Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evangelical Support Group
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 331 (398000)
04-28-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
04-28-2007 2:03 AM


Re: Groupthink
quote:
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.
That's not an accurate definition of logic, nor an accurate description of the definition "the critics" use to define logic.
Let me know if you want me to correct you.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:03 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 32 of 331 (398039)
04-29-2007 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
04-28-2007 10:37 AM


Re: Groupthink
Phat:
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.
We all reach our limits intellectually. Personally, I think many here have not pushed themselves to where I believe they are capable intellectually. And I am not talking about ammassing information and statistics. I am talking about the critical thinking skills which have all but been obliterated in the popular culture. As a culture, we have lost our power to reason.
And the dogma is not just in the churches, but the Academies as well. If we are all thinking in a valid manner (logically), then we will naturally fall onto the same common ground.
And if nothing else, those who are struggling logically should be willing to defer to those who can understand, assuming those who can also can show maturity and grace (which kinda disqualifies me ).
That is the distinction between knowledge (dogma) and wisdom (understanding). Understanding and wisdom iare far better than knowledge. Knowledge puffs up...
But yes phat, beyond that (and more importantly) spiritual revelation is crucial. And it is not as mystical as we have been led to believe by the cynical empericists. It is a quite natural process of healing in some degree. And that only requires humilty. Humility is an ongoing process. My first revelation was to consider (as luducrous as it seemed at the time) that Christianity may be true.
It's like Lewis said, "Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
That is the onset of revelation in one man. It is not an 'all at once' kind of thing. But it is always an epiphany no matter the level.
Phat:
I mean, honestly---belief in a spiritual realm is quite "out there" to the scientific mind!
We've allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing that science is anything more than a tool. It has it's strengths, and it's weaknesses. It is not all seeing and comprehensive enough to make the claims it does.
Actually, it is not the science itself that makes these claims, but the 'extrapolations' and 'theories' based on what is 'actually scientific'.
They try to confuse us with the details. But the details are often not even valid. So there is no need to argue over the details, when the starting assumptions are intellectually incoherent.
That is where the battle must be one. It is the errors in their presupposed philosophy (within the science itself) that must be exposed. And it is a difficult thing to communicate. Especially when the opponent is convinced that he is right. He will not even take the time to slow down and examine the thinking. He just writes it off as irrelevant.
There is much pride at stake. And I for one have been learning over and over how liberating it is to occasionally say, 'ok... you are right'. It's not as painful as we think. Very few of us is 'all wrong', but it is the wrong pieces adjacent the right ones, that distort the image of the whole puzzle.
Phat:
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.
I disagree... He cetainly works within the church, but Jesus made it plain that He knows the difference between the wheat and the tares; the sheep and the goats.
His sheep hear His voice.
Let me tell you what G.K. Chesterton said in a letter to the editor. The editor had asked the question, 'what's Wrong With the World?'.
Dear Sir, in regards to your article, 'what's Wrong with the World?'... I am!
Yours truely, G.K. Chesterton
I don't think we need to cast stones Phat. We only need remind people that we are all sinners. If you think the problem is 'conservatives', you might want to look at your own heart.
What is destroying this country is sin. So let us endeavor to tell that truth, for sin is an equal opportunity killer.
They've fooled us again. Don't fall for it.
They think 'judgement' is prejudiced. How can they make such a 'judgement'?
But by what objective moral and virtuous foundation will they deny morality and virtue itself?
Jesus made it clear that when He does judge, His judgements are right. Because He does not do so with human standards. but by the Word of God.
Do you believe Him?
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 10:37 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 04-29-2007 11:52 AM Rob has replied

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


Message 33 of 331 (398118)
04-29-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rob
04-29-2007 12:59 AM


