The Barbarian Invasion (Review Part 1)
"The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity" - Erwin McManus
A couple of months ago my pastor handed me a book entitled, The Barbarian Way by Erwin Raphael McManus. After looking at the cover (don't ever judge a book by its cover!) and reading the author's bio, I immediately passed the book off as some post-modern, emerging church gar-bage that I didn't care to read. However, a few weeks ago, as I looked at the book occupying the same spot on my desk as it had been doing for a month now, I figured I'd at least give it a shot and see if I could glean some good ideas out of it. After reading through half of the book, I must say my opinion of it, and McManus, is very surprising: with this work, the author is on to something.
The book is about "unleashing the untamed faith within." At first I thought this idea was going to be similar to Eldredge's Wild at Heart, which has certain premises that I heavily disagree with. However, it's not. McManus claims that to live as a Christ-follower (he does not like to use the institutionalized word "Christian") is to live a "barbaric life." What does that mean? Well, that question is what the book is about. The work is divided into four parts. This post will deal with the first one.
Chapter One is entited "The Barbarian Invasion" where McManus introduces his ideology. He immediately got my attention by stating that he has an exact replica of the sword that Sir William Wallace used during his revolution, hanging in his house. I thought to myself, "Self, is he really going to compare being a Christian to what William Wallace (my long long ancestor) fought for? That's kind of...well, barbaric." McManus' point here is that "if you are a follower of Christ, then you are called to fight for the heart of your king (which is what the Scots did after Wallace and (later) King Robert the Bruce's death)." McManus states: "It's hard to imagine that Jesus would endure the agony of the cross just to keep us in line. Jesus began a revolution to secure our freedom." What freedom is this? I suspect he is talking about freedom from the bondage of this sinful world which we live in.
McManus then notes: "Perhaps the tragedy of our time is that such an overwhelming number of us who declare Jesus as Lord have been domesticated - or, if you will, civilized...we have lost the passion and power of that raw, untamed and primal faith." I think McManus makes a valid point here. Historically, the church has always seemed to drift into a big, fat, vat of complacency when times are good.
The following thought, however, is an even more excellent one: "The barbarian way is about love, intimacy, passion, and sacrifice. Barbarians love to live and live to love. For them God is life, and their mission is to reconnect humanity to Him (bold mine). Their passion is that each of us might live in intimate communion with Him who died for us. The barbarian way is a path of both spirit and truth. The soul of the barbarian is made alive by the presence of Jesus."
The final paragraph of the first chapter is my favorite and sets the tone for the rest of the book and shows the heart of McManus in this work: "Jesus is being lost in a religion bearing His name. People are being lost because they cannot reconcile Jesus' association with Christianity. Christianity has become docile, domesticated, civilized. We have forgotten that there is a kingdom of darkness stealing the hopes and dreams and souls of a humanity without God. It is time to hear the barbarian call, to form a barbarian tribe, and to unleash the barbarian revolt. Let the invasion begin..."
Next post - Part 2 - The Barbarian Call
posted by Charlie Wallace at
2:56 PM
43 Comments:
Charlie,
I hate to do this on another post, but I wrote a response to the "agnostic avengers" (very creative) on the "Wisdom of God in a Wise World" post.
I'm interseted to continue the discussion...
PS Charlie, hope that things are going well in SC. I'd love to talk with you about life as a pastor.
Ross
I don't feel like studying right now so i'll bite.
"My dad was a pretty good one growing up. I knew that even if I
couldn't figure out why he wanted me to do a particular action, I
could trust that he had my welfare as his goal. I had a child's faith
in my dad. In an analogous way, we are to have faith in our heavenly
father. But notice at the same time, this is a REASONABLE FAITH. I
know that my heavenly father has greater love for me than any earthly
father could ever have, so I put my faith in him confidently, just
like a child would."
It amuses me that you make a wild analogy and expect it to be taken as true. In a child's eyes why would faith in santa be any less reasonable than faith in god?
McFeely - response will be on the original thread
exactly. how is faith reasonable. the whole poitn of faith is that you just believe something despite a lack of physical evidence. so you might believe in heaven, but you cant prove that it does or doesnt exist. so you'd have to have faith instead of reason.
and thats why i keep commenting. you people seem to merge faith into reason so that it informs your decision and opinions in real life. if there was a vote today on the issue of allowing gay marriage, i'd bet you'd vote against it bc of something you believe to be true, but cant prove. and bc you cant prove it, why should you be allowed to force other people to conform to your belief system?
so please, answer mcfeelys question by figuring out how a child like faith, is equal to reason.
** For some reason, I couldn't get this to post on the discussion under the Wisdom of God" post, so if it's OK with you Charlie, I'll put it here. But now I see why you were ready to end the conversation. :-)
McFeely,
To just say that an analogy amuses you is not an argument against a position. I believe that it is completely reasonable to believe that we have a God in heaven who loves us. For a philosophically astute defense of the reasonableness of the Christian Faith, you can check out "Scaling the Secular City" by J P Moreland (or a plethora of other books that I can recommend). All you've said is you think that's funny. But usually someone makes fun of a position because they can't argue against the postion. Surely that's not the case here, is it?
I do agree with you that if parents present the existence of Santa Claus as really true and not just a good story, then they are not being truthful with their children. I personally do not plan on telling my kids that there is a Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole. But I will tell my kids that there is a God who is really there, who loves them and who wants them to be in a personal relationship with him through His son Jesus Christ. I'll tell them this because I believe that this is TRUE.
I think that you hit on a good point. Jesus says that we can generally trust our parents, even though they are not perfect. He then argues that we would be even MORE REASONABLE to trust God, because he is morally perfect.
Dantzler,
You said,
“the whole poitn of faith is that you just believe something despite a lack of physical evidence.”
Couple of comments. First, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you’re being forgetful, but in a previous conversation I’ve pointed out that your explication of “faith” is not at all what most orthodox Christians mean by faith. We were talking about dictionary definitions (which is not always the best approach to defining a term, but I played along) and I pointed out that my dictionary has as a definition of faith as
"A CONFIDENT BELIEF IN THE TRUTH, VALUE, OR TRUSTWORTHINESS OF A PERSON, IDEA, OR THING."
So “faith” is not to be set against “reason”. Instead, faith is a confident trusting in something.
I’ve written more on the subject at http://donnierossparker.blogspot.com/2006/01/biblical-understanding-of-faith.html
Second, I want to make sure that you’re not saying that a statement has to be empirically verifiable in order to be reasonable. Do you really intend to say that the only way you can know something is through physical evidence, and if you don’t have that you just have to have “faith” (to use the term with your meaning)?
"To just say that an analogy amuses you is not an argument against a position."
Thank you, I only have a fifth grade education. To say something amuses me means exactly what it says.
"I believe that it is completely reasonable to believe that we have a God in heaven who loves us."
And you have every right to believe anything you want. But lets go back to what I was originally commenting on.
