Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 16 of 331 (397710)
04-27-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Pete OS
04-26-2007 11:45 PM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Please excuse a quick off-topic interjection, Phat.
Pete OS: A new thread, 'Evangelicals accepting Evolution,' may be of some help on the subject you raised.
Thanks. Back to regularly scheduled programming.
___

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Pete OS, posted 04-26-2007 11:45 PM Pete OS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 11:14 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 331 (397712)
04-27-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2007 11:06 AM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Thank you, Archer! I realize that some new members will have questions, and if they come into this thread unknowingly, I will direct them to other sources. This thread will follow the belief statement, in general, and will be a non-critical thinking thread.
God gives us the answers if we seek Him and discuss His word in context of our beliefs. There are certainly other places on this board to question such beliefs but not in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 11:06 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by truthlover, posted 04-27-2007 3:21 PM Phat has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 18 of 331 (397737)
04-27-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
04-27-2007 11:14 AM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Hi, Phat.
I read this whole thread. After reading it, there are two things I don't know. One, am I an evangelical by your definition, and two, what exactly is the topic you want to discuss.
I consider much of early Genesis to be tales handed down over centuries. I object to what I consider Bible worship among most churches, and I consider their attempts to follow the Bible to be one of the main reasons they are unsuccessful.
On the other hand, I submit to the Scriptures and I believe them to be breathed by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. My morality is based on the New Testament. In fact, my objection to the way most churches try to follow the Bible is based on the Bible, which says that the sons of God are to be led by the Spirit of God, not the Scriptures. (John 5:39,40 apply here very well.)
There's nothing I like better than discussing the Scriptures as authoritative, though I believe Christians that treat them as authoritative are as rare as cheetahs in 8000 BC. Most would much rather disagree with the clear wording of Scripture than with their denomination or favorite Christian reformer.
Anyway, what's this thread supposed to discuss, and am I among those who's allowed to discuss in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 11:14 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 6:32 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:19 AM truthlover has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 19 of 331 (397797)
04-27-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by truthlover
04-27-2007 3:21 PM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Hi, Truthlover!
I am also not 100% convinced that the Bible is 100% word for word literal. I believe that it may be close to literal in a thought for thought parable oriented type of way, however. For the purposes of this topic, I wanted to stick to the Belief statement of a local church, Calvary Chapel. (I picked them randomly, because I believe most of their belief statement.)
The reason that I asked Jar not to participate is because there are several key points in the Belief Statement that would perhaps be points of contention.
The same holds true with you, but I see you as more of a faith type of guy who believes
belief statement writes:
that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of men; that He hears and answers prayer; and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.
I suppose that you do not agree with
Belief Statemnt writes:
6. We believe that all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, and that they are the infallible rule of faith and practice.
The only reason that I wanted to limit participation in this thread to these things is because otherwise the thread would derail into church history, differing Canons, and critical thinking versus unthinking beliefs. I wanted this topic to showcase the scriptural encouragement from one fundamentalist evangelical to another....without going into an intellectual discourse into the meanings of faith, belief, doctrine, and practice. For now, this topic is in an experimental phase...I want to get it going and then after 100 posts or so, I will invite everyone in to participate.
Is that OK with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by truthlover, posted 04-27-2007 3:21 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 20 of 331 (397856)
04-28-2007 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-26-2007 10:08 AM


Phat:
This is a support group/round table discussion on any and all basic issues concerning beliefs, creation/evolution, and the thought process of literalist believers versus the logical people.
Are you saying that literalist believers are illogical? Or that logical believers cannot be literalists?
If so, I submit that you are lending credence to a false dichotomy.
The truth is exquisitely logical.
Let me run some ideas by you...
Logic without truth is pure materalism.
'True logic' has a central quality... it is honesty (love).
For example... Adolph Hitler's philosophy was logical (mathematically). But it was not honest. Therefore it is not 'true logic'.
It boils down to 'whole truths' and 'partial truths'. A partial truth is a 'whole' lie.
Do you understand so far?
Francis A. Schaeffer called it 'true truth', and I believe I am expressing the same.
This is very important Phat... Because the world often thinks of logic in terms of the purely material. But logic is more than utilitarian and practical. It is also moral...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-26-2007 10:08 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:03 AM Rob has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 21 of 331 (397860)
04-28-2007 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Rob
04-28-2007 1:22 AM


