to give me a rise?
That's the only reason can relate to. And please accept my apologies for doing so in the past...

Alright Archer. That was very good. I think we can let down our gaurd now and have a reasonable discussion. Let's at least try. This ultimately is a massive theme. We must take our time.No one likes to be clobbered by logic, but we must find a way to adapt to it. I'll try to be more sensitive, and not be so sensitive myself ok?Your post in general was far more reasonable IMO than some of your other replies. And I will not address all of your points at this time. For now let's look at some. All worldviews have at least some worth. but God is ultimately the only one that is completely worthy. That is what we are all trying to find. There are overlapping truths in worldviews. But just because they have some things in common, does not mean they are equally worthy. To gain more truth, we all must be willing to let go of that which we posses, when we find it to be false. And that is always painful.'Reasonable' does not mean we accept any point of view. In fact 'reason' means quite the opposite. We shouldn't confuse 'reason' with pluralism. Being reasonable, does not mean we accept all truth claims. That would be pluralism, where no worldview is dominant.With pluralism, there is a loss of 'reason'.For an example, I will borrow a point from a mentor of mine: You said: No, it is a philosophically dualist way of looking at things.Wikipedia: Well then Jesus was insane, because He was a dualist in the monothestic sense! My first post on EVC was an article intending to show that Jesus was a dualist in the philosophical sense defined above. http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC pollNosy gave me my first introduction to the rules by spanking me for such a long post. It wasn't long before I was suspended. Boy did I have a lot to learn... That article has since been edited extensively. Here is an excerpt: I follow my master. And you are doing precisly what the pharisees did. They demonized Him, and said He was Mad.John 10:20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?" I have no 'symapthy for the devil', Mick Jagger notwithstanding.I intend to uproot evil and distortion in myself as Christ enables me, and I intend to tell others that they can be free from evil as well, if they choose to follow the Spirit of truth and let Him lead them to where they cannot go on their own. That's because logic already exists, we only need conform to it, we cannot invent it or take credit for it. And that does not mean that people are not already good and logical is some degree. Of course we are. Even Hitler and Stalin had a measure of self control. It only means that truth has no limit to it's goodness, so we must never rest other than in Him for mercy and leadership.

Of course!

No Ringo, I suppose not...New International version - 1 verse
The Holman Christian Standard Bible - 2 Verses:
The Complete Jewish Bible - 2 Verses:
The New Living Translation - 4 Verses:
The New Revised Standard Version - 1 Verse:
The Good News Translation - 3 Verses:
The Douay-Rheims Bible - 1 Verse:
GOD'S WORD - 2 Verses:
The Message - 9 Verses:
Weymouth New Testament - 4 Verses:
Today's New International Version - 1 Verse:Now will you please just.... go away.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

I have demonstrated it very well (as an amatuer apologist) for those willing to follow and understand. You're no child Ringo. If you were, then you would not be asking trick questions. You are acting as a teacher of the law. As from a position of authority. Feeling the pressure of logic pressing upon you, and you seek to escape. Go ahead... Leave me out of it!Jesus handled different people in different ways. He was kind to sinners, and of course children.A sinner is one who acknowledges that's what they are. Otherwise it is offensive. And He spoke scorching words to the selfrighteous, rebuking them in the most absolute tone and asking how they were ever to escape the damnation of hell.You are like Pilot when he asked Jesus questions. You ask questions, not because you want the answer to adjust your current thinking and conform to reality, but because you are trying to decide how to handle or twist the information so as to hold on to your current thinking in spite of it.You have everything turned 180 degress. I have experienced the new birth in Christ, and can now see from the other direction. Not because I am righteous, above, and smarter than Ringo, but because I am a sinner, below, and shallower. All it takes is honesty.
I wanted to make a whole thread on that point...'What is truth?', Pilot asked. And with that he went out.This is how Jesus answered those selfrighteous pharisees who interrogated Him with trick questions: Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

You think so?Well that's not very moderate of you! What do you think? That I go around telling people that I am right and they are wrong? I do not.I tell people that we are wrong and God is right. Of course reality is right. That's why it's reality.This whole notion of moderation is luducrous. It's the most contradictory idea there is and is painfully seductive. A postmodren spell.Good does not need to moderate, because it is already good.Evil is what needs to moderate, no matter it's condition relative to the good. Good is the standard. Anything less is corrupted.And since I realized this, I realized I needed God's help. To my utter shock, He showed Himself to me. He came running to my side just as Jesus said He would in the parable of the lost son.Whether you believe me is your descision. I didn't believe anyone until I saw Him for myself. But I sure as hell wanted to, I'll admit that. And if reality could be known, and it turned out to be an intimate spiritual relationship with God Himself, who wouldn't?I don't brag about myself. I brag about God. Why so many make that about me I do not understand.Perhaps you should moderate...What you are offended by, is the implication that you are corrupt. Well so was I for a long time. But it was and remains true. For me not to be corrupt, I would have to be perfect. I am corrupt, not perfect. That doesn't mean that we are condemed by God. He does not want to condemn us. That is why He gives us time to think it out. If we seek, we will find. We are only condemned by God if we refuse to see that we are corrupt and take His right hand. But not because He condemns us, but because we condemn ourselves.We cannot know all truth on our own, but it came and revealed itself to us. What we can do, is follow what truth we do have, and gain more as we are willing to submit to it. Logic does not lie. Contradictions arelies.God sent His son to save us, not to condemn us. And that is what makes the Bible different from every other book of divinity.We want to make it all our responsibility so that others will look at us and be impressed. That is precisely what will condemn us.We need to realize in humility that we do not know the way. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. All synonyms for reality.There are no magic words. No one size fits all prayer. All it takes is genuine internal honesty. That's it!Again, you make up your own mind. As with this whole thread, I offer this as an apologetic (a defense) of my faith. Not to preach.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Alright, then what is there for me to moderate?