""My dad was a pretty good one growing up. I knew that even if I
couldn't figure out why he wanted me to do a particular action, I
could trust that he had my welfare as his goal. I had a child's faith
in my dad. In an analogous way, we are to have faith in our heavenly
father. But notice at the same time, this is a REASONABLE FAITH. I
know that my heavenly father has greater love for me than any earthly
father could ever have, so I put my faith in him confidently, just
like a child would."
So here you are equating your faith in your father with your faith in god. How could someone possibly say that this is a wild analogy? Maybe because you grew up with your dad, have talked to him, gone to dinner with him, been punished by him, and I would assume know him pretty well. This allows you to make a judgement on your faith in him. Right now you're thinking, "but wait, I know god too." No you don't. You believe that you know god, but there is no presentable evidence to support it.
"I do agree with you that if parents present the existence of Santa Claus as really true and not just a good story, then they are not being truthful with their children. I personally do not plan on telling my kids that there is a Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole. But I will tell my kids that there is a God who is really there, who loves them and who wants them to be in a personal relationship with him through His son Jesus Christ. I'll tell them this because I believe that this is TRUE."
You can teach your kids whatever you want.
"I think that you hit on a good point. Jesus says that we can generally trust our parents, even though they are not perfect. He then argues that we would be even MORE REASONABLE to trust God, because he is morally perfect."
Yeah, but you've got to take his word. I'd agree with him if he said "It's more reasonable to trust someone that is morally perfect."
"So “faith” is not to be set against “reason”. Instead, faith is a confident trusting in something."
Then what is a REASONABLE FAITH?
"Second, I want to make sure that you’re not saying that a statement has to be empirically verifiable in order to be reasonable. Do you really intend to say that the only way you can know something is through physical evidence, and if you don’t have that you just have to have “faith” (to use the term with your meaning)?"
Now I'm not speaking for Trey here, but this is exactly what I believe. I don't see how anyone can dispute it. I know 2 + 2 = 4. I have faith that my parents love me.
Mcfeely,
You are honestly saying that you don't really, truly know that your parents do or do not love you. You're kidding right? If you say is true, then it is impossible to KNOW anything about reality other than things like 2+2=4. If this is the case, then it is wrong for you to make value statements regarding any action (or anyone else for that matter). Therefore, you and dantzler commenting on the situation in the Middle East is utterly ridiculous. All you have is faith that one position or the other is right. You cannot know that it is.
"You are honestly saying that you don't really, truly know that your parents do or do not love you."
Based on their actions I assume they do. But I cannot truly know if the do or do not. That is only something that they know.
" then it is impossible to KNOW anything about reality other than things like 2+2=4."
Yes. But we can make assumptions. I don't truly know that getting my leg cut off would hurt, because I've never experienced it. But I can assume it would hurt because it hurts when I get cut.
"If this is the case, then it is wrong for you to make value statements regarding any action (or anyone else for that matter)"
No. You shouldn't cut of someones leg. Why? See above.
"Therefore, you and dantzler commenting on the situation in the Middle East is utterly ridiculous."
First of all we are not the same person nor has he commented on the subject. So I don't know how you can throw him in here. Secondly, I'm begenning to think that they teach people in seminary that the way you say something is more important that what you actually say. Your post and it's little method of reasoning sounds nice, but makes no sense.
"If you say is true, then it is impossible to KNOW anything about reality other than things like 2+2=4. If this is the case"
Your statement is not true, therefore everything after it is "utterly ridiculious." I know that I like sandwiches. This allows me to make assumptions.
"All you have is faith that one position or the other is right. You cannot know that it is."
It seems like a religious person wouldn't be knocking faith so much. How do you know that the position of Christianity is right?
McFeely,
Let me start by saying that you've made some important comments.
"First of all we are not the same person nor has he commented on the subject. So I don't know how you can throw him in here. Secondly, I'm begenning to think that they teach people in seminary that the way you say something is more important that what you actually say. Your post and it's little method of reasoning sounds nice, but makes no sense."
I realize that you and dantzler are different people. I was simply talking about the discussions you two have been having over at his blog. Sorry for the confusion.
"But we can make assumptions. I don't truly know that getting my leg cut off would hurt, because I've never experienced it. But I can assume it would hurt because it hurts when I get cut."
Yeah, but they are just that. YOUR assumptions, not necessarily mine.
"I know that I like sandwiches. This allows me to make assumptions."
My question to you then is, can you ever make assumptions about really important things? Things like is origins of earth and the universe, our purpose here, or our understanding of history. You see, I want to know why. In your system of belief, I can't know. In fact, I can't even hope to know. Honestly, I shouldn't even try to know.
"It seems like a religious person wouldn't be knocking faith so much. How do you know that the position of Christianity is right?"
First of all, I'm not knocking faith. I'm trying to show that faith and reason don't NECESSARILY have to be separated into two realms of understanding. It seems to me that you and dantzler believe that if you have faith in something, then that something can't be a reasonable thing.
Second, as to your last question, my answer goes back to the life of Jesus Christ. What about him? Well, here is what I KNOW. A man named Jesus Christ really did live on this earth. There is extra-biblical evidence of this fact, just check out Josepheus. Ok, so Jesus lived. Now, who was he? Most people believe that he was a religious teacher of some note. Many would say that he was a virtuous man who taught many good things. Really? Here is the problem. Jesus, it appears, didn't leave us that option. Why do I say that? Well, in your experience, do many good people make claims of deity? David Corresh (sp?) ring a bell? Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." So, he was either completely crazy or completely honest (to the point of sinlessness). Now, how do I know that he wasn't just some crazy guy who made a bunch of moral statements based on a false authority? This is where history is helpful. We also know that Jesus predicted his death and more importantly his resurrection. Ok, all men die; therefore, Jesus died. We know that he died on a cross (just like he said he would). Now, how do I know that he was raised from the dead? History tells me that his followers began to spread the movement known as the Way soon after his death and "apparent" resurrection. Now experience also tells me that most people aren't willing to die, especially for something they KNOW is a lie. History again tells me that most of the apostles were martyrs. So, the apostles were either fools, which is possible, or they really knew that Jesus and his message were real. The thing you have to remember is that the disciples were with Jesus all the time. So, they knew whether or not Jesus was truly who he said he was or truly a liar. Everything else I believe about the Bible and the Christian faith flows out of what I believe about Jesus.
"Yeah, but they are just that. YOUR assumptions, not necessarily mine."
This is what I've been getting at the whole time. I know it hurts to get cut, therefore I can assume it would hurt to have my leg cut off. From there I can reason that it would hurt just about anyone to have their leg cut off because we are generally all constructed the same. Also my experience shows me that whenever I see anyone else get cut, they display the same reactions of pain as I do when I am cut. So i think it's safe to assume that the majority of people would not want to have their leg cut off. Is it true that ALL people don't want their leg cut off, no. There are weird people out there, but they are in the minority.
Now i also said that i like sandwiches. I am not able to make the same kind of assumption here as i did with the whole leg getting cut off thing. My experience shows me that different people like tastes differently. My dad likes beets, i hate them. My girlfriend likes collard greens, i do not. I like fried okra, my brother doesn't. To which i might add, how can you not like fried okra? It's seriously the best thing ever. But apparantly it's possible. So from me knowing that i liek sandwiches i am not allowed to assume that everyone else does, because of my experience.
