Jump to content
IGNORED

Infidel


Lineareagle

Recommended Posts

Science isn't trying to impose a belief system on anyone
This is precisely why I quoted Mr. Gould. I respectfully disagree. "Science" may not be, but secularists using "natural causes in a closed system" as a priori "fact" certainly are -- which amounts to the same thing. In the same way, in fact, that many "religionists" have hi-jacked the original concept of exploring the possibility of intelligent design (non-random cause) to promote a young earth as "fact." Neither is laudable.
Link to comment
"Science" may not be, but secularists ...
OK, but I am referring to the discipline of science, not how some individuals may misinterpret it. Just as we have been so frequently reminded in this thread that references are being made to the core of religious thought, not how some individuals may misinterpret it. Works both ways.
Link to comment

we don't really disagree.

 

But I do hope that I don't cause you to burn in Hell for admitting that there may be no God...

 

As to the "possibility" of non-random cause, we don't disagree. That's a neat thing, I think. Obviously, we diverge rapidly from this small but very important point of agreement. I do see a logical outworking that would include what you call "minutiae." But that's fine. I prefer clarity to agreement. Something important has been explored, I think, and some of the knee-jerk reactions that both sides of the philosophical fence seem to make too often, have been mitigated. I think that is a VERY good thing. Thank you for particpating in that.

 

As to going to hell... I'm not too worried about that. God knows me better than I do, and doesn't demand that I blow my brains out in order to honor Him as God. In fact, scripture seems to indicate that using my volition in looking at the possibilities, comparing the reality I observe with scripture, and making an informed decision to trust Him ... is a good thing. Uh, it may even be the definition of faith that He appreciates most. grin.gif The spiritual dimension that I mentioned earlier confirms it for me.

Link to comment
I am referring to the discipline of science
It does work both ways. Point well taken. I don't have any problem at all with "the scientific method." In fact, I'd love to see it used more rigorously.
Link to comment
As to going to hell... I'm not too worried about that.
Funny thing, neither am I.

 

Thanks for your commentary Scott (and the others), I know it took a lot of time to compose some of these posts. It's been a very enjoyable thread.

Link to comment
I am referring to the discipline of science
It does work both ways. Point well taken. I don't have any problem at all with "the scientific method." In fact, I'd love to see it used more rigorously.
I agree completely.

 

Seth, Thanks for the link to the article on False Premises. That was a really good read! I think a universal thorough education in that and the Scientific Method would solve a LOT of the world's problems and banish a lot of mis-information we've all been reluctant to give up for a few thousand years since the pre-adolescence of our species.

Link to comment

For some reason the education we all (hopefully) receive at one time or another in the use of logical analyses seems to be one of the least likely to stick. I'm not sure why that is but I think it may have something to do with so many being taught to have 'faith' at an early age (in the simplistic manner often presented to young children that countermands rational thought) so that logic itself then becomes the more difficult element to believe. Hopefully human culture will grow out of this in time.

Link to comment
russell_bynum
For some reason the education we all (hopefully) receive at one time or another in the use of logical analyses seems to be one of the least likely to stick. I'm not sure why that is but I think it may have something to do with so many being taught to have 'faith' at an early age (in the simplistic manner often presented to young children that countermands rational thought) so that logic itself then becomes the more difficult element to believe. Hopefully human culture will grow out of this in time.

 

Out-grow our ability to believe the unbelievable? I sure hope not.

Link to comment

Funny you should ask...

 

I do have some questions for the historians/theologians out there. Are there any real hard scientific evidences that support some of the Bible stories? For instance, yes, I know there are certain wars that took place between Israel and their neighbors that are documented elsewhere, but what about:

 

- large collections of military armor, chariots, and skeletons found at the bottom of the Red Sea

 

- scientific evidences that a series of plagues really did hit Egypt around the time of the Exodus. Given the first born of every Egyptian was killed by the angel of God, someone would have documented such an event, right?

 

- writings concerning miracles that occurred during Jesus time on earth. Surely if the masses are being healed and even raised from the dead, someone would have mentioned it, right? I would think there would be letters written from one person to another or other forms of documentation to support the events -- newspaper writings from the times

 

Just wondering...

Link to comment

Aw geez... now look what you did Jamie! Here we go again... grin.gif

 

Are there any real hard scientific evidences that support some of the Bible stories?
Dinosaurs! What about dinosaurs? Enormous giant lizards weren't worth even a single mention in the '6,000 years' (or whatever) since Creation covered in the Bible? (Someone did an hysterical comedy routine about this... can't remember his name...)

