Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 85 of 531 (514649)
07-10-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stile
07-08-2009 2:21 PM


Irrational Yet Hopeful
Phage0070 writes:
I am not proposing a banning of religion, merely suggesting that it is poor behavior to perpetuate it and those duped deserve to be enlightened.
What about the simple belief that God exists? Is this so wrong to say? (Nobody can prove He doesn't, anyway)
Lets take a hypothetical example of a Star Wars fanatic. They have seen every movie hundreds of times frame by frame. They have adopted the philosophy behind it all. They even have action figures of all the characters!! Harmless so far, right? But what if those close to this person commented that he actually believed in The Force. Although unprovable, beyond martial art demonstrations of Ki and/or Chi, The Force is the central reason why this person has optimism for the future. Is it wrong?
Same thing with the Holy Spirit. Nobody can prove that this Spirit exists, but then again, does it really matter?
Rahvin writes:
I honestly don't see an equitable way to allow people to believe as their conscience dictates while protecting children from brainwashing and indoctrination long before they're old enough to make their own decisions. The best I can offer is mandatory critical thinking skills education in public school, with strong encouragement to examine everything that one believes to be true (with no emphasis on religious beliefs vs anything else the children may believe to be true).
I agree that the key to global enlightenment begins with education. IF God exists, God exists despite any attempts to prove otherwise, and IF God does not exist He just plain does not exist period...regardless what people think or say.
People have an innate right to believe however they so choose as long as it does not harm others, and as for our children, they will pick up the beliefs of their parents. I believe that indoctrinating a child with atheism can be as potentially harmful as indoctrinating them with religion, but that's just me.
Stile writes:
Knowing that nobody knows what happens when we die, yet irrationally believing that Jesus Christ will be there and everyone will be happy and peaceful in the afterlife is an irrational hopefulness of religion.
As long as I agree that my belief is irrational, I see no damage in my logic. Hope is hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stile, posted 07-08-2009 2:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Brian, posted 07-10-2009 7:55 AM Phat has replied
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 10:51 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 88 of 531 (514661)
07-10-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Brian
07-10-2009 7:55 AM


The Real McCoy Could Actualize
AZPaul3 writes:
To me the whole edifice of institutionalized religious superstition has outlived its usefulness. But way back then it did perform a vital function.
Websters writes:
superstition n 1 : beliefs or practices resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, or trust in magic or chance 2 : an unreasoning fear of nature, the unknown, or God resulting from superstition superstitious adj
On one level, belief in God (yeah I know...whichGod? ) is illogical, but certainly not bordering on delusion. Fear of the unknown appears normal, but IF God existed,would anyone fear Him or would they steadfastly insist that God was an unwelcome figment of their imagination?
My point is that it is reasonable to fear God if one considers that He may exist, since by definition such a Deity would be beyond our ability to control, manipulate or define.
Brian writes:
Wouldn't it be logical to reject something that is illogical?
Good point. Normally, yes. It would stand to reason that the majority of believers want and/or need for God to exist while a majority of unbelievers, that is, those who even give it a second thought, probably would just as soon that God did not exist..and are comforted that logic and reason seem to support the idea of no God. But let me ask you a question, Brian. If you were some day confronted with some solid evidence that God existed, and by this I dont mean the God that humans mapped out in the Bible but the actual McCoy...what would you do? Pinch yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Brian, posted 07-10-2009 7:55 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:19 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 90 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 11:20 AM Phat has replied
 Message 92 by Brian, posted 07-10-2009 12:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 89 of 531 (514662)
07-10-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Phat
07-10-2009 11:16 AM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
quote:
if you were some day confronted with some solid evidence that God existed, and by this I dont mean the God that humans mapped out in the Bible but the actual McCoy...what would you do? Pinch yourself?
Perhaps you would hear him say "Damnit, Jim! I'm a Doctor..not a Deity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 07-10-2009 11:16 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 91 of 531 (514665)
07-10-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Perdition
07-10-2009 11:20 AM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
Perdition writes:
I want there to be elves and fairies and a million dollars in my bank account, too, but I won't believe in them until I see some sort of evidence for their existence.
Where did we conclude that everything under the Sun had to be supported by evidence? Is there no room for cultural mythos, allegory, and parable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 11:20 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 12:33 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 94 of 531 (514672)
07-10-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Perdition
07-10-2009 12:33 PM


Re: The Real McCoy Could Actualize
Perdition writes:
I love going to the movies and getting lost in the worlds of Tolkien, ROddenberry, or Spielberg, but again, I don't leave the theater thinking they're true. That's the difference. In religion, people left the show believing the allegory rather than just appreciating it for what it is.
Some of us believe that life itself is the show and that we have an opportunity to meet the Director!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Perdition, posted 07-10-2009 12:33 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Rahvin, posted 07-10-2009 2:31 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 96 of 531 (514679)
07-10-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Rahvin
07-10-2009 2:31 PM