Re: Groupthink
Rob writes:
Personally, I think many here have not pushed themselves to where I believe they are capable intellectually. And I am not talking about amassing information and statistics. I am talking about the critical thinking skills which have all but been obliterated in the popular culture. As a culture, we have lost our power to reason.
This sounds a wee bit pompous, coming from an unorthodox self proclaimed critical thinker such as yourself! But I will, as you, let Jesus do the judging! The Bible speaks of two imaginations. (The Mind Of Christ and ones own vain imagination) An individual who knows about God (which includes everyone) has an awareness of Gods creative imagination. Romans 1:1-17 tells us as much. There is no excuse. God is evident.
God in a personal, knowable manner is no quite as evident, and critics would accuse me of promoting exclusivity by saying so. That is why I never preach Hell. (and, by the way, you are preaching again! Darn you...lets keep this thread conversational!) Hell was never created for humans.You may accuse me of being soft on Jesus actual message and of thus doing my fellow humans a disservice by not warning them about Hell.
I never have believed in attempting to threaten or scare someone into church, however. My philosophy is that "no man comes to God unless the Spirit draws them. I also believe that if they receive me they will receive the Spirit that sent me. The only thing left to do is determine what Spirit I am operating under at the given moment! And that is why we should take our beliefs seriously enough to humble ourselves and seek God in an honest way rather than a pious, religious way.
Rob writes:
That is the distinction between knowledge (dogma) and wisdom (understanding). Understanding and wisdom are far better than knowledge. Knowledge puffs up...
My critics would say that by accepting the Bible as Gods revealed truth, I am being willfully ignorant and a wee bit puffed up! I will agree that out of 500 preachers on the airwaves of America at any given moment, perhaps as few as fifty of them teach me anything useful. Just because a guy is a preacher does not mean that they flow with the Holy Spirit! Often, even preachers employ the same vain imagination as the most ardent and willful unbelievers.
Rob writes:
But yes phat, beyond that (and more importantly) spiritual revelation is crucial. And it is not as mystical as we have been led to believe by the cynical empiricists. It is a quite natural process of healing in some degree. And that only requires humility.
It's like Lewis said, "Now that I am a Christian I do not have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable."
That quote by Lewis is interesting, and gives one pause to think. I would respond, however, by saying that one thing that turns many critical thinkers and scientists off to organized religion and specifically our brand of Christianity is the very lack of thinking skills many of us exhibit! They would probably be willing to overlook the foolish theological beliefs that they claim we got through dogma and not through revelation IF they could otherwise trust and receive us as individuals.(otherwise sane, in other words! )
Rob writes:
That is the onset of revelation in one man. It is not an 'all at once' kind of thing. But it is always an epiphany no matter the level.
You are talking about Jesus, right? I keep forgetting that it is He who draws them rather than I. My Bad!
Rob writes:
We've allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing that science is anything more than a tool. It has it's strengths, and it's weaknesses. It is not all seeing and comprehensive enough to make the claims it does.
And this is where you and I differ. I never try and "convince" scientific critical thinkers that if they only saw it my way they would understand! I stay away from science! This is all about Faith, and I do think you shoot yourself in the foot when you try and play in their ballpark!
I personally agreed with Ned that your PNT was rambling and pointless! But thats only my opinion and has no bearing on your effectiveness as a Christian with potential revelation, here.
Rob writes:
They try to confuse us with the details. But the details are often not even valid. So there is no need to argue over the details, when the starting assumptions are intellectually incoherent.
As I have said before, I respect the way that scientists think! Ken Ham and his bunch of creation scientists are nothing but a bunch of posers! But perhaps I should not criticize other "believers, right? Am I killing my own with my arrogant big mouth? (Or is Jar right and they are a bunch of con-men? After all, ya gotta admit that many so-called preachers are!! )
Rob writes:
I don't think we need to cast stones Phat. We only need remind people that we are all sinners. If you think the problem is 'conservatives', you might want to look at your own heart.
What is destroying this country is sin. So let us endeavor to tell that truth, for sin is an equal opportunity killer.
I can't disagree with you there! I am not gonna preach at EvC, however!
If you really want to reach those whom you believe need reaching here, you will have to build relationships with them, get to know how and why they think the way that they do, and stop calling them "the enemy"! In other words, I agree with what you just told me!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 12:59 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rob, posted 04-29-2007 12:16 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 8:04 AM Phat has replied
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 05-01-2007 10:16 AM Phat has replied

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


Message 34 of 331 (398133)
04-29-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
04-29-2007 11:52 AM


Re: Groupthink
PhaT:
My philosophy is that "no man comes to God unless the Spirit draws them. I also believe that if they receive me they will receive the Spirit that sent me.
I'll have to get to the rest another day, but I wholeheartedly agree with you. And that has been my most difficult struggle; to realize that I cannot persuade anyone. That the truth is nonsense to them. It absolutely kills me, and seems so unfair...
But if we were able, then we would notneed God, for we would be God. God in His wisdom, has created us as interdependant. Even He Himself is complete, only in Himself (trinity).
I will get back to you, but I cannot today. I must go to work later and will not return until tommorrow eve.
Edited by Rob, : 'not' can be an important word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 04-29-2007 11:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 331 (398154)
04-29-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Pete OS
04-26-2007 11:45 PM