 

A word about 'scientific evidence' as it relates to supernatural stuff... if you want to call anything 'scientific' you need to follow all the rules. Searching for what you believe to be examples of proof is not the way it works. You create a hypothesis and then you look for examples that disprove it, not the other way around. There is endless psychobabble proposing 'scientific' evidence for all sorts of supernatural phenomena, but it usually lacks anything resembling real scientific examination because it ignores/dismisses all contrary indications, or the theory is constructed so that it is impossible to test for contrary indications. That is called pseudoscience, and yes, there's plenty of that out there.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

The only aspect of your question that I have done much reading on, perhaps the biggest question of all, has to do with whether Jesus was actually resurrected. There has been a lot published on this subject. Just Google "documentary evidence of christ resurrection" and see what you get. My take on this is that there is considerable historical evidence that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifiction, but skeptics of course continue to doubt that he was resurrected from the dead by God, and instead have more mundane explanations.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if similar historical evidence could be found for many other biblical references; after all, the bible is not really intended to be a work of fiction. But you will also find, I'm sure, a different secular and a religious take on everything that was discovered, similar to the resurrection of Jesus.

Link to comment

Just wondering...

There are some good books on this broad subject. But a good "fer instance" is that the field of archeology has made a turn-about in the last 80 years or so, and now uses scriptural descriptions of cities, settlements, events, etc. as information for planning "digs," and it has proven to be a productive approach.
Link to comment
Imagining and exploring the unbelievable is a good thing. Believing the unbelievable? Not so much.

 

In response to that, let me offer Arthur C. Clarke's three laws of prediction:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

(He also offered a corollary to #3 as follows: "Any technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." I really like that one.

 

Important point: "Indistinguishable from" does not mean "Same as."

 

At least two of Clarke's rules apply to what you posted, Seth. Many of the the unbelievable things out there are unbelievable only because we don't understand them. I say "many": The problem arises in how to discern what is real, but that we just don't yet understand.

 

You can believe things you don't understand as long as you've seen them work. I have an Iphone - it is, to me, indistinguishable from magic, but it works, so I just push its buttons and trust that it's gonna do what someone told me it would.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
The only aspect of your question that I have done much reading on, perhaps the biggest question of all, has to do with whether Jesus was actually resurrected. There has been a lot published on this subject. Just Google "documentary evidence of christ resurrection" and see what you get. My take on this is that there is considerable historical evidence that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifiction, but skeptics of course continue to doubt that he was resurrected from the dead by God, and instead have more mundane explanations.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if similar historical evidence could be found for many other biblical references; after all, the bible is not really intended to be a work of fiction. But you will also find, I'm sure, a different secular and a religious take on everything that was discovered, similar to the resurrection of Jesus.

 

The "internal" evidence is worthy of note as well. One of the arguments for Jesus' resurrection that Paul makes is an appeal to people based on their own witness of the resurrection, and access to hundreds of others still alive, to prove the larger point of life after death. If there were no such people on whom Paul was hanging his hat, it would be a rather strange argument to make -- not to mention a tad self defeating. Peter also makes this appeal right at the initiation of his post-resurrection "preaching." I've always found that compelling.

Link to comment
russell_bynum
Imagining and exploring the unbelievable is a good thing. Believing the unbelievable? Not so much.

 

In response to that, let me offer Arthur C. Clarke's three laws of prediction:

 

thumbsup.gif

 

I read Seth's post and immediately thought of Clarke's work. Then I had to go to a gol'dern meeting and you beat me to the punch. smile.gif

Link to comment

Well, finally I'm getting around to responding to your book--I mean, post. tongue.gif Let me tell you about my personal journey, first, in a very abbreviated format.

 

I was raised by fundamentalist parents who did medical missionary work. If that wasn't indoctrinating enough, we lived in a very isolated part of the world with no power, plumbing, water, roads, grocery stores, media, etc. So the assimilation was fairly thorough, to put it mildly.

 

Growing up in that environment, the final authority was always Scripture, of course. And by that, they meant a certain translation without any of the disputed books--even some of the canonical books were frowned upon, like Hebrews and Ecclesiastes because they seemed to be written by rank liberals who were having too much fun or were too honest. grin.gif

 

As pronouncements were made from the pulpit or in discourse, many times the English Bible didn't seem to be enough authority, in which case appeal was made to the underlying original text (Hebrew or Greek, mostly). At that point the argument always stopped, because I spoke English, Spanish, and K'Anjobal, but none of them seemed to help. I was left feeling a tad peeved that they were referencing some higher authority that I had no access to, but I was also very motivated to pull back the curtain and achieve the same access to this "mystery authority" so that I could at least satisfy my own misgivings about certain things--and of course win arguments! smile.gif

 

So for my undergraduate work, I dove deep into the original languages. Of course my OCD side thought that was hardly adequate, so I spent five full years (full-time) in graduate school, learning Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic. I edited academic journals and did typesetting in those languages and taught them to supplement the scholarship that paid for most of my grad school years.