Groupthink
Rob writes:
Are you saying that literalist believers are illogical? Or that logical believers cannot be literalists?
I am saying that logic, by definition (of the critics) is not ever arrived at any other way than through experiments and the scientific method. Faith by definition may be logical in an absolutist "God or else" sense, but not in a practical verifiable sense.
Logic without truth is pure materialism.
In the sense that materialism = idolatry, I agree with you.
But logic is more than utilitarian and practical. It is also moral...
Only someone with an awareness of morality as emanating from Jesus Christ the living truth would ever say what you said. I understand you, I think.
Edited by Phat, : changed key word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 1:22 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 2:40 AM Phat has replied
 Message 31 by nator, posted 04-28-2007 8:12 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 42 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 9:39 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 22 of 331 (397863)
04-28-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by truthlover
04-27-2007 3:21 PM


Re: Looking for a discussion
truthlover writes:
On the other hand, I submit to the Scriptures and I believe them to be breathed by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. My morality is based on the New Testament. In fact, my objection to the way most churches try to follow the Bible is based on the Bible, which says that the sons of God are to be led by the Spirit of God, not the Scriptures. (John 5:39,40 apply here very well.)
Do you consider only the red letter words to be actual scripture?
What is your definition of scripture and in your belief is it only applicable to Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by truthlover, posted 04-27-2007 3:21 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by truthlover, posted 04-28-2007 2:38 PM Phat has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 23 of 331 (397865)
04-28-2007 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
04-28-2007 2:03 AM


Re: Groupthink
Phat:
I am saying that logic, by definition (of the critics) is not ever arrived at any other way than through empiricism and the scientific method. Faith by definition may be logical in an absolutist God or else sense, but not in a practical verifiable sense.
Hello Emanuel Kant!
His ghost still haunts us even in the 21st century
Logic, as explained by mike the wiz (in a thread labeled as nonsense and given a thumbs down), is entirely and manifestly inarguable. The ideas and concepts he brought to bear are not new. They are solid foundations for all philosophy (religion). And they are only fully framed within the Christian worldview.
That is where those laws were defined; in the Academies created by Christians. In the 'Universities' where 'unity in diversity' used to be taught.
I am going round and round about one strand of this issue right now, with Nosy. I only wish you had the gumption to promote the thread without the caviat of concensus. But you don't seem to get it yourself.
I will not go to the extreme of saying that 'that' means you are not a Christian; but it has been tempting. And I apologize for making that accusation in the past. Dangerous ground it is...
In the very least, it seems that you often defer to the status quo (the spirit of the age). Not a biblical principle... In fact, it is very contrary to scripture. Where is your discernment?
I cannot help but think, that you should at least be able to grasp some of this upon admonishment by a sincere (albeit zealous) brother. But your obvious struggle with it gives me pause (both ways). Since you don't completely write me off (as others who will remain un-named have), I do not do so with you either.
I concede that we all have different gifts, and that we run the risk of judging each other falsely, by expecting all to manifest our unique abilities. Those who speak in 'angelic toungues' do so to the horror of many. I wish not to fall into that trap. So work with me brother...
Truth, is essentially, the quality of our propositions. A logically contradictory statement is false.
It cannot even be argued because you cannot challenge the law of non-contradiction without affirming it. Because if you challenge it, you are actually infering that I am wrong and you are right. That is proof of the sufficiency of it's truthfulness.
When Jesus spoke, He declared what is true! His words are not even challengeable, without moving into illogical ground.
The critics are wrong... Because by being critical, they have just affirmed that truth cannot contradict itself. Either this is true, or that! Never both.
The critics are using deceptive philosophy Phat. I don't want you to accept what I say about that. I want you to understand it.
They create a false peace. They ask us to accept and be inclusive of their ways, but at the expense of our scriptures. Why will they not be tolerant and inclusive, of what they call our morality?
We must accept their morality. But they expect us to moderate ours.
And we fall for the lie!
Why?
Why?
Why?
I'll tell you why...
Because we want to be liked, admired, and respected by men.
Whom do you worship when push comes to shove?
If you haven't already... please read what I said to mike:
http://EvC Forum: Shraff's Omnipresence -->EvC Forum: Shraff's Omnipresence
Don't let em trick you into being friends. They don't play nice.
The devil is a sweet talker Phat. he is not overtly evil. he resides in darkness. In an evil world that is twisted inside out, it is love and truth that appear on the surface to be evil an intolerant. That is why they crucified Jesus. He didn't speak their language. He spoke His Word.
That is my cousel at this time.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:03 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 3:00 AM Rob has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 331 (397867)
04-28-2007 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rob
04-28-2007 2:40 AM