My point is that there are assumptions that the overwhelming majority of people hold. Since nearly everyone believes them they can loosely be called truths or knowledge. Does this mean that they are definatly right? Absolutly not. I like that line in Men In Black where Tommy Lee Jones says to Will Smith 1000 years ago everyone knew the earth was the center of the universe and 500 years ago everyone knew the earth was flat... There is a difference in knowing like this, and truly knowing.
"My question to you then is, can you ever make assumptions about really important things? Things like is origins of earth and the universe, our purpose here, or our understanding of history."
Can I make assumptions about really important things? I think cutting off someones leg is pretty important. I can make assumptions about the orgins of the earth because of my understanding of science. Now sicence is one of those "everey one knew" type of things. Which is exactly what it should be. It should be evolving. Right now I beleive that the earth was formed after the big bang by a whole bunch of matter pulling together. (This is the most generalized way to describe it.) If tomorrow an overwhelming majority of scientists present evidence that it was formed by a space monster farting, then maybe i'll believe that.
"You see, I want to know why. In your system of belief, I can't know. In fact, I can't even hope to know. Honestly, I shouldn't even try to know."
You can know. I never said that you couldn't. You can know the same way I can.
"First of all, I'm not knocking faith. I'm trying to show that faith and reason don't NECESSARILY have to be separated into two realms of understanding. It seems to me that you and dantzler believe that if you have faith in something, then that something can't be a reasonable thing."
What is reasonable is subjective. So faith and reason can be intertwined to you, but not to me. To be reasonable means that a person can reason with themselves that the answer is valid. What's the best food on earth? To me fried okra seems like the only reasonable answer, but I know it's not because of my experience.
In regards to the part about jesus. You can believe whatever you want to. But i'll comment on a few things.
"So, he was either completely crazy or completely honest (to the point of sinlessness)"
I don't reach the same conclusion you do. There seem to be a number of other options.
"Well, in your experience, do many good people make claims of deity? David Corresh (sp?) ring a bell?"
I don't know anyone who thinks that they are a god. I also don't think david corresh was necessarly a bad person. Very strange, yes.
"Now experience also tells me that most people aren't willing to die, especially for something they KNOW is a lie"
Experience tells me that there are a number of people who are willing to die. We certainly do have a large military. And why do they have to know it's a lie. They might truly believe it. The hale bop people really believed they were going on a spaceship ride.
"So, the apostles were either fools, which is possible, or they really knew that Jesus and his message were real."
I agree with everything except change "knew" to "believed"
Every now and then someone should have an “ah ha!” moment where they say something and then realize that they’ve made a little mistake. Ok, so we are talking about what you can and can’t know absolutely. Now see, there are certain factual things that exist and can be proven. Lets use the cutting off of ones leg. Ok, if you were to ask me how exactly having a leg cut off felt, I wouldnt know for certain bc it has never happened to me. However, there is evidence for how I might feel if it did. For instance I know there are nerve endings throughout my body, which would sense my leg being cut off and send a signal to my brain that would give the sensation of pain. If I didnt know this fact scientifically, I could use personal experience and say that it hurt when I broke my leg, so it’ll probably hurt if it gets cut off. Based on these premises, I can say that having your leg cut off would probably hurt. Wait! I said probably, and here is why. There are numerous factors that might come into play. For instance, in times of deep stress you body releases adrenaline, which blocks your body’s pain receptors. That would mean that the actual cutting off of your leg might not hurt immediately. Or what if your leg was cut off during surgery so you were put under and just woke up with no leg.
My point is, that jeff and I are subscribing to the idea that you take all the premises that are available to you and can be verified, and then use them to come to a logical conclusion.
So here is your “ah ha” moment. You say reason and faith don’t necessarily contradict eachother. Hhhmmm, well it seems that you want to say this bc reason boosts one’s position to the secular world. Well that’s fine, but the way you actually implement reason shows how you selectively use it in some places but not in others. You sight extra biblical sources to prove jesus existed. Ok, good start. Then you say he was virtuous and whatnot, well there are multi sources for that information too, so you are doing well. But then you make a leap of faith that doesnt follow. Ok, jesus existed and he was a nice guy, but that doesnt mean that either he was crazy or the son of god. What if his words were misinterpreted? What if he didnt actually say what he did? What if it was intended as a metaphor? You say, ah, but he predicted his resurrection. Ok, show me some other non bias sources that state that was true. Now that does mean that it didnt happen, but what it does mean is that you cannot prove that it did bc all of that information is based on one source. So verify jesus’ divinity through some other account. Moreover, why should I believe that resurrection is possible. Science cant explain it, I cant explain it, is it even possible? If you answer that question with the affirmative, then you have simply taken it on faith and not reason bc you cant arrive at that conclusion logically.
Lastly, imagine a muslim. They would point to numerous muslim martyrs and their own prophet, whom they believed to have a divine message. See reason allows people to cut across culture bc everyone has reason. So a muslim can accept that it would hurt to have a leg cut off, but they would not accept that jesus and christianity are the truth and you couldnt sway their disbelief bc you cant prove that your position is true.
McFeely,
Ok, a few things in response, which by the way was a good one.
First, as to this comment: "Can I make assumptions about really important things? I think cutting off someones leg is pretty important. I can make assumptions about the orgins of the earth because of my understanding of science. Now sicence is one of those "everey one knew" type of things. Which is exactly what it should be. It should be evolving. Right now I beleive that the earth was formed after the big bang by a whole bunch of matter pulling together. (This is the most generalized way to describe it.) If tomorrow an overwhelming majority of scientists present evidence that it was formed by a space monster farting, then maybe i'll believe that."
I asked the wrong question here. Of course, one can make an assumption about anything, BUT can you really KNOW anything? So my question should have been, can you really KNOW anything about the origins and purpose of life? So that was my bad.
Second, as to this comment: "What is reasonable is subjective. So faith and reason can be intertwined to you, but not to me. To be reasonable means that a person can reason with themselves that the answer is valid."
Was my argument for Jesus based solely on reason or on faith? Or, was it a mixture of the two?
Next: "I don't reach the same conclusion you do [regarding Jesus]. There seem to be a number of other options."
What are some of the other options you see?
Next: "I don't know anyone who thinks that they are a god. I also don't think david corresh was necessarly a bad person. Very strange, yes."
Really? A man who molested many young women and even some girls isn't necessarily a bad person???
Last, and I hope this is where we spend the majority of our discussion: "Experience tells me that there are a number of people who are willing to die. We certainly do have a large military. And why do they have to know it's a lie. They might truly believe it. The hale bop people really believed they were going on a spaceship ride."