 

My goal was to answer the burning questions of uncertainty about what I called my "borrowed faith" and to answer those questions once and for all.

 

The result, as you've probably guessed, is that it was a lot more disconcerting than affirming. Ministers all over the world are misusing language, exegesis, and exposition to lie. They're appealing to the original text (based on secondary research, not primary research) to conveniently make points that simply aren't there. Fundamentally, the meaning of language should be determined at the paragraph level, not the individual word level, except in legal documents, but they took it to an absurd level--even to the point of calling Greek the final missing ingredient for Christ's birth, because until that point in history no language was precise enough to capture the event! tongue.gif

 

Midway through seminary I decided this pursuit was nonsense, but I finished my graduate work just because I was enjoying the language portion itself. From there until I did graduate, though, it was kind of a rocky ride. I was told that I would never graduate because of my views, and there was quite a little firestorm when I defended my dissertation ("Subconscious Repetition in Greek Literature"). I enjoyed the whole thing because, well, because it was darn comical. All these self-important professors who wouldn't know academic freedom if it bit them in the ass (I couldn't say that word back then). Academic freedom was essentially "free" as long as you ended up at _______.

 

So the upshot was that I abandoned the belief system I'd grown up with because I knew it was built on a lot of stupid nonsense. I'll never forget one day when my dear Dad called me up, very sincerely, and asked me "what do we believe on that point again? I can't remember." I said, "here's what I believe, Dad, but I don't think that's what you believe. You don't need to ask me what you believe."

 

As the system around me crumbled (religion, essentially), I was finding that it was a lot more incredulous to believe there was no God than that there was. So during the free fall, I was brought up short just before hitting bottom. For various reasons I won't go into here, I ended up believing that there is a God, first. Second, that s/he is gracious or I'd be dead (I deserve it). Finally, it's probably important that I live a certain way. Those are the three things that have never left me since that very eventful day by myself more than 20 years ago in a Pizza Hut as I thought through all this.

 

I am, quite frankly, quite embarrassed to believe in God. There's a lot of evidence to the contrary, I don't like how s/he runs things, and I'm an intensely independent person. So I believe in God quite reluctantly and against my will. It could even be a figment of my imagination or a deep desire to live a more meaningful life. Or maybe subconsciously I know how selfish I can get unless my world is bigger than me. I need to be small in the big picture or I turn into an insufferable idiot.

 

So I'm embarrassed, but I am dragged kicking and screaming to that belief point. As you can tell, though, it's not bigger than that. I think religion is evil and scandalous and I want absolutely nothing to do with it. (Jesus didn't either.) I also think the Bible is a fascinating collection of writings to read, and I know it backwards and forwards. I don't think it's anything beyond that, though--just remarkably insightful, useful literature that means a lot to me because of it's relevance (with some exceptions).

 

If you want specific feedback on your post and references to Scripture, I'll be glad to do that, but this is enough writing for now.

Link to comment
You can believe things you don't understand as long as you've seen them work. I have an Iphone - it is, to me, indistinguishable from magic, but it works, so I just push its buttons and trust that it's gonna do what someone told me it would.

I can see and touch an iPhone. Anyone can see and touch an iPhone. Anyone can see it work, and it will work the same way for everyone. Somehow I think those conditions vary a bit from some of the things you've 'seen' work, and I'm sure you (edit: and Russell) know why there's a critical difference between the two.

 

Funny you should choose the comments of such a well-known athiest, but as long as we're quoting Arthur C. Clarke one of my favotites is "A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."

 

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Would you agree that the non-existence of God and the Universe being a completely natural entity are at least possible things, or are they impossible?

 

Russell, same question?

Link to comment

A very thoughtful post David.

 

So for my undergraduate work, I dove deep into the original languages. Of course my OCD side thought that was hardly adequate, so I spent five full years (full-time) in graduate school, learning Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic.

eek.gif

 

I'm not worthy.

Link to comment
Anyone can see it work, and it will work the same way for everyone.
I'll assume that you love "someone" rather than no one. How does that work? What are the underlying scientific principles? Does it work the same for everyone? What is its purpose? Why do you do it? I'm not talking about those things that lead to copulation for the propagation of the species, so if your only motive is so that you can copulate or protect progeny from death, no answer needed.
Link to comment
If you want specific feedback on your post and references to Scripture, I'll be glad to do that, but this is enough writing for now.