Re: Groupthink
Rob writes:
When Jesus spoke, He declared what is true! His words are not even challengeable, without moving into illogical ground.
OK..so what is it that I do not understand?
Rob writes:
In the very least, it seems that you often defer to the status quo (the spirit of the age). Not a biblical principle... In fact, it is very contrary to scripture. Where is your discernment?
I have my reasons for behaving and interacting the way that I do and, to the best of my ability, I have valid reasons for doing so. At the risk of being labeled lukewarm, I feel that my style allows further inroads into human interactions and dialogue.
Rob writes:
The critics are using deceptive philosophy Phat. I don't want
you to accept what I say about that. I want you to understand it.
Perhaps I already believe this and do understand it. We can always discuss it, however!
Add by Edit: I am willing to accept that I am being deceived, to clarify. I trust that the Holy Spirit gives me discernment, although I honestly don't think I take full advantage of the impartation. I am my own worst enemy, at times. The Devil isnt gonna do anything that i dont allow him to do. Such is the warfare we fight.
Edited by Phat, : fixed quote
Edited by Phat, : add by edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 2:40 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 8:40 AM Phat has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 25 of 331 (397894)
04-28-2007 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Phat
04-28-2007 3:00 AM


Re: Groupthink
Phat:
I am my own worst enemy, at times. The Devil isnt gonna do anything that i dont allow him to do. Such is the warfare we fight.
I am in that boat with you.
Phat:
I have my reasons for behaving and interacting the way that I do and, to the best of my ability, I have valid reasons for doing so. At the risk of being labeled lukewarm, I feel that my style allows further inroads into human interactions and dialogue.
I don't know if it is lukewarm, so much as it is tying to keep out of trouble. But it is trouble that kindles the fire. It is the fire which reveals our weakness. And it is our weakness that allows God to use us.
You think I am being too harsh when I am only being who I am. I have only recently realized my own propensity for over-the-top zealotry. And I did so by trusting the process. By not fearing to say what I truely believed. From there, the branches are being pruned.
I don't think you've allowed the persecution to temper you. You attempt to control it and keep safe. If that is so, I understand. You've seen how far I have gone at times to try and control the situation. And God rebukes me.
We must walk out on the water with full expectation that he will catch us. I know how embarassing it is to start sinking, but to realize that he always catches me is very encouraging.
Honestly, I don't think you are here to evangelize. You're here for friendship. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just don't forget that our opponenets are here to evangelize their own agenda (whther they are conscious of it or not). Theirs is the dominant priesthood. And there are many in between.
And unlike many of us theists, they do not put their friendship above the ideological loyalty. They are ideologues first, and friends second. The most absolute and unyeilding among us, are those who are offended at the mention of the words 'absolute', 'truth', 'morality', and 'Christ'.
It is the one thing that they understand better, than the Christians they expect to do the opposite; 'No compromise'. They believe in their truth, yet convince us to doubt God's Word!
Clever devils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 3:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 10:37 AM Rob has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 26 of 331 (397915)
04-28-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rob
04-28-2007 8:40 AM