Re: Looking for a discussion
Up until this point I was an old earth guy who otherwise pretty much took everything in Genesis as literal. I am sort of in limbo so to speak and I would like to discuss with other real believers how they handle Genesis. It is not easy for me just to write off the whole thing as (I shutter to use the word) a myth. Where did it start being literal? Was Noah a real person? If there was only a local flood, did it not kill off all of humanity (like all those in the New World). Was Abraham a real person (I am being a bit extreme here but I just want to press my point)?
I appreciate your candor Pete. I'm a Christian too Pete, so hopefully by giving you my interpretation, we might be able to start a dialogue.
It seems obvious to me that Genesis is as terse about history as possible. But I believe that it is just a segue into far more important matters. I believe that Genesis is both literal and figurative. I think you need to pay close attention to genre and figures of speech because Genesis was never intended to be used as a science book. I'm not sure why some people have insisted on treating that way either.
Are the seven days literal or figurative? I believe it is literal because Moses goes out of his way to say for each day, "It was day, and then it was night. The first day... the second day... the third day, etc. Could it really be speaking about epochs in natural history. Sure it could. Days could represent millions of years for all we know. Does it really matter either way? Do you believe you salvation hinges upon it? I don't.
You ask if certain protagonists like Noah and Abraham are real figures in human history. Well, are they? Are they attested for any more or less than Hammurabi? You first need to question how we know any one in history were actually real. At some point we all operate under an informed faith. But at the heart of your discontent, I suspect you are asking a far deeper question just below the radar.
You want to know the Truth. And you want to know what can trusted and what can't. But none of us can answer that for you. That's between you and God.
I am looking for people who believe in Jesus, his deity, incarnation, death, resurrection, and our resting in him for salvation; who otherwise believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. To be totally transparent, I am getting a little nervous and would like to talk through some of these issues with other Christians.
I don't believe in the dominating theory of evolution, Pete. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you should or shouldn't believe in Jesus, as you seem to understand. My problem with evolution is on a scientific level, not a spiritual one.
We have two camps who are vying for your heart. In one camp, you have an intellectual class of Christians who desperately try and find satisfying reasons for why the Bible should be treated as a science textbook. In my estimation they do more harm than good. At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have atheistic agitators who are trying to dismantle all of Christendom by sowing seeds of doubt in your mind. The point is, this whole debate has turned, in a sense, political. I for one have grown disinterested in that debate and its probably because of that reason.