Confirmation Bias
Rahvin writes:
Is it good or bad to accept allegory and myth as objective fact without evidence, Phat? Do you believe that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is an historical account of the finding of the Holy Grail? Why, or why not?
It depends. For one thing, I occasionally accept a perceived experience as valid even if I don't have evidence.
I realize that Indiana Jones was made a book and a movie so I know it is meant to be a fable. Much of organized religion is the same way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Rahvin, posted 07-10-2009 2:31 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Bailey, posted 07-10-2009 8:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 100 of 531 (514710)
07-11-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Bailey
07-11-2009 8:31 AM


Re: The Song Remains the Same
quote:
Although the plots change, many of the cultural motifs remain the same.
None of the other animals can do this!
Lets change direction for a moment, though. I have shown all of you many video clips of the really bad charismatics...the P.T. Barnum hucksters and the fanatically insane! Lets critique some of the "better" evangelical Pastors for a moment. Here are some of the better ones of the bunch:
How Can I Be Right With God? Part A Alistair Begg is one of the saner charismatics.(if he even considers himself charismatic I do not know )
Charles Stanley
Wicked World, Angry God John MacArthur is respected in fundie circles as being one of the better Bible teachers.
Edited by Phat, : fixed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 8:31 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 2:23 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 102 of 531 (514747)
07-11-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Bailey
07-11-2009 2:23 PM


Re: The Song Remains the Same
Bailey writes:
Alistair Begg ... is he that ol' Irish fella ?
If so, I enjoy much of his commentary ...
Scottish, I believe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 2:23 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Bailey, posted 07-11-2009 10:37 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 117 of 531 (515757)
07-21-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by onifre
07-16-2009 12:27 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Onifre writes:
Faith is the hardest thing to overcome. I've never had it so I wouldn't know, but it does seem that "letting go" is quite a hard accomplishment.
Yet it does not seem to be that hard to let go of all rationality.
Observe:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 07-16-2009 12:27 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Brian, posted 07-21-2009 3:31 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:49 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 124 of 531 (515921)
07-22-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by onifre
07-21-2009 1:49 PM


Marjoe
Fascinating. I still believe that there are preachers who are genuine and who don't lie to themselves or others. Some would argue, however, that simply by believing we lie to ourselves. I of course would disagree. Honestly, my belief often conflicts with rationality, but I don't always see it as necessary for rationality to always prevail. There is some value in cultural myth and belief, and possibly even some truth in it.
Edited by Phat, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:49 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 07-22-2009 12:12 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 126 of 531 (533307)
10-29-2009 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brian
07-07-2009 11:04 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Brian writes:
But what he(Bishop Spong) is promoting Phat is NOT Christianity.
If he was honest he would admit that he had been following a pile of crap for years, and now he would like to search for some other answers because Christianity is wrong.
He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Why cant he just admit that Christianity is wrong?
And yes, all religious people have something missing.
What is Christianity, then? Is there an agreed upon definition that all agree with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brian, posted 07-07-2009 11:04 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 8:16 AM Phat has replied
 Message 128 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 8:18 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 129 of 531 (533580)
11-01-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by iano
11-01-2009 8:16 AM


Re: An obvious crook and liar
Iano writes:
Spong a Christian? It's hard to know - given his view on the teaching of the Christan church. Whatever his exposure has been, it doesn't appear to have been to the gospel of grace.
The gospel of grace is an interesting topic unto itself. We can get to that after addressing Spong. Your link was an accurate one! Spong definitely adheres to the stuff Wiki stated. Here is my beliefs surrounding Spongs theology:
Wiki writes:
Twelve points for Reform
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.
Phats belief writes:
I see no reason why we can't define God any way that we choose. Personally, I believe, though cannot prove that I have a personal relationship..or at least an open ear..to the living God expressed through Jesus Christ(whom I believe to be alive today)
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.
Again, I disagree..but am willing to discuss the reasoning and question my beliefs. I believe that God does not mind me questioning.
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.
Spong has a point here. The premise of the story can be questioned. Much of what is taught is based on human interpretation.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
The Virgin Birth is a belief, yet explains how the impossible can be possible. It is not something to be tossed aside lightly.
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.
The very idea of supernatural is not scientific. Spong would have us bow to logic, reason, and reality and to throw away our belief in the supernatural. Not an easy nor comfortable option for most of us.
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.
Questioned? Perhaps. Dismissed? No.
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.
Where does he get this idea of cannot?
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.
Again, a bunch of babble from Spong. I would have to hear the full context and support from his argument before commenting here.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
I agree that if God is living and active, we should not limit ourselves to the revealed standard of the written word. OTOH, we should not allow ourselves to redefine God in our own image either. Should we???
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
Prayer has no limitations nor standards. It is simply understood as communication between God and individuals. No judgment should be made one way or the other, IMHO.
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.
Spong has a point here, and I think that its legitimate to question what we have been taught regarding this.
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.
I agree also with the last question. People will be judged on their behavior and on what they could have done versus what they have done, unless Grace is a factor. Now lets talk about the gospel of grace, shall we? Divine Grace Comments, Ian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 8:16 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by iano, posted 11-01-2009 4:36 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 136 of 531 (533977)
11-04-2009 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Phage0070
11-02-2009 3:32 PM


Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Iano writes:
Phat might be expected to believe as I believe on the matter of lost men being ruled by satan. If he believed that then my point might resonate with him. It can't be expected to resonate with you (unless of course you believe the Bible on the matter of Satans dominion over you - for the sake of discussion)
Phage0070 writes:
Look, I don't care! Just because he believes as you do that unbelievers are on the side of Satan does not make your thought process logical. It can resonate all you want, but it is still poor thinking!
I used to be very much a believer in the Satanic influence argument, but cannot find enough evidence for it in the Bible, so, for the purposes of this particular argument, I will state that I believe that people..be they believers or unbelievers, are legally and practically responsible for their behavior and cannot nor should not be allowed to use Satan as an excuse. This does not mean that I am 100% convinced that Satan does notexist or that humans are not prone to practice evil behavior...be it greed, selfishness, or territorial dominance.
One question for Iano: IF the hypothesis was confirmed that lost men were ruled by Satan whereas "found" men were rescued solely by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, it would follow that the overall behavior of said found men would be measurably better than that of their lost counterparts. Sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise. I know a lot of people who could arguably claim to be saved, and yet I see that they struggle with evil tendencies as much as any lost group does. It may be true that they drink alcohol, smoke and gamble a bit less, and that they are more faithful to their wives, but there is no definite measurable evidence that this is so.
You may argue that behavior need not nor should not be an indicator of salvation, and I'll go with that for a moment. IF God only chooses those whom chose Him, I maintain that this should be questioned...and find no evidence that God would object.
If, as Phage0070 maintains, God is nothing but an illusion of the human mind, I might remind him that if he is right, nothing I could ever say would prove otherwise, yet if he is wrong, no amount of logic would refute nor correct that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Phage0070, posted 11-02-2009 3:32 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Phage0070, posted 11-04-2009 11:35 AM Phat has replied
 Message 139 by iano, posted 11-04-2009 1:45 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 138 of 531 (534025)
11-04-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Phage0070
11-04-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
My argument is that you insist that we label God as an imaginary fantasy, whereas i say that you don't have that right to frame the issue in such a context. You are approaching the debate asserting God to be entirely within human imagination, whereas I am suggesting that IF God exists, no amount of imagination can refute the fact.
Keyword: IF
Not keyword: Imagination
The issue needs to be framed from an agnostic point of view...where God is possible.(apart from our imagination)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Phage0070, posted 11-04-2009 11:35 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Phage0070, posted 11-04-2009 2:23 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 148 of 531 (534057)
11-04-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phage0070
11-04-2009 2:29 PM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Phage0070 writes:
I blame my opponents for taking stances that are unfalsifiable.
Now we are getting somewhere! If, in fact, you are an atheist, you too have taken a stance that is unfalsifiable...so I will concede the argument that God has to possibly exist.
Phage0070 writes:
I know you may not be a fan of the fact but reality *can* be distinguished from imagination. Illusions don't have to fool people forever.
Very well, fine. For the sake of argument, I'll admit that my idea of God is an illusion. Shall we go on?
Iano writes:
Being born again doesn't mean you don't sin. Nor is it expected that you won't sin. Being born again is the beginning of a journey in which Gods desire and aim is that you move from away from your old ways and head down the narrow path towards Gods ways. Being narrow, it is very easy to wander off it that path.
How you do is up to you, at the end of the day, and provision is made for dealing with the fact that many of the saved will end their lives not having traveled very far along the path set out for them. There is such a thing as greater and lesser in heaven and ones earthly work appears to be the way in which heavenly reward is assigned.
So for the sake of argument, lets assume that repentance and salvation are human concepts and that neither God nor Satan are in the picture. The only difference is that instead of God nullifying Satans stranglehold, both cancel each other out. (not to suggest Dualism, mind you) What aspect of human behavior has to change for this to be a possibility?
Iano writes:
a found man eagerly telling the world the good news.
Bingo. There no longer would be any good news to tell. Humans would still do their very best with what they had to work with.
It would not involve a works based Gospel since for the sake of this argument there was no gospel.
Finally, upon dying, the argument would become null and void and humanity may be judged on their actions rather than their professions. Which leads to a question: IF God did exist at that point, would humans be judged simply for ignoring Him while they were alive?? Why would God care, if we tried to do our very best at resisting our base impulses??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phage0070, posted 11-04-2009 2:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Phage0070, posted 11-04-2009 9:48 PM Phat has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024