Ok, we agree that there are a number of people that are willing to die. First, let's distinguish between the hale bop folks and the disciples of Christ. The hale bop group believed that they were going to take a ride on a spaceship, but why? They didn't have any reasonable expectation of doing so. Has anyone actually taken a ride on a spaceship? Our experience, which would seem universal in this case, tells us that it is not possible. Ok, now lets move to the disciples (sorry for using apostle and disciple interchangably). The disciples of Christ were willing to die for the message of Christ. Why? Because they had seen Jesus up close and personal. They had been present at his death. They had seen the end. So, if this is the end of the story, then the disciples were worse than the hale bop group. At least the hale bop folks didn't actually know the outcome. The disciples had full knowledge of the events that had taken place and still they sacrificed their lives. For what? An absolute lie (if Jesus wasn't resurrected). Not only that, they deceived many others and sent many of them to their untimely deaths. That is tantamount to knowing what we know now about the outcome of the hale bop group and allowing them to do the same thing over again and again and again. That, my friend, is pure evil.
There is an alternative, in fact a more likely one. The same disciples who saw Jesus die also saw him alive again. Therefore, they were willing to die for what they knew was absolutely true. So, they didn't simply believe it was true. They knew it was. Simply believing wasn't an option for them because they had first-hand knowledge of the events. Your reference to the military is a good one. Do you think they are willing to die because of what they believe, an ideal? Or, is it more likely that they are willing to die because they have experienced that ideal or have first-hand knowledge in their lives?
dantzler,
One question in response to your comment and regards this part of the comment: "Ok, jesus existed and he was a nice guy, but that doesnt mean that either he was crazy or the son of god. What if his words were misinterpreted? What if he didnt actually say what he did? What if it was intended as a metaphor?"
My only question is this: why would anybody want Jesus dead? Why did the Jews want to crucify him? If all he was doing was sharing some harmless, moralistic teachings, then why kill him? It seems to me pretty obvious that no one was accusing him of immorality (like adultery or murder), which was punishable by death in Jewish culture (per the OT Law). So, why did the Jews want him dead? We know that they did through Josepheus. So, WHY?
I'm not really a part of this conversation (and I'm really enjoying it) but I'd like to interject something in response to something McFeely mentiond:
"I can make assumptions about the orgins of the earth because of my understanding of science. Now sicence is one of those "everey one knew" type of things. Which is exactly what it should be. It should be evolving. Right now I beleive that the earth was formed after the big bang by a whole bunch of matter pulling together. (This is the most generalized way to describe it.) If tomorrow an overwhelming majority of scientists present evidence that it was formed by a space monster farting, then maybe i'll believe that."
I assume that by this statement, you are stating that the majority of scientists have presented 'evidence' that a bunch of matter pulled together and then 'banged' apart? What evidence do they have for this? Maybe I'm just in the dark about this fact. I thought that the Big Bang Theory was just that...a theory. Where did this matter come from? Where did the singularity come from?
I see evidence for my belief in how the world was created everyday. I believe that God simply said 'let there be light' and there was light. Where is my evidence? Well, we have light. Where is my evidence that God spoke it? Well, my evidence is that Moses wrote it down as happening that way. Why should I believe Moses? Where is his evidence? Well, he had heard the story of creation passed down from generation to generation all the way back to Adam and Eve...also he claims to have been given a Word straight from God. Based on His Word he led the Israelites from bondage out of Egypt...a supernatural event that has been recorded in history by more then just the Bible...but I digress.
anyway my question was this: How is this evidence of matter (where did it come from?) pulling together and blowing apart any more reasonable than the Bible's explanation? I don't see how it is.
michael
In regards to the last part of your post. I offer another alternative. Jesus died and was put in a tomb. That night grave robbers came at stole the body. The diciples showed up and thought "hey, he must have risen." so they said he rose from the dead. Or what if Jesus never rose from the dead, the diciples being just that, made up the rest to fufil what jesus said.
Charlie
Have we not had this discussion before? Do you expect the outcome to be any different this time around. Science submits to the fact that no one knows what was around before the big bang or where the singularity came from. It's more reasonable to me because when I use reason to figure out where the Earth came from, this is the conclusion that I come to. Do you really think that the existance of light is evidence for god creating it? If you come home to a sandwich in the fridge do you assume god put it there? That's just silly.
Mcfeely,
"In regards to the last part of your post. I offer another alternative. Jesus died and was put in a tomb. That night grave robbers came at stole the body. The diciples showed up and thought "hey, he must have risen." so they said he rose from the dead. Or what if Jesus never rose from the dead, the diciples being just that, made up the rest to fufil what jesus said."
There are two problems with this alternative. First, grave robbers steal things not bodies. Why would anyone want to steal the body of Jesus? Second, that does not give the disciples warrant to die happily and lead others to death based upon a possiblity. And, if they made up the story, why in the world would they continue to lie when they faced death? They would still be dying for what they knew was not true. It would still be a lie. People are foolish enough to die for what they KNOW to be a lie.
Excuse me, people are not foolish enough to die for what they KNOW to be a lie.
McF,
You said, "It's more reasonable to me because when I use reason to figure out where the Earth came from, this is the conclusion that I come to."
Well, when I use reason to figure out where the Earth came from I think "someone must have made it." And guess what, so did ALMOST ALL OF HUMANITY until the enlightenment. So, was all of humanity acting unreasonable until we were 'enlightened."? How prideful of us. Some type of God creating the universe was THE most reasonable explanation until science. Science has now offered a different take on things. Although, God could still use the big-bang to create the earth if he so desired.
"Do you really think that the existance of light is evidence for god creating it? If you come home to a sandwich in the fridge do you assume god put it there? That's just silly."
Yes, I do. I I came home and found a sandwich in the fridge I do assume that someone put it there. Who? Well, anyone. If I look up into the sky I think, "wow, someone had to have created that." Who? God. I don't think 'wow...some type of matter must have formed together and then exploded to create this universe." How is that reasonable? How is that a logical way of thinking? You would not have thought of that unless someone postulated that theory. That theory may be correct, but believing that something just 'formed and exploded' is much less reasonable then saying that someone or some thing did the forming and exploding. All actions have a reaction. The big bang is a reaction to something. The matter forming is a reaction to something creating the matter.
"There are two problems with this alternative. First, grave robbers steal things not bodies. Why would anyone want to steal the body of Jesus? Second, that does not give the disciples warrant to die happily and lead others to death based upon a possiblity. And, if they made up the story, why in the world would they continue to lie when they faced death? They would still be dying for what they knew was not true. It would still be a lie. People are foolish enough to die for what they KNOW to be a lie."
So coming up with a reason for grave robbers to steal a body is unreasonable. But rising from the dead is completly reasonable. Why would someone did for something they know to be a lie? to perpitrate the lie. I'm not saying it's what happened, but it's possible.
"And guess what, so did ALMOST ALL OF HUMANITY until the enlightenment. So, was all of humanity acting unreasonable until we were 'enlightened."?
Yes. Just like the whole earth being the center of the universe, earth being flat, and witchcraft as an explanation for nearly everything just to name a few. Slavery is a concept that made perfect sense to the majority of humanity and has been around longer than it has been abolished. Do you also agree with that?
" How prideful of us. Some type of God creating the universe was THE most reasonable explanation until science. Science has now offered a different take on things."