"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

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

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


Message 36 of 331 (398292)
04-30-2007 7:26 AM


Listening To Radio Preachers and Teachers
Even among my friends who are quite fundamental in their beliefs, we all realize the difference, at least in our own minds and hearts, between good preachers and bad preachers in the media.
Most of the T.B.N. preachers are in it for the business. They have praise-a-thons where they tag team, pleading for money all day long! They are what many of their critics refer to as prosperity preachers. Joel Olsteen is the newest of these types of preachers, and while my friend likes Joel and feels that his message is relevant and that Joel is honest, I personally am never ministered to from Joel, although I do not yet think he is a conman. I personally prefer many of the preachers that can be found at Oneplace.com. Among the ones whom I respect are Charles Stanley, Dr. Michael Youssef, Chip Ingram, John Piper, Pastor Ed Taylor, John MacArthur, and the late Dr. J. Vernon McGee.
Pastor Ed Taylor is local here in Denver, Colorado. He is a staunch example of a common sense Biblical literalist teacher. Listen to one of his sermons here.
To be fair, Jar and I have discussed/debated the differences in our respective theologies. Jar directed me to some of the Bishops in the Anglican Communion. For the differences between these theological religious viewpoints, lets examine some conservative viewpoints versus some liberal viewpoints:
First, here are some conservative quotes and sound-bites (which I feel comfortable with, BTW)
  • Dr.J. Vernon McGee (who has long since died but whose Thru The Bible series is still broadcast around the world.) He is quite conservative. One example of his articles can be found here.
  • Pastor Raul Ries--
    quote:
    Christ was the perfect sacrifice. He was sinless, so He was able to qualify for God’s requirement of a perfect offering. Yet, He took on our sins so that when we put our faith in Jesus, His righteousness is imputed to us. It’s like we are swapping places. The Lord takes our sins, and we take His righteousness of Jesus Christ.
  • Steve Brown--Does God Love Pharisees? audio message of questions and answers found here.
    Contrast those guys with some of the more liberal Christians.(Who, by the way do not necessarily agree with the Belief Statement in this support group.)
  • Bishop John Shelby Spong--
    quote:
    ...as Christianity becomes more traditional and fundamentalist, it becomes less and less appealing to thinking people who then see human secularism as their only option. My point was that both biblical literalism and secular humanism are, in my mind, dead end streets in the sense that neither offers a way into a meaningful religious future.
    I believe that once we break open both our ideas about God and our understandings of who Christ is and free them from the religious molds that have captured them in Christian history; we can still present both God and Christ in such a way as to attract the secular humanists into a realistic Christian future.
    Don Cupitt has been a close friend and even a mentor to me for many years now. He says that all God talk is conducted in a language that human beings have created and therefore all God talk is a human creation. With that I am in full agreement. He then concludes that God is, therefore, only the creation of human language and that there is no reality to which that language points.
    With that conclusion I totally disagree. While I am certain that the word "God" is a human attempt, in admittedly human language, to describe a human experience, I affirm that the experience is real. We call the God experience "otherness," "transcendence," or even "the holy." We recognize that this reality is not capable of being defined, but that inability does not make this experience unreal.
    I will not claim for my language or the language of the Bible, creeds or doctrines any sense of ultimacy, inerrancy or infallibility. I do believe, however, those words point to a reality that is transforming and consciousness-raising and that this reality invites me into having the courage to be more than I have been before.
    So I stand before this undefined presence that I call God, in awe and wonder. God is real to me. I create my definitions of God, but I do not create the God experience. So I am theologically a "Realist" not a "non-Realist."
    I used to think that Spong had to be of the devil, since he dared to say things that shook my theological assumptions to the core! I still disagree with much of what Spong says, although I respect the man as a thinking man at the very least! To Wit:
    Spong writes:
    1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
    Phat writes:
    I disagree with this. I believe that God wants to relate to humanity and that He is quite able to do so in our hearts, minds, and souls.
    2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
    Phat writes:
    I disagree with this, as I believe that Christ is alive in many of His followers.
    3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
    Phat writes:
    I have no problem with evolution nor do I believe that it is but a theory. While I believe that there may be a literal Spiritual War on the planet in the hearts and minds of men, I would venture to say that one would see more evidence of this war in the churches themselves rather than in the science classrooms.
    4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
    Phat writes:
    I believe in the supernatural, so I disagree with Spong here.
    5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
    Phat writes:
    I think that Spong is bowing to human wisdom and common sense and that he won't allow himself to believe irrational things. IF he were right, it would shake the foundations of literal Biblical Christianity. We would no longer have a supernatural rescuer God. We would have a God whom would expect us to attempt to think for ourselves and that the world would get better on its own rather than be heading for a calamity.
    6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
    Phat writes:
    I disagree.
    7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
    8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
    9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
    Phat writes:
    I totally disagree. There is most definitely a living, active Holy Spirit that is objective, revealing, and interactive with humanity.
    10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
    11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
    12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
    Phat writes:
    I actually agree with Spong on this point.

  • Replies to this message:
     Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 7:32 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 50 by iceage, posted 04-30-2007 12:27 PM 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 37 of 331 (398293)
    04-30-2007 7:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
    04-30-2007 7:26 AM


    My Topic Is Now Open To All Critics
    Now that I have established much of what I wanted to originally say, I am opening this topic to everyone on the board to critique and examine.
    Let the arguments begin!

    Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them.
    * * * * * * * * * *
    “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”
    --General Omar Bradley

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 7:26 AM Phat has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 38 of 331 (398298)
    04-30-2007 8:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
    04-27-2007 2:43 AM


    Re: Basic Loosely Defined Belief Statement for this Group
    I have a question about this.
    quote:
    Calvary Chapel in Aurora, Colorado near my home has this belief statement on their website. While many Christians disagree over doctrines and beliefs, most of the evangelical(conservative Protestant) believers would agree in general with the following belief statement.
    1. We believe in what is termed "The Apostles' Creed" as embodying all the fundamental doctrines of orthodox evangelical Christianity.
    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.

    Given that the doctrine expressed in point 6 is found in neither the Apostle's Creed or the Bible, how is it justified ? Surely it is important enough that it should be in one or the other. Why isn't it ?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Phat, posted 04-27-2007 2:43 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 8:08 AM PaulK has not replied

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 17822
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 39 of 331 (398299)
    04-30-2007 8:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
    04-29-2007 11:52 AM


    Re: Groupthink
    Phat, can you expand on what you mean by this ? In what way is "God" evident but not evident as a personal entity ?
    quote:
    An individual who knows about God (which includes everyone) has an awareness of Gods creative imagination. Romans 1:1-17 tells us as much. There is no excuse. God is evident.
    God in a personal, knowable manner is no quite as evident...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by Phat, posted 04-29-2007 11:52 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

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


    Message 40 of 331 (398300)
    04-30-2007 8:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
    04-30-2007 8:02 AM