Re: Groupthink
Rob writes:
I don't think you've allowed the persecution to temper you. You attempt to control it and keep safe. If that is so, I understand.
Not to mention that I respect other peoples educations to an extent. It may well be that this entire thing is one vast spiritual war that even the most astute and ardent scientific minds are unaware of. Now wouldn't that be something!!?? I have witnessed evidence (to my critical satisfaction) of the supernatural realm before, and I must say that it humbled and scared me, as well as strengthened my faith quite a bit! In fact, I was quite stupefied!
My critics have suggested that what I witnessed had rational, sane explanations and was not what I had determined that it was. All I can tell you is that they were not there! They also suggest that I want to believe this stuff so much that I give up seeking rational explanations and embrace *woo woo* explanations as a natural comfort zone of my own making.
Rob writes:
Honestly, I don't think you are here to evangelize. You're here for friendship. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just don't forget that our opponents are here to evangelize their own agenda (whether they are conscious of it or not).
So in other words, you are suggesting that Satan uses people to fulfill his agenda in the worldwide spiritual war whether his unwitting vessels are even aware of his existence or of such an agenda? C.S. Lewis first proposed that very idea, saying that Satan's neatest trick was convincing individuals that he did not exist! Honestly though, Rob...I wonder that I am going nuts believing this stuff!
Lets critically examine some of the accusations that our critics say about us:
1) That we are a Cult Of Ignorance. Could it be that we have actually been taught dogma and that much of our beliefs have been formed through what we have read versus what we intrinsically know through spiritual impartation? I mean, to be honest, I also have listened to Ravi Zacharias, not to mention C.S. Lewis. I admit that I learn from those whom I listen to, and at some point one has to either trust the source as credible or not. In conclusion, I do not see myself as ignorant, but I do see myself unwilling to believe some alternative belief paradigms which make much more sense (in the natural) than my own. I mean, honestly---belief in a spiritual realm is quite "out there" to the scientific mind!
2) That conservative Christians are ruining this country. Ironically, I agree with my critics on this one. Satan works through Christians more effectively than he works through non-believers.
Edited by Phat, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 8:40 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 04-28-2007 7:50 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 32 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 12:59 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 331 (397937)
04-28-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICANT
04-27-2007 12:13 AM


Examining our own Dogma
Oftentimes, I hear the word dogma bandied about when referring to unthinking people of my ilk. I looked up the word and found this definition:
Websters writes:
dog”ma n 1 : a tenet or code of tenets 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines formally proclaimed by a church
I thought that in the interest of this topic, I would actually reproduce some of the literature and "tenets" read by people such as you and I. I googled, and found some beliefs that were said to be central to the Christian Faith. I know, however, that some of these are controversial even among Christians.
The Bible is the Word of God. It is inspired and inerrant in its original autographs. It is a complete and final revelation of God. I have heard arguments on both sides of this one. We have even had a professor of theology (who happens to be an atheist, ironically) who laid out some rational reasons why the Bible could not be inerrant according to archaeological, linguistic, and consensual reasons. One possible reason for rejecting his rational explanation is the spiritual war hypothesis that we discussed earlier. One reason for accepting his conclusion is by asking myself whether or not the Bible needs to be true in a word for word proclamation. I personally believe that the Bible reveals, through its authors and stories, the character of the Living Christ. Some believe that Jesus is revealed in every book of the Bible.
see Link
There is one God and only one God. He is personal and knowable. He manifests Himself in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is quite important to many Christians. Personally, I am fine with the belief that there is one God. I also believe that He is personable, and knowable. I usually explain the Trinity through the analogy of Sun, Light, and Heat. Quite honestly, I never worry about Who I am talking to or communing with, however. I believe that God sees the intentions and motives of my heart and would never be crowded out by another spirit.
Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, born of a virgin, without sin, and the chosen Messiah who will one day set up his kingdom on earth. Personally, I believe that Jesus is Gods character. He existed In The Beginning as Gods character and was not created or naturally born. Some have said that while on earth he was fully human...with all the limitations a human might have. I tend to agree that He was fully human, but I believe that He was without sin since it was not in His nature to willfully (or even accidentally) seperate Himself from Gods will.
Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, was buried, rose again from the dead, ascended back to heaven, and will one day return to this earth again. I have heard the arguments from those who wonder why God would choose to allow humanity to choose sin and then offer redemption through personal sacrifice of His son. The critics ask why Jesus was even a sacrifice if He was God. In conclusion, I DO believe that Jesus is alive today! I strongly believe that it is important for Him to have literally existed. The idea of God becoming man is central to our human ability to relate to Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2007 12:13 AM ICANT has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 28 of 331 (397960)
04-28-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
04-28-2007 2:19 AM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Do you consider only the red letter words to be actual scripture?
No. I believe all 39 books of the OT are Scripture, and I believe all the apostles' writings, including Paul's, are Scripture. If we found writings of Thaddeus or more letters by Peter, for example, and they were verified as real, I'd want to add them to the canon.
Just being honest, I struggle with Hebrews, as I'm not sure it represents apostolic belief in all areas, and it expressly says it's not apostolically written (Heb 2:3,4).
Just being further honest, I don't think that makes me different than most American Christians who don't show any indication of believing Heb 10:26 or Heb 6:6. They dodge it with explanations, whereas I would assign Hebrews a place alongside the letter of Barnabas and the Didache.
Rose Creek Village, on the other hand, which I am part of, would definitely consider Hebrews Scripture.
What is your definition of scripture and in your belief is it only applicable to Jesus?
Scripture, to me, is the inspired writings of God's people. While I do not believe that Genesis is literal, that the earth was created in 7 days, or that the flood story is historically accurate, I do believe that God inspired all of it, on purpose, and that he has things to say through those stories.
An example would be the story of Jacob going to see Laban. There's a part there where he had a dream, awoke, stood a stone up, anointed it with oil, and called it Bethel. You'd have to have been through the experiences we've been through to understand the incredible application of that story to our lives, but we believe God knew, three thousand years in advance, that those things would happen to us, and he made sure that story was worded in such a way that it would speak to us in the 20th century.
Personally, I believe Scripture is way more powerful than the literalists know it to be.
One more example, so you have an idea of how I read Genesis. I believe that God called the sun a greater light and the moon a lesser light on purpose. He wanted us to get a more applicable lesson than that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day. The greater light is the light of God, and the lesser light is the light of the church. The moon has no light of its own, but it reflects the light of the sun. So the church has no light of its own, but it shines with the glory of the Son. Jesus spoke of this when he said, "The night is coming when no one can work." He was the light of day, and now the church lights the night (or it's supposed to, at least) with his light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:19 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 3:03 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 194 by Phat, posted 06-12-2013 5:03 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 331 (397964)
04-28-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by truthlover
04-28-2007 2:38 PM