You would rathe go back to the "thunder is god being angry and natural disasters are god punishing us" days? Just because it was done in the past has absolutly no part in it's validity.
"Yes, I do. I I came home and found a sandwich in the fridge I do assume that someone put it there. Who? Well, anyone. If I look up into the sky I think, "wow, someone had to have created that." Who? God. I don't think 'wow...some type of matter must have formed together and then exploded to create this universe." How is that reasonable? How is that a logical way of thinking?
So because it's easy or "obvious" it must be right. God punishing us for our sins seems to be a much more logical explanation for earthquakes than parts of the earth's crust floating on liquid rock and bumping into each other.
"All actions have a reaction. The big bang is a reaction to something. The matter forming is a reaction to something creating the matter."
Newton's third law only applies to our universe today. Science believes that the universe before the big bang was much different than it is today.
Mcfeely,
"Why would someone did for something they know to be a lie? to perpitrate the lie. I'm not saying it's what happened, but it's possible."
Sure it is possible, BUT the question is whether or not it is probable. It doesn't seem very likely to me. Let's get back to who Jesus was. You said there were other options regarding who Jesus was. What are they? I believe that there are two options: he was crazy or he was and is exactly who he said he was. Think about it. Imagine you turn on the TV to CNN or Fox or whatever and there is a man on there that is claiming to be the God of the universe and says he can heal people and forgive them of their sins, what would you do? Sure, you might watch for a minute or two, but eventually, you would probably dismiss this guy as mildly misguided. So, Jesus was either pretty far out there, or he really was and could do all those things. He was either the Truth or a liar. What are the other possibilities?
"What are the other possibilities?"
He could have really believed that he was god, but not actually been god. The things he said could have been intended as metaphor. What is written in the bible about him could not be true.
McFeely,
I am astonished at your closed-mindedness.
The whole earth being the center of the universe was a matter of perspective. From people's point of view, it certainly appeared that the planets were revolving around the Sun. Now we know that they don't. Big deal. Witchcraft being an explanation for everything? I'm not sure what you are stating there or who has ever unamiously believed that.
You can't just ignore that most of humanity has had a reasonable faith that a God exists. For you to say that they were acting unreasonable, which is where your view would lead you, is an indictment to the 'reasonability' of all mankind. How do we know that you and the scientific community will not be considered 'unreasonable' and archaic 2,000 years from now for believing theories that may or may not hold up? You can't. You have faith in your scientists. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong.
"You would rathe go back to the "thunder is god being angry and natural disasters are god punishing us" days? Just because it was done in the past has absolutly no part in it's validity."
What? I never claimed that thunder is God being angry or that natural disasters are God punishing us. Again, this is not the point.
However, just because earthquakes happen becuase of the earth crust moving does not mean that God is still not in control of those happenings. He sets the earth in motion. God made the world, so then it is evident that He made the laws of physics as well.
"Newton's third law only applies to our universe today. Science believes that the universe before the big bang was much different than it is today."
How does it only apply to our universe today? Isn't that a convenient theory that is based on...?
"I am astonished at your closed-mindedness."
what?
"Witchcraft being an explanation for everything?"
I'll give you that one, it wasn't unanimous belief. I do like that you left out a response to the slavery one though.
"You can't just ignore that most of humanity has had a reasonable faith that a God exists. For you to say that they were acting unreasonable, which is where your view would lead you, is an indictment to the 'reasonability' of all mankind. How do we know that you and the scientific community will not be considered 'unreasonable' and archaic 2,000 years from now for believing theories that may or may not hold up? You can't. You have faith in your scientists. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong."
I neved stated that I ignore that most of humanity has had faith that god exists. How do we know that the scientific community will not be considered unreasonable? We don't. which i stated earlier. I will have my faith in scientists and you can have your faith in religion, both of which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
"What? I never claimed that thunder is God being angry or that natural disasters are God punishing us. Again, this is not the point."
The point was that people once believed this. Now they don't due to science.
"However, just because earthquakes happen becuase of the earth crust moving does not mean that God is still not in control of those happenings. He sets the earth in motion. God made the world, so then it is evident that He made the laws of physics as well."
You see. This is exactly why the discussions go in circles for days. I make a statement that is verifiable. You come back with something that is not. Of course this discussion will go no where because no matter what kind of verifiable evidence is brought up you can just say "well god is in control of everything." You state it as if it's fact. I know that you BELIEVE it to be fact, but there is no verifiable evidence, like in science.
"How does it only apply to our universe today? Isn't that a convenient theory that is based on...?"
It's not my theory. Scientific laws do not apply the same way in every setting. Theory of relativity ring a bell? In instances of extreme gravity, light does not behave the way we expect it to. Quantum physics shows that waves will react differently in the presence of an observer.
To be honest, the theory that god made everything seems a WHOLE lot more convenient than looking at the science and the math behind everything.
Mcfeely,
"To be honest, the theory that god made everything seems a WHOLE lot more convenient than looking at the science and the math behind everything."
So, now something is wrong because it is simple?? 2+2=4 is simple, but it isn't wrong.
It seems very possible to me that the God who created everything also created the laws by which science and math are governed; therefore, it is because of God that we are able to know anything at all.
Finally, are you saying that math and science can answer every question? I am fairly certain that you will answer this question, no. Why? Because you realize that science and math can't answer questions like, why are we here? What gives life meaning?
"He could have really believed that he was god, but not actually been god. The things he said could have been intended as metaphor. What is written in the bible about him could not be true."
Ok, back to Jesus. If a person believes that they are God, they are usually considered pretty nutty. In fact, Jesus would have been an anomaly in his time. The Buddha didn't claim that. Neither did Mohammed. Or Jospeh Smith. Or any other religious teacher. Also, he would have been a terrible Jew (and he was Jewish) because the chief of all sins in Judaism was and still is blasphemy. Claiming deity was as taboo as it gets.
About the metaphor thing, you have to be more specific in what you mean.
Finally, with regard to the truth or reliability of what the Bible said about him, this is why I have been pointing to the history of the church immediately following the death and "apparent" resurrection of Christ. Even if the Bible was a fabrication, how would this have effected the disciples? They wouldn't have read the Bible because they walked around with Jesus (this has been proven through the accounts of Josepheus and Tacitus). The fabrication or truthfulness of the Bible doesn't change history. We have to remember that the disciples were first-hand witnesses of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, their decisions following Christ's death seem to point toward the explanation that the accounts in the Bible are true.
"So, now something is wrong because it is simple?? 2+2=4 is simple, but it isn't wrong."
Do you read the words that I write and then just disregard their meanings while you substitute your own? This isn't even close to what i said.
"Ok, back to Jesus. If a person believes that they are God, they are usually considered pretty nutty. In fact, Jesus would have been an anomaly in his time. The Buddha didn't claim that. Neither did Mohammed. Or Jospeh Smith. Or any other religious teacher. Also, he would have been a terrible Jew (and he was Jewish) because the chief of all sins in Judaism was and still is blasphemy. Claiming deity was as taboo as it gets."