    Re: Basic Loosely Defined Belief Statement for this Group
    PaulK writes:
    Given that the doctrine expressed in point 6 is found in neither the Apostle's Creed or the Bible, how is it justified ? Surely it is important enough that it should be in one or the other. Why isn't it ?
    Ya got me! Just for the sake of topic clarity, the Apostles Creed is found here.
    You have a sharp eye for details!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 38 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 8:02 AM PaulK has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 10:26 AM Phat has replied

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


    Message 41 of 331 (398301)
    04-30-2007 8:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
    04-30-2007 8:04 AM


    Is God known by all?
    PaulK writes:
    Phat, can you expand on what you mean by this ? In what way is "God" evident but not evident as a personal entity ?
    The traditional fundamentalist argument is based on Romans:
    NIV writes:
    Rom 1:18-20-- The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
    Critics will usually refute this by citing Paul's theology as being quite different from the Gospels. Jesus never seemingly assumed that everyone automatically knew or understood who His Father was. He did say that
    NIV writes:
    John 14:9-Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
    but obviously not everyone has "seen" Jesus.
    My personal philosophy hinges on the scripture saying that if they (meaning people whom I talk with) receive me, they will receive the One who sent me. This, however, is a wee bit arrogant if I assume myself to be some sort of prophet who is always walking in Gods will! When the Lord appointed 72 helpers to spread the word, (Luke 10:1)He said to them:
    NIV writes:
    Luke 10:16-- "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
    We could assume that every human on the planet has an innate awareness of God, allowing them to freely decide to accept or reject a worker of God who talks with them. I suppose the question would then be if any of these workers are around today? Much of organized Christian religion is a turn-off to people due to the incessant requests for money.
    Edited by Phat, : changed subtopic title

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 8:04 AM PaulK has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2007 1:26 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2169 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 42 of 331 (398310)
    04-30-2007 9:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
    04-28-2007 2:03 AM


    Re: Groupthink
    quote:
    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.
    Actually, logic is not arrived at through experiment nor the scientific method.
    Logic is part of the scientific method, not vice versa.
    Here is the definition from the wiki:
    Logic, from Classical Greek ‘ logos (meaning word, reason or principle), is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.
    As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic is therefore large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory. [1]
    Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy, one part of the classical trivium, which consisted of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Since the mid-nineteenth century formal logic has been studied as the foundation of mathematics. In 1903 Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead established logic as the cornerstone of mathematics with the publication of Principia Mathematica. The development of formal logic and its implementation in computing machinery is the foundation of computer science.
    Put very simply, logic is used to examine the validity of statements.
    Edited by nator, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-28-2007 2:03 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12998
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 43 of 331 (398314)
    04-30-2007 10:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    04-26-2007 10:08 AM


    Phat writes:
    I want this topic to be directed at these particular Christians and would ask that there be no responses from other forum members. You all are invited to watch our discussion, however.
    I've noticed some posts from non-evangelicals. Is that okay? The opening post strongly implies that it isn't okay, in the same way that that over at the "Evolutionist Support Group" thread they'd rather have no interference from evangelicals while they discuss how Jesus saw his shadow when he left the tomb and retreated back inside to sleep for six more weeks.
    That's a sort of indirect way of saying that while I agree that evangelicals should be permitted their own threads without interference from evolutionists, I find I'm not too comfortable when these threads are used to misstate science without correction. Thus I approve of the fact that some evolutionist postings have been permitted without objection, but I'm wondering if the participants are unhappy with this given the parameters described in the opening post.
    Anyway, let me know if any moderator assistance is desired.

    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    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 45 by jar, posted 04-30-2007 10:27 AM Admin has not replied
     Message 46 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 10:30 AM Admin has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 44 of 331 (398316)
    04-30-2007 10:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
    04-30-2007 8:08 AM


    Re: Basic Loosely Defined Belief Statement for this Group
    There is a second issue that also needs to be addressed.
    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.
    Since there are no original manuscripts, what difference does it make if they were "fully inspired and without error?"
    We are clueless what was in those original manuscripts anyway.
    In addition, other than being a feel-good collection of words with no meaning, what is the point?
    What does "Fully inspired" mean?
    What does "without error" mean?
    What does "the infallible rule of faith and practice" mean?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 8:08 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 47 by Phat, posted 04-30-2007 10:54 AM jar has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 45 of 331 (398317)
    04-30-2007 10:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Admin
    04-30-2007 10:19 AM


    Phat opened the floor.
    see Message 37

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Admin, posted 04-30-2007 10:19 AM Admin 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