Hebrews 10:26
Heb 10:26-27-- If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. I was taught once that this scripture proved that people were not always saved once they were saved.
I believe that once I met God, He would never leave me even if I left Him. (and whatever would a believer want to leave God, for?)
However on a practical day to day application, willful sin is practiced by many Christians. Are we responsible, or is it our nature?
I would argue that that snippet means that God has already done His part and that we are fully empowered to do our part. He will not stop us from getting ourselves in trouble, in other words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by truthlover, posted 04-28-2007 2:38 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 30 of 331 (397994)
04-28-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
04-28-2007 10:37 AM


Re: Groupthink
Phat:
C.S. Lewis first proposed that very idea, saying that Satan's neatest trick was convincing individuals that he did not exist! Honestly though, Rob...I wonder that I am going nuts believing this stuff!
I didn't know it was Lewis who first presented the idea. Seems to me it is in the first verses of Genesis. It is the difference between light and darkness (spiritually speaking). But that is a heavy issue to be sure!
Your not crazy to believe that stuff. The crazy people are the one's who don't. They actually believe they are in control. We that is... when not in our 'right' frame of mind.
Of course the sophisticates and pharisees will label you as nuts. That shouldn't suprise you, they did the same to Christ. They seek truth that affirms themselves (which does not exist). The message of the cross is foolishness to them.
Do you think they suffer from the doubts you have????
No! They don't! The fact that you have doubts is proof that you are thinking. They are not... You need to excercise that, and consider that guys like mike the wiz have not confused logic with faith, but rather it is you who, when making that comment, confused the two.
The pressure to conform to this world's man-made systems is unending. And those systems break down very easily if you find the right points of tension. Those points are so obvious, that we miss them very often. And their progenators are completely unaware of them.
So if their ideas are incoherent, then where do they come from? Does man invent logic? Does it not precede him? If a man were not logical, then he would not be a man. So it is part of his very nature. Logic is not his to twist and bend. Logic is what it is.
So if man twisting logic is actually counter to his nature, then where do these ideas originate?
Men are born without any ideas. They come naked into this world.
I have ideas come to mind that I do not even wish to think about. So what gives?
Do you follow me?
There are many spiritual forces whispering in our mind's ear. Many visions coming to our mind's eye. We are not creating the images, but we worship the one's we choose to. It's a never ending battle for our minds.
Difficult to accept, only because we like to think we are in control of ourselves. But our wars and rumors of wars reveal that that is not the case. Our morning paper prooves otherwise.
If not for the clear, truthful, and prophetic warning of my wife, I would not be able to control my desire to waste my life away arguing on this forum. So, I cannot even control myself without a daily submission to reality and truth. That is the only thing we should be worshipping. With all our heart, mind, soul, and strength.
I have more to say in response to your post, but we're taking the kids out... God help me!
I'll be back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 10:37 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024