 

David, I am impressed. You delved way more deeply into this than I ever did, that's for sure.

 

I share many of your views. I love the concepts that I believe the Bible is putting forth, but as much as I love those "truths" and for the most part, believe them, I feel absolutely no compulsion to "tell lies for Jesus" (which is what I feel many religious people do when they flat refuse to openly acknowledge that sometimes this stuff is down right ridiculous, such as the world being 6000 years old, the Bible as a scientific document what with "creationism" and so on).

 

Like you, I see the Bible as a tremendously insightful book when it comes to human nature and to the nature of a God worth getting to know -- if, indeed, God is the eternally loving God Jesus portrays him as. If he's just "God" and will kick any body's butt who doesn't side with him, then I have no time for a God like that. If He's not here to help, to assist, then later for him.

 

I also feel no need to defend my learning and my points of view. I welcome feedback! Do you think my views are "rubbish"? I welcome you to say so and to tell me why. I will weigh everything. Sometimes, I may not see it initially, but "upon further review"...

 

My faith, the Bible, and all religions and such things are here to serve me, I am not here to serve them. Jesus once said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" - Mark 2:27. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr later said, "The government was made for man, not man for the government". If it is of no benefit for the person, then each person must move on to find the "tools" that are.

 

Anyhow, I would love to hear some of your insights and learnings. I do believe strongly that God loves honest, open, and bold people who are willing to call him on things that don't seem quite sensible.

 

I think as long as we're willing to be honest and open about our skepticisms -- as long as we have our feet firmly planted on the ground -- we can look to the heavens and ponder. It's when we say, "I know..." about things one cannot possibly know that we appear a bit out of touch with reality.

Link to comment

Let me tell you about my personal journey
David,

 

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Our journeys are not all that dissimilar, though they didn't lead to the same conclusions in toto.

 

I have a healthy suspicion of "orthodoxy" in all its forms, though I find a plain reading of the text to be powerful and without the need for "explanation" in the manner that most have done violence to it as they "explain."

 

Added: Perhaps it is the pursuit of epistemology that is a difference. An attempt to learn how we can know anything, or not, has been exceedingly helpful to me in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Link to comment
I'll assume that you love "someone" rather than no one. How does that work? What are the underlying scientific principles? Does it work the same for everyone? What is its purpose? Why do you do it?
That's just a misdirection. Human emotion is not the same thing as physical reality and they are not comparable.

 

But as to why love exists, or man is good, or any of that stuff, there is a possibility that they are divinely inspired. Or there is a completely natural explanation in that that these tendencies are behaviors that represent a pretty big selective advantage, i.e. humans whose brains experience the emotion of love and goodwill towards their fellows are more likely to survive and prosper in society, be more likely to reproduce, and be better child rearers leading to increased chance of survival for their offspring. This would in turn lead to the widespread adoption of the trait among humans as a natural process.

 

Which is right? I don't know for certain, but as long as the second possibility could be true then you then you can't confirm the first as correct.

Link to comment
That's just a misdirection
I don't think so, and your subsequent answer / ponderings support that. Well said. My comments about propagation were an attempt to also eliminate the "competitive advantage" arguments from the discussion. They are "there" as potential explanations but also remain well outside the purview of science to demonstrate. The other comments were probative and answered my question.
Link to comment
They are "there" as potential explanations but also remain well outside the purview of science to demonstrate.
That's correct. Science can describe a process but it only tries to define the how, not the why. There is no process to positively determine the why, although philosophers and theologians make it their business to try to suggest some possibilities. That's a good thing and a worthwhile human endeavor, but it's also important to note that in the philosophical/religious realm there's absolutely nothing to prove that one idea is any more correct than another.
Link to comment
A very thoughtful post David.

 

So for my undergraduate work, I dove deep into the original languages. Of course my OCD side thought that was hardly adequate, so I spent five full years (full-time) in graduate school, learning Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Latin, and Arabic.

eek.gif

 

I'm not worthy.

 

Ask any thoughtful person and they'll tell you that you took the better path. Degrees in that field are less valuable than even Art History degrees.

Link to comment
Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Our journeys are not all that dissimilar, though they didn't lead to the same conclusions in toto.

 

Yes, and now you probably understand fully why I'm drawn to George MacDonald more than C. S. Lewis, even though I enjoy the latter.

 

I have a healthy suspicion of "orthodoxy" in all its forms, though I find a plain reading of the text to be powerful and without the need for "explanation" in the manner that most have done violence to it as they "explain."