That's good, because he who tries to keep his life will loose it.You've told me far more than you realize. You have the right not to incriminate yourself you know. Loose lips sink ships. I can tell by your questions, much of what you believe. And that is not something I can prove without your cooperation. Cooperation which I have expected, but never received from you. That is the kind of question I'm talking about.Here's another... 'Does your mother know your stupid?'

Scottness said: 'Alright, then what is there for me to moderate?'And Archer said:Ok... this is a lot of work. I hope it is respectable to you, if not enlightening.Here are some that I did not address: You are equating partial sanity as being acceptable terms. Well, we certainly only have that to work with (I'll give you that), even as you said, in any belief.What I am trying to point out is that sanity, like goodness or truth, is not subject to our subjection. It is objective for our discovery and absolute. Settling for less and compromising is what we must do in this place of time, but that is equivocally admitting we have failed to reach the goal in eternity.I am not saying we have to be perfect here, but only if we want to go on into God's eternal reality of heaven.So I have a dillemma. I am not worthy of going to that place, even though it is what I was created for. Which also explains why nothing here satisfies me. No pleasure be it wealth, or sensual. The material world is not enough.Anyway... I have a dillemma. But then I see that there is one who claimed to be worthy. And He tells me that I can have His righteousness credited to me in exchange for my soul.As for the debt I could never repay, He satisfies His own Father's (reality's) perfect Justice, by living without any sin. And then He dies in my stead physically, so that I need not die spiritually. And then rises form the dead to prove the afterlife.Then He promises to send His Spirit to live inside me.So justice and mercy converge on this astonishing and mysterious cross.How could I refuse? It was the only sane thing to do in light of my situation. There is nothing He said in regard to sin that was not true. He had me pegged, I only had to admit it, and that was the hard part because I was (and sometimes still am) a liar. Of course not. We would have to be perfect to be wholly sane.Sanity assumes a standard Archer. And that standard (whatever it may be) is the absolute. Just as goodness, what's the difference?We have twisted the meaning of words so that reasonable and sane are perceived in the pantheist stripe. That good and evil are relative. That they are part of the same one. In that case, 'sanity and goodness' is then balancing them all into some harmony.But our world in time is in constant conflict because good and evil are both absolute, and both intend to rule. One is the reality that always was and always will be. The other can only imitate the real thing. So naturally, evil does not present itself as such. But rather an angel of light. It's the fruit and serpent story.Ther is no middle ground in temrs of goodness. That is an invention of man's mind whispered to him from ideational heavenlies.The first challenge to the absolute: The serpent said, 'Did God really say... for God knows that when you eat of it, you will become like God, knowing good and evil!We were only meant to be men, and to know the good, and enjoy it's fruit. It takes a God to be able to handle the evil of this world with both justice and mercy. it doesn't take a dilligent leader. it takes the king of the universe. It's a Perfect balance! And He did it on the cross. Of course... that's why submission to God makes sense. Not blindly mind you. Jesus did not come into the world to demand blind faith. Jesus came to give sight to all who would come to Him. The faith part is what most of you already have... You know 'something' (some kind of God is there). That is the mustard seed that Jesus talked about. He siad, 'If you have (blind) faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell that mountain to move, and it will obey you.'The mountain is the Spirit of the age (the God of this evil world) that whispers to us, 'you cannot know'. Just think of the obvious contradiction in that mountain. If you cannot know, then how can you know that? Because if it were true, it would be reality. Truth and Reality are synonymous.I said: 'On our knees in humility and realizing the utter failure of ourselves to handle what little power we have?'And you replied I said we are utter failures in handling what power and truth we do have. That's why the violence, and that's why the deception. Because instead of using it for the only good we are capable of (choosing to give our lives to Him), we instead use it to try and repair the damage ourselves even though we admit we cannot know what picture it is we're trying to rebuild.So we build our civilizations and our Towers. Time and again they come crashing down. But we are confident? Confident of what? We know next to nothing!Who is being unreasonable? The man who thinks he is secure? Where is his foundation? By his own admission it is not reality. So why does he remain obstinate?Priori assumptions of his own. Bias! He has his own imagination to pursue. A human imagination limited to human understanding. Well, what we are so eager to settle for, used to be a garden. Do you look to the future in hope? Or do you settle for the new existentialist creed of balancing it all for your own happiness in the now?jean-Paul Sartre in the end, admitted his philosophy held no ground and conceded: My original source was Ravi Zacharius quoting Norman Geisler. I pulled this off the net: (source / http://www.greatcom.org/...ys_religions/04chap04/default.htm)The utopianist lives for the future (pie in the sky by and by when I die). The traditionalist lives for the past (tradition tradition tradition). The existentialist lives for the now.Jesus fused all of history:Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God." 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.In the communion, we proclaim 'now' our communion with him, his death in the 'past', until He comes in the future.'Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)