Okay. So jesus was a bad nutty jew. So is Mel Brooks.
In regards to everything else
What do you hope to come of this discussion? Do you think that because of what you say I am going to fall to my knees and become a "christian?" I don't expect you to change your views because of what i say. We all know each others' views. This conversation could go on for months without accomplishing anything.
Here's the thing McFeely... I've missed alot of this conversation lately, but one thing that keeps jumping out at me is that
1) I'm confused by your epistemology. You critique Christians for accepting the truths of God and building a worldview off of them, but then you have recently admitted that
"I will have my faith in scientists and you can have your faith in religion, both of which are sometimes right and sometimes wrong."
This just shows an inconsistency in my mind.
2) Then at other times you seem to hold to a superiority of science because it produces "verifiable" facts. 2 points...
a) Michael has been trying to show that the Christian's faith in Jesus' resurrection is based on eyewitness accounts by people who had "verifiable evidence".
b) I was indicating earlier that limiting what we can know to the empirically verifiable is a severely limited understanding of knowledge. Truths like "it is wrong to torture babies for the fun of it" and even "I have a headache" are not empirically verifiable statements (in the sense of "scientific" public verification). That's why I'm not sure that you really believe that
"this is exactly what I believe (that a statement must be empirically verifiable to be reasonable.) I don't see how anyone can dispute it. I know 2 + 2 = 4..."
In fact, it seems obvious to me that the statement "a statement must be empirically verifiable to be reasonable" cannot be true on its own criteria. I can't touch, feel, see, taste, etc this proposition. So the position is self-referently incoherent.
Finally, you're right. The discussion could go on for months... But I think that it makes a huge difference in life what a person does with the truth claims of Jesus. Jesus claimed that what a person believes about him and whether a person commits to be his follower DETERMINES one's eternal destiny.
So I have a couple of question for you.
1) Do you think that there is an importance to seek to find out the truth about whether there is purpose and meaning in life?
2) Do you think that there is a way to come to the truth on question #1 ?
In the end, I personally am not talking just to talk. I believe that finding the truth is important. I'll tell you that if you can reason with me and show me where my belief is inconsistent or even incorrect, I would hope to have the integrity to change my view.
Ross
What are you people talking about!!!
Look, mcfeely and I are saying that one uses evidence availilbe to come to a conclusion that logically follows from those premises. End of story. Is it true that sometimes the conclusion that is reached is later replaced due to a better interpretation of the information? Yes. So do we know absolutely, without even the slightest possibility of being wrong, that the conclusions of science are right? No. For instance, as mcfeely said, gravity doesnt exist in space, light doesnt act the same in under the pressure of a black hole, etc. Please please please notice that no where in this discussion have either of us made a definative statement about a so-called ‘first cause’. Who made the laws of gravity? Who set the big band in motion? Have either of us made absolute statements about this? No. So in no way are we saying that to believe that god, allah or whoever is stupid.
However, he is why we take issue with your position. You cliam with absolute certainty, without even seriously considering the fact that your position is fallible, that your view is not only true, but also superior to any other position. The point of this post was to show how christianity is superior to islam. You dismiss scientific theories like evolution as hogwash. And how do you come to sit upon your high horse? Well you say jesus must be the son of god bc the bible says so and the bible is absolutely true bc it says so. But every religion could come up with the same circular logic. The quran is the word of god and muhamod is his prophet, and I know this bc the quran tells me. Now you and every other religious person should feel free to come up with explanations of first cause, but there is no verifiable evidence to speak to the validity of that claim. Now, I know that you feel that way, but other people feel differently and how can you claim superiority over those views based on nothing more than a belief or feeling?
Now, yes, most people believe in some sort of deity. However, you are smarter than this comment. You know damn well that just bc most people believe something doesnt make it true. For instance, most people were ok with slavery, racism in general, and the inquisition. In fact, at its origin, Christianity represented only a small number of people world wide. Does the fact that most people didnt believe in it then make it wrong? No. The popularity of a view does not constitutes its truth or validity.
Next, you get all up in arms about how the life of jesus is so well accounted for that it is verifiable. Tell me something, where is all the evidence of jesus’ divinity. Eyewitness accounts. Ok, well eyewitnesses say they saw a ufo or the chupacabra. Or, when the bible was compiled, perhaps the original testimonies about jesus were edited. Some were disregarded, like the gospel of thomas. Or, how bout this, maybe all of it is a metaphor. He healed the sick by hanging out with them, and therefore removing the social stigma attached to them. Just like with the big bang or evolution, we cannot travel back and time and see these things for ourselves and therefore be certain of their truth.
Lastly, the ends of life or the purpose of life. This speaks to you sense of superiority. You have no problem telling people that your view is the only real view. So if I say that the purpose of life is to try and make the world a better place or just trying to be happy with what I do or whatever, are you going to say ‘no no, you have to give yourself to jesus’. What if I am muslim or buddhist? You called mcfeely close minded, but then you claim to have an absolute monopoly on the truth that cannot be questioned, and if you choose to go your own way, then you end up in hell. To me that is just intolerance given the name of religion.
But again, feel free to think whatever you want, but don’t then attempt to dismiss everything without a willingness to step inside the realm upon which it functions. Don’t say evolution is wrong bc god said so. Say its wrong bc the evidence suggestions a different logical conclusion. Don’t say islam is wrong bc it isnt christianity, prove its wrong internally. Look back at this, and you’ll find that neither mcfeely nor I have attempted to disprove your religion through science bc no one can prove nor disprove the existence of god. The resurrection isnt scientifically possible, but if you want to believe through faith in the divinity of jesus that it is possible go for it. It isnt the case that science is better then religion, nor vice versa. Rather, they are different. They ask different questions and pursue those questions by different means. The difference is that science is not parochial bc it functions along the lines of logic and reason, which everyone has, whereas not everyone has the same faith in jesus.
THE END
Well...since Dantzler ended his comment with "THE END," I guess he won't be responding, which is a shame because I still have a few questions for him.
1) You've stated that you do not know without a doubt that science can be completely trusted. Do you trust it at all? Do you believe in its findings? What do you belive, anyway...I don't think you've ever really told us. It' easy to try to find fault in others beliefs but let us know yours so that we may try to find fault in yours. Have YOU ever tried to step out of your realm and weigh YOUR beliefs? Doesn't seem like to me you have.
2)You state: "You cliam with absolute certainty, without even seriously considering the fact that your position is fallible, that your view is not only true, but also superior to any other position."
I don't think I've ever stated that or even implied that. I consider my position to be fallible a lot. However, then I weigh the options and go back to my beliefs. Believe it or not, I have had my beliefs challenged my whole life. I've gone back and forth on some issues but I always go back to my beliefs.
Superiority...there is a loaded word. You claim that because I believe that my faith is right that I believe I am superior. What warrant do you have to make that conclusion? I could state that your actions of coming on to this Christian blog (not sure why you keep coming on here) and trying to show us how our beliefs don't work in society and that we should think like you...well my friend, that is you being superior as well. Who are you to tell me how to think, act, and believe? Who are you to claim that my way of thinking and my intertwining of faith and reason does not work? Says who? You? Who are you?
3) What is the purpose of life? I think you know mine. I have a full grasp of what I believe it to be. What is yours? Why does mine bother you so much? Why don't you just let me believe what I want to believe and get on with it?
4)"don’t then attempt to dismiss everything without a willingness to step inside the realm upon which it functions. Don’t say evolution is wrong bc god said so"
Again...I've never done that or said that. I even said that God (big 'G,' not little 'g' - how intolerant of you) may have worked through evolution.
Finally, you conclude with the all too familiar refrain of: "The difference is that science is not parochial bc it functions along the lines of logic and reason, which everyone has, whereas not everyone has the same faith in jesus."
I'm not sure what you mean by 'parochial' or why that is a bad thing. Yes, everyone has reason. So what? Everyone may not have the same faith but then again, not everyone has the same reason. This conversation is a case in point because we have both used our different reasons to come up with two different conclusions. That is, of course, unless you have the audacity and "superiority" to claim that I am acting unreasonable in my belief in Jesus. Say it ain't so...
But what this really goes down to is the belief in the supernatural. I'm willing to be that Dantzler and McFeely do not believe that there is such a thing. Deny the supernatural and you pretty much have what our two friends, the Agnostic Avengers, believe. Why don't you believe in the supernatural? Is it that unreasonable? A lot of people believe in the supernatura. Are those billions of people acting unreasonable? Maybe...just maybe...you are the ones acting unreasonable...say it ain't so.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!?!?!?!?!
Do you just give words your own personal meaning? Do you even read what is on the screen? This was mildly entertaining for a while, but it's gotten to a point that I'm starting to believe you don't understand English. Or maybe you have a special dictionary that contains different meanings.
To quote a well-known movie, McFeely your last post "is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul." (Billy Madison)
Well boys and girls...what have we learned from our superheroes, the Agnostic Avengers? When questioned about the meaning of life, the supernatural, or any other issues that one can't explain just plead ignorance. Looks like the popular response is "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!"
Apparently, I have not made myself clear. All I'm asking is for you to answer the basic questions I just proposed? Did I write them in English? A failure to do may translate into our superheroes being completely out of touch with reality.
Answer my questions. I even numbered them for you.
Mcfeely and Dantzler,
You (Mcfeely) asked me this question earlier: "What do you hope to come of this discussion? Do you think that because of what you say I am going to fall to my knees and become a "christian?" I don't expect you to change your views because of what i say. We all know each others' views. This conversation could go on for months without accomplishing anything."
There are two things I will say about this question. One is a response, and the other is a warning. First, in response, the point of this conversation is understanding and truth. I am interested in truth. I want to know if what I believe is true or if it is intellectually dishonest. If it is the latter, then yeah for me. However, if it happens to me the former, I will admit my foolishness and stop wasting my time with it.
Ok, let's move to the warning. You're contradicting yourself. You've said that you believe that which is reasonable. Yet, in the above statement, you said basically that no matter how reasonably I present the Christian faith to you, you refuse to believe it. No amount of evidence will change your mind. Be careful not to be intellectually dishonest and logically inconsistent just because your will is hardened against a particular position. You ask us to be open-minded. Make sure to do it yourself.
Finally, Charlie is simply asking you to delinate your belief system to us. So far, all I know for sure about you two is that you believe the things that are empirically verifiable. That fails to answer the real questions of life (and in fact it fails to answer any question outside of mathematics and the hard sciences). Try this. Go to a place where common folks hang out and begin a conversation with someone, anyone. Ask them this one question: If you could know anything, what would you want to know? My guess (and I've tried this from time to time) is that they will begin to ask you questions like: Where do we come from? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Why is there evil in the world? Does God exist? What happens when we die? They aren't interested in the numbers and theories. They want answers. They desire truth and knowledge.
How would you answer them?
Sorry guys if that last comment was a bit snappy. See, I'm a sinner - a complete piece of trash. I do not posess any redeemable value in my being. All I have that is good is what God has blessed me with. Every good thing comes from God. Without Him, I'm garbage.
I get angry. I get sarcastic. I get downright mean. I'm pretty selfish, just ask my wife. My thoughts are constantly impure as well. However, through the power of the Holy Spirit, God is in the process of making me complete in Him. But, without Him, basically, I'm sinful.
What a wonderful, loving God we have who would sacrifice his own son so that we may have eternal life with him. That is grace (giving me something I don't deserve), mercy (helping someone out who is in utter need of salvation), and patience (the Lord is slow to anger).
One final question to our friends: In your personal opinion, what do you think it takes to get to Heaven? (that is, if you believe in one) This, as Michael said, is an important topic.
First michael
"You're contradicting yourself. You've said that you believe that which is reasonable. Yet, in the above statement, you said basically that no matter how reasonably I present the Christian faith to you, you refuse to believe it."
If you present anything to me in a reasonable manner, I will consider it.
"Finally, Charlie is simply asking you to delinate your belief system to us."
My belief system is exactly what I think you guys' belief system should be. Purely personal. I don't feel the need to define my beliefs to anyone because they are exactly that, my beliefs.
And now to charlie.
I enjoy billy madison as much as the next guy, but if you dont understand why I asked what you are talking about you need some help.
Trey: "But again, feel free to think whatever you want"
Charlie:"Who are you to tell me how to think, act, and believe? Who are you to claim that my way of thinking and my intertwining of faith and reason does not work? Says who? You? Who are you?
"
Charlie again: "Why don't you just let me believe what I want to believe and get on with it?
"
I'll stop here for now, but if you need me to point it out more i'll be happy to. And you calling us the agnostic avengers is like me and trey calling you guys jerry faldwell and pat robertson.
Well, I guess I need help.
"I don't feel the need to define my beliefs to anyone because they are exactly that, my beliefs."
That smells of a kind of double standard. Michael, Ross, an I have freely revealed to you our beliefs, yet you refuse to give us yours? Why? Are you scared that we will find something logically inconistent with your beliefs?
Beliefs are important and you should be PROUD to tell people your beliefs. After all, your beliefs drive how you live your life. If you're worried about us trying to find fault with your beliefs, I tell you what...I won't. I would love for you to tell us your beliefs. I promise I will not say anything about them or try to find where they break down unless you ask me to do so. Deal?
"Michael, Ross, an I have freely revealed to you our beliefs, yet you refuse to give us yours"
"Beliefs are important and you should be PROUD to tell people your beliefs"
you freely revealed your beliefs. freely. and then you say that we should be proud to publicly state our beliefs. so you are telling us how we should act or feel even though those thoughts or beliefs arent being forced on anyone.
thus, you dont have a deal. my beliefs are mine, yours are yours. end of story.
the whole point of this was that on certain posts you present your personal views as absolute, perfect, informed by an infallible god, etc. but now everyone agrees with that veiw. hence, people like us comment.
lastly let me thank mcfeely for pointing out just a few of the places where we said "you belief whatever you want". and let me say to everyone else, why is it that the more we say that, the more you accuse us of beign intolerant or trying to knock your belief system down? i dont care about your belief system. seriously, do what you want. the point is that not everyone believes what you do, so presenting your beliefs as universal and absolute and thereby forcing them onto the public at large is not a good idea. ie, christianity is way better then islam might seem ok to you, but it doesnt hold true for everyone. thats all we've been saying.
ok, good luck trying to misinterprit everything that i've said and then demanding that i share my beliefs, which in fact i am proud of but dont feel any need at all to publically display.
"thus, you dont have a deal. my beliefs are mine, yours are yours. end of story"
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I was really interested in hearing your viewpoint. I like to know where people are coming from in life.
"the whole point of this was that on certain posts you present your personal views as absolute, perfect, informed by an infallible god, etc. but now everyone agrees with that veiw. hence, people like us comment."
You are correct. I do present these views as absolute. I'm not sure I would say 'perfect.' There are some times I'm sure I'm wrong. However, I will continue to present the ideas of Scripture as being infallible because I believe that they are.
The reason I accuse you of be being intolerant is because of what you say here: "the point is that not everyone believes what you do, so presenting your beliefs as universal and absolute and thereby forcing them onto the public at large is not a good idea."
Not everyone believes as you do either. Your claim that one cannot seperate reason from faith and that everyone has reason and not the same faith cannot be proven either. Guess what - not everyone believes that view. I know of at least 40 million Southern Baptists who don't. Maybe we are all acting unresonable...but that's a lot of unreasonableness. Therefore, maybe it is not a good idea for you to force your viewpoints in the public sphere either.
I am glad that you are proud of your beliefs. I am proud of mine too. In fact, I am so proud of them that I am going to continue to espouse them on this blog for the world to see. By God's grace we live in a free country. I am free to bring my ideas into the arena and so are you. I would think if you were really proud of your beliefs, you would want people to know them. If I'm proud of something I own or I have I don't keep it locked up in a box so that only I can see it. That's not very reasonable. I put it on display.
If you keep coming to this blog with the view that I should just keep my mouth shut about my beliefs when discussing topics, you are wasting your time. If you'd like to discuss the life of following Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior,however, then you are more then welcome to do so.
"Not everyone believes as you do either. Your claim that one cannot seperate reason from faith and that everyone has reason and not the same faith cannot be proven either."
actually you can prove that everyone has reason. i mean here i am using my reason to formulate sentences. you do the same. although from the paragraph i quoted above your sentence structure could use some work. ok, so we all have reason. do we all have different faiths? muslims, jews, baptists, methodists. there i named just four of the many faiths out there.
it would seem, then, that we all have reason, though not a uniform version of it, and that not everyone has the same faith or faith at all.
my point is that bc we all have differnt faiths and since we must all figure out a way to coexist, we ought to appeal to something that we share in order to figure out how to create the laws and norms that govern this world. i am not talking about heavenly laws or the world after this one. i am focusing on this world. now, if you say my particular faith says muslims are wrong in their religion, and a muslim says you are wrong in your religion, who is right? my point is to say, forget about faith in the public domain bc that is clearly not something that everyone has. reason, on the other hand is. so a muslim and a christian and a satan worshiper can all say things like, reason tells us that law A is good or bad or whatever. and the arguments about law A would all be founded on reason and thereby have the ability to connect with each person dispite their diversity of faiths.
as you pointed out, we live in a free country. but if you were to enforce your personal veiws ideas onto me or the satan worshiper or the muslim on a foundation of your own faith instead of reason, then me the satan worshiper and the muslim would be decidedly unfree.
so again, believe whatever you want, but when you enter into the public domain recognize that others do not share your belief and that does not make them inferior to you or your veiw. instead you ought to interact with them on an equal basis and with equal respect for their diversity.
Blah blah blah. Yes, we've been through all this before. Thanks for correcting my sentence structure, Prof. Smith.
"instead you ought to interact with them on an equal basis and with equal respect for their diversity."
I ought to do this, I ought to do that. Thank you for telling me what YOU think I should do. Pretty ironic, isn' it?
I respect everyone's diversity but that doesn't mean I can't have my own views. Bringing my Christian views into the public square does not mean I want to force my views on other people. There is a huge difference there that you and Mr. Rogers are missing. And guess what, if they (or you) don't like it, tough toenail. There is nothing you can do about my views or what I do with them. You are free to bring your own views into the ring as well. That's what politics does everyday. That's how real life is and hwo real life works. You and McFeely are trying to exist in some fantasy utopian ideal.
Get that weak stuff out of here.
once again, i am not telling you not to believe what you believe. and once again, just having those veiws is not in itself oppressive. but, if you create laws or restrictions that are premised on faith based beliefs, then that does become oppressive to anyone that does not have that faith.
yes i did use the word 'ought', but that was not to say that you personally have to act one way or another. what it means is that an individual or government or group is not justified in coercing me unless he/she/they/it appeal to me along a means that it availble to me, ie reason.
is that utopian? well no bc a utopia is characterized by a static blissful existance, like how heaven is supposed to be. but what i am saying is achievable for everyone, dynamic, and by no means garuntees total peace or bliss. but it'd be better than what we have today. just bc politics today is all about being being narrow minded doesnt mean that is the way it has to be.
that aint weak, its real.
Well that is your opinion and I think it's pretty idealistic, if not impossible. Good luck with that.
"Well that is your opinion and I think it's pretty idealistic, if not impossible. Good luck with that."
This is the first stupid thing I have heard you say. I really don't think you believe this. The concept of heaven seems pretty idealistic, but not impossible. It seems that you have just gotten to a point where you are angry that trey is not telling you what to believe, so you dismiss anything that he says. How is this opinion impossible. Not creating laws based on religion seems pretty reasonable to me. No one has told you that you can't bring any of your beliefs "into the ring." I just say that it is not a good idea for a society to make laws based on what one groups believes. How can you not agree with that? Would you be okay with making laws based on Islam, Buddhism, or Shintoism? This is the only point either of us has been trying to get across.
Ok,
A few things real quickly. Mcfeely and Dantzler, you mention that all have reason but not all have the SAME faith. That is fine because it is true, BUT I think the point of what Charlie and I have been trying to get across is two things. One, not everyone has the same reason. Two, everyone has faith in SOMETHING. Maybe not the same thing, but something.
The important thing to me seems to be that not everyone is right. Someone's faith has to right or at the very least more right than someone's else. Logically, that has to be true. Dantzler, you seem to me placing all faiths on an equal plain. No one is more right than anyone else, so let's just appeal to reason. The problem, then, becomes who's reason. Because it is clear to me that not everyone has reason that functions on the same level.
AAs,
I agree with Michael. From what I can gather, Dantzler's goal is to have everyone in the world appeal to reason and leave their faith at home when making political decisions. Am I right about that?
If this is the case, then I stand by my statement that "that is your opinion and I think it's pretty idealistic, if not impossible. Good luck with that"
I say that because the world does not operate like that, nor will it ever operate by that. So, again, good luck.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home