Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional
Message
From
20/09/2005 22:28:08
 
 
General information
Forum:
Politics
Category:
Articles
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01049590
Message ID:
01051527
Views:
22
Peter,

>>Hi Peter,
>>
>>Please to 'meet' you. I used to hang out here a lot and get involved in these discussion but circumstances, etc caused me to forego the fun. <g>
>>
>>I'll answer you below.
>>
>>>>Hi Bret,
>>>>
>>>>Well, Dragan seemed to be interested in the science approach. I thought he might find it interesting reading. The Case for Christ is a bit more problematic for me to recommend in a case like this. The whole set of concepts of God, man's responsibility to God, God's right to expect certain attitudes & actions, etc all come from the notion that there actually IS a god, which is a sort of 'first step', so to speak. If you can then get someone to at least entertain the notion of the possibility of 'a god' you must then, in the interest of intellectual honesty, show them the philisophical 'connection' and basis in thought if they are again so inclined. And then one needs to discover that this 'god' is a personal god, not impersonal. If you can get there then you need to have a discussion about what constitutes real 'knowing' and how one can really know (experiential & intellectual - gnosis & ouides respectively) this God. Then you need to go through several 'layers' where they sort
>>through
>>>>the issues of evil and death and so forth that thinking people will always have at this point. And on & on..
>>>>
>>>>What makes me laugh are those who think that Christianity is for non-thinkers. LOL
>>>
>>>Doug,
>>>
>>>For the children of many believers all these steps are probably not needed. So, I guess those children can adequately be described as, what you call, non-thinkers. Their reasoning is: "Of course there exists a God!!!!"
>>>I know that other believers do their best to let their children think a lot about it.
>>>
>>>As for the adults who try a Christian conversion, I think that you describe well the steps that they have to take. But the steps sound forced to me. I think it is indeed a hard job for a not-yet-believer to make a new view of the world in the brain that incorporates the idea of an existing God. It must be as hard as redefining everything in order to validate the notion that time doesn't exist. (There is a tribe in Brazil where time is not part of their language. They don't have the notions 'tomorrow' and 'yesterday'.)
>>
>>Well, I think you sort of put your finger on a VERY important issue: Choice.
>
>Did I? I'm not aware of that, but I can see how you come to that idea. But honestly, I really did put a finger on something else: rationalization. Pity you didn't see that. I guess I should have been more clear here.

Well, there is certainly enough of that to go around, isn't there. <g> However, just because you disagree with someone else that is not a 'proof' that they are rationalizing I'd think. They will think the same of you. What has to happen is to find a way to get to the next step, real communication.

>
>
>>To attempt to force someone else to belives is totally absurd. That is, I would think, far different than engaging others in public discourse on spiritual issues.
>
>Agree.
>
>
>>The problem as I see it would be two-fold: Those on the faith side who are inexperienced, unlearned, perhaps a little too eager, some actualy hateful (not a good thing), and so forth. Those on the other side can be equally stupid in their remarks.
>
>Agree.
>
>
>>The bottom line from theposition of what I'd call Historic Christianity, not the bastardized versions that are around us everywhere, is that God CHOSE to give man free will. Man CHOSE, against God' instrustions to assert his will in opposition to God's will. (What we call sin - an old Latin archery term for 'missing the mark')> God, being just MUST exact a payment for this. However, from the HC position God Himself paid the proce for man's sins. So, to gain forgiveness one must repent (translation from Greek essentially means 'agree with') and ask for this free gift. No one can deserve is and as such cannot lay burdens onothers (see where the modern churches are missing the idea now? <g>)
>
>What is Historic Christianity? Is that regular Catholicism and Protestantism?

Well, I swiped the phrase from the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer. Essentially his definition would be something like this; "Christianity as defined by Christ & the Apostles". Now, I FULLY realize that many many groups claim to have this definition but the definisiotns are often quite different. Not a pretty picture. And the 'church' has really screwed up over the last 2,000 year big tim IMO. SOmething like 85% of all the persecutons the Jewish people have endured has come from 'the church', so it's easy to understand why they may be lacking trust and wary of 'christians'.

It's a big subject Peter but what often happens is that the response is equally non-discerning.

So, I would define 'Historic Christianity' as that which Jesus & the Apostles taught and precious little else.

>For the rest of your explanation: I don't believe in any God, so for me there is no situation of a God who gave me the opportunity to choose. If you think otherwise, then you make a logical mistake.

Well, I understand your point. As I have mentioned before it has always baffled me why athiests get so upset that others want to believe in god. While I ache for those who reject god and what He has provided I do recognize that I cannot force anyone to believe something they do not wish to believe. What I do hope to do is perhaps convince a few and reach a few but you will notice I never will consciousley berate you or put you down wven though I would disagree with you. How in the world can I talk with someone if I am unwilling to listen?

>
>
>>Love is not love when forced.
>
>Agree.
>
>>Choice MUST be honored.
>
>By whom?

Well, for love to BE love is must be given, not taken.

>
>>Sop, here's the deal: God gives man CHOICE, mann chhoses badly, God pays the price and SOME will CHOOSE to return to God.
>>
>>No one is being forced - and that's why I really dislike it when foks try to force others to believe soemthing. (Same for Islam btw, or someothers I won't go onto here)
>>
>>Those that choose to reject God.. Well, he will honor that choice. Those that choose to accept what God has offered will receive it.
>
>I don't reject God, because I cannot reject something that doesn't exist. Similar: I don't hate God, because I cannot hate something that doesn't exist. I don't choose against God, because... well, hopefully you got the picture.

See above. <s>

>
>
>>So, we all make our choice. The children of believes must make their own choice. No coattails. As far as the adults go, you are actually more correct thanyou might imagine. SOmething like 82% of all believers make their decision for Christ in their teenage years. Seems our brains get crusty as we get older and changing our thinking is, as you suggest, an enormous amount of work. Still, I would always ecourage folks to challenge their thought processes and as there IS ample proof it seems such a shame to not do so.
>
>Doug, you are a (parttime, unpaid) missionary, you know that. I don't mind. It is your right indeed. I can only hope that, on the other hand, you are willing to listen to the arguments of the atheist missionaries who want to challenge YOUR thought processes.

See above again.. <bg> I love the challenge.

Best,

DD

>
>
>
>>>[snip]
Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.
Previous
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform