Charismatic Chaos

GDR writes: OK, but I'm asking what it is that you believe.

And, in case you didn't notice, I have not answered. What I believe is irrelevant to anyone but me.

AbE: Of course asking why I believe is a valid question and I have tried repeatedly to answer that.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

jar writes: And, in case you didn't notice, I have not answered. What I believe is irrelevant to anyone but me.

Yes I did notice. That is the point. You spend considerable time attacking what other people believe without having the courage to talk about what you believe.

People like Phat, Faith and even the atheists on this forum do have the courage to make themselves vulnerable by putting their beliefs out there. You attack their beliefs, often in very patronizing and insulting language, while hiding in the weeds with your own beliefs whatever they are.

GDR writes: You spend considerable time attacking what other people believe without having the courage to talk about what you believe.

And that was simply a sophomoric stupid thing for you to say.

I have posted what I believe here many times over many years. But what I believe is still irrelevant.

And no, I do not attack others beliefs but instead ask why they believe what they believe.

Learn to read and comprehend. I believe you can do that.

Understand, I try very hard to never be unintentionally rude.

AbE: To offer more help

As an Anglican you are familiar with the "I believes" I imagine.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

jar writes: Understand, I try very hard to never be unintentionally rude.

jar writes: And that was simply a sophomoric stupid thing for you to say. - Learn to read and comprehend. I believe you can do that.

Hmmmm

Pray: Dwell intentionally with God each day

jar writes: Have I ever mentioned Jesus' teachings?

Yes. And one thing that is evident is that you base your world view on Matthew 25 and have reinforced ringos similar philosophy. You have shown many other things of course. You are a unique teacher in that few if any of the other Bible teachers I know teach personal responsibility above Holy Communion and relationship. GDR has a point in that you criticize Biblical Christians (as if they could be lumped together) and the philosophy of trusting and following Jesus. Why should we even try to explain it to you? We don't need to explain much to each other.

jar writes: Have I ever mentioned the fact the one of the purposes of the BCP is to bring worship into the house beyond some weekly event and make it part of the daily life?

Yes, and I fully agree with you on that. Religion (Belief) should not be a continual gathering with ones "club" or "tribe" simply to drum up more money or engage in emotional overload. If you have reemphasized one core element of teaching, it is that Christianity is about what we do.

GDR does have a point, though. You are often critical and occasionally a wee bit arrogant. We still love ya though...ya old texan.

Learn to think Phat.

OK. Convince me why it would be helpful for me to throw God away and what precisely that would mean in regard to thinking.

Slogan cards are for the little minds.

Slogan Cards are like Cliff Notes. They help one to focus on what they have already learned. They only work if you read the original book.

We don't necessarily need to know what you believe. We are more interested in why you believe it, how you arrived at your conclusions, and why you--unique among Christians we know--cant simply accept what many others accept without not only questioning it but trashing it. Yes, many CCoI do need to learn how to think, for their own good and edification. But were they to listen to your advice, they would not understand why their beliefs are but those of a huge con game and why they would ever be asked to throw away their precious God...Who represents their common hope for the future.

It would seem to follow that if you advocated God simply as a symbolic ritual and mythos, you are in fact not a believer. You can say you are, and you can retreat into the domain of personal business, but you cant convince us that you believe the way that we believe.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Phat writes: And one thing that is evident is that you base your world view on Matthew 25 and have reinforced ringos similar philosophy. Y

No Phat, once again you misrepresent what I have said. Were the graineries in Matt 25?

Phat writes: We are more interested in why you believe it, how you arrived at your conclusions, and why you--unique among Christians we know--cant simply accept what many others accept without not only questioning it but trashing it.

And there is that nonsense again. Phat, I have posted my beliefs over and over again here at EvC but it seems you and some others are incapable of reading them or retaining the information for more that 15 seconds.

Phat writes: You can say you are, and you can retreat into the domain of personal business, but you cant convince us that you believe the way that we believe.

Thank God I do not believe the way you believe.

As I told GDR I try very hard not to be unintentionally rude.

Phat writes: Convince me why it would be helpful for me to throw God away and what precisely that would mean in regard to thinking.

I cannot and have no reason to convince you to throw God away but can only repeat the possible reasons that you should; even though you know the reasons but admit that you do not like them. There is no need even to repeat them yet again Phat, you often repeat them yourself. You do not want a God that says you have to do it on your own and that God is NOT gonna clean up after you again.

Edited by jar, : there needs to be a "k" in thank

OK You say that you are clear about what you believe. I asked a simple question about your belief. Not what you know.

GDR writes: It seems to me that with your first statement it sounds as if you feel that God has simply left us to run the show and that there is now no connection between God and this world.---Do you believe that there is a Holy Spirit as in the still small voice of God?

You replied:

jar writes: Again, I see absolutely no way to take that beyond some personal belief not founded on any evidence or to determine who that small voice might be other than testing the content against logic, reason and reality. In that case the actual source of the voice is irrelevant.

We aren't dealing with scientific knowledge. We are simply talking about what you believe or have faith in. Your response is hardly clear.

Is God deistic in that He no longer has any influence in our world of space and time, or are you theistic in your beliefs, believing that God does still interact in this world?

GDR writes: Is God deistic in that He no longer has any influence in our world of space and time, or are you theistic in your beliefs, believing that God does still interact in this world?

I honestly have no idea and can see no possible way to answer that. It really is irrelevant. I'm not even sure it has any meaning.

It isn't that hard. As a Christian I believe that God has not initiated life here and then left us on our own. I do believe that God does interact with our consciousness with His still small voice gently nudging us to do the right thing. We have the freedom to ignore that voice to whatever degree we want but that it is still there. Do I know this is true? Absolutely not. It is what I believe.

Again I am asking what it is you believe. I am not asking what it is you know.

And again, I am telling you that it is simply irrelevant and hardly worth any more time or effort. There is absolutely no way to know about any such source and so regardless of whether or not you believe that the small quiet voice is God it is up to you to test the content against logic, reason and reality. Even the direct voice of God is not beyond questioning.

jar writes: And again, I am telling you that it is simply irrelevant and hardly worth any more time or effort. There is absolutely no way to know about any such source and so regardless of whether or not you believe that the small quiet voice is God it is up to you to test the content against logic, reason and reality. Even the direct voice of God is not beyond questioning.

So you're saying then that your agnostic.

GDR writes: So you're saying then that your agnostic.

Once again you simply show your inability to read or to retain what you read longer than 15 seconds.

I am a believer, an Episcopalian and I am familiar with the "I believes".

But all that is irrelevant. Regardless of who we believe the source might be we are charged to test the content against logic, reason and reality.

Remember all the times I have discussed Genesis 18 here?

Edited by jar, : wrong key

Our friendly Texan has stated many times that he is a believer. You ask if he is agnostic. Let's ask Mr. Dictionary!

Mr.Dictionary writes: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. skeptic doubter questioner doubting Thomas challenger scoffer cynic unbeliever disbeliever nonbeliever rationalist nullifidian

Of course, the record shows that jar says he is a believer. Perhaps you should ask him why he does not fit the definition that the Dictionary has for an agnostic. Perhaps his idea of belief differs notably from yours or mine.

He likely will defend his believer status by saying he is a member of an established club. That he attended Christian schools and was raised in a Christian home. and yet, like the definition, he says that there is no way that we can know God. The Socratic teachers are strong in this one.

Add by edit: He has us though in that, unlike the definition, he does claim faith.

I would argue that he has faith in his ability to be responsible and fulfill the charge. Unlike myself, he won't embrace belief without evidence.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

jar writes: we are charged to test the content against logic, reason and reality.

The content of what? Of the books, we have read? The priests we have learned from? The teachers? What about the content of our own preconceived notions, beliefs, and hopes and dreams?

What if God is illogical, often felt to be unreasonable, and not discernible in reality?

Would you ever then choose agnosticism in the strict definition of the word?

Phat writes: The content of what? Of the books, we have read? The priests we have learned from? The teachers? What about the content of our own preconceived notions, beliefs, and hopes and dreams?

Yes to all of the above but above all we need to question our own preconceived notions, beliefs, and hopes and dreams.

Phat writes: What if God is illogical, often felt to be unreasonable, and not discernible in reality?

Think Phat, think. Your statement presupposes that it is possible to know those things about God and yet again, what does the evidence show? Look at the characteristics of the God characters in the Bible as a beginning point and then look beyond. How about a God who lost his eye and the lost eye set out on an independent journey and created all the original people of Egypt.

We've been over this many times Phat. The God of Genesis 1 fits your criteria as does the entirely different God of the Exodus folk tales.

Have people believed in all of those Gods?