 

Have you read F. F. Bruce's autobiography?

 

Added: Perhaps it is the pursuit of epistemology that is a difference. An attempt to learn how we can know anything, or not, has been exceedingly helpful to me in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

 

Epistemology is a worthy pursuit, but it can become a "God" in itself--this need for certainty when maybe we need to learn to live without it. At some point along that spectrum between John Cage and Paint by Numbers, you start to chase your tale. I don't know where you are on that path, but it can get futile really quickly.

Link to comment

Somewhere between

John Cage and Paint by Numbers, you start to chase your tale
And my tail, too! Nice turn of phrase, bon mot, and double entendre, in one.

Preach it, brother... er, ah, I mean... I know what you mean! Agreed. grin.gif

 

Have not read Bruce's autobiography... worth the read I assume. I'll get it.

 

And, I can certainly understand the preference for MacDonald (at least as far as the "Winfoldian expression" goes) over Lewis. The simple life-expression of the groundskeeper serves as an ideal, in my mind, for where all our intellectual pursits should take us. It is a sort of clearing of the decks of all the junk in order to get to the simplicity.

Link to comment

Oh, one last thing I forgot to add...

 

I'm right and everyone else is wrong!

 

I'm gonna say it and I don't care if this thread does get locked! tongue.gifgrin.giflmao.gif

Link to comment
Oh, one last thing I forgot to add...

 

I'm right and everyone else is wrong!

 

I'm gonna say it and I don't care if this thread does get locked! tongue.gifgrin.giflmao.gif

 

James, there's no reason for you to strain yourself trying to reach a conclusion about that since you might be wrong. Saint Peter will let you know later. confused.gifeek.gif

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
James, there's no reason for you to strain yourself trying to reach a conclusion about that since you might be wrong. Saint Peter will let you know later. confused.gifeek.gif

 

Pilgrim

 

My hope does not rest upon my being right or wrong. I am certain that I am right about some things, and wrong about others. I only know in part, just like the rest of us. In my opinion, everybody is right about some things, and wrong about others, if our salvation depends upon whether we are right, then I have little respect -- no make that no respect for this Christianity thing.

 

Earlier I quoted Jeremiah when he said, "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom...but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am God who exercises justice, kindness, and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight" - Jeremiah 9:23

 

My hope does not rest in my wisdom or my knowledge. My hope rests purely and completely on what I know to be a merciful God. Again, Jeremiah, "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end, they are new every morning, great is thy faithfulness (he's not like the tax collectors Jesus refers to in Matthew 5 who only loves those who love them back). The Lord is my portion says my soul, therefore I will hope in Him" - Lamentations 3:xx (I forget the exact verses where you'll find this passage, probably in the 5th verse of that chapter would be my guess.

 

Therefore, my hope rests totally and completely on God's mercy!!! -- nothing more and nothing less.

 

The Apostle Paul, while quoting God in the Book of Romans by saying things like "I will have mercy on whom I'll have mercy, and I will destroy whom I will destroy" concludes this: "Our salvation, therefore, does not depend on mans desire or effort, but on God's mercy" - Romans 9:27 I believe.

 

My hope is not based upon what I think I know, what I fear I don't know, what my behavior has been like lately, what doubts, concerns, questions and grievances I may have -- none of that. Not based upon what church I go to, my ministers opinion of me or my life -- zippo. It rests purely and completely on the fact that God is love, God is light and in him is no darkness (I John), and that God is merciful -- for in these I delight!

 

Otherwise, I'll just ask St Peter, "why doesn't the scripture in Jesus sermon on the mount in Matthew 5 read, 'Hate those who hate you so that you may be children of your Father who is in Heaven' -- instead of 'Love those who hate you'? After all, vengeance, hatred, eternal punishments -- these are all things of which God does and of which God delights in, right? Therefore, if I want to be like God, then I must learn to harbor hatred and vengeance in my heart toward my enemies, right? Are these God's values or not?!

 

I don't believe they are and in fact, I am betting the farm on it so to speak. Forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption, turn the other cheek, mercy, loving the unlovable -- these are what I believe to be God's values, therefore I will hope in Him.

Link to comment
James, there's no reason for you to strain yourself trying to reach a conclusion about that since you might be wrong. Saint Peter will let you know later. confused.gifeek.gif

 

Pilgrim

 

My hope does not rest upon my being right or wrong. I am certain that I am right about some things, and wrong about others. I only know in part, just like the rest of us. In my opinion, everybody is right about some things, and wrong about others, if our salvation depends upon whether we are right, then I have little respect -- no make that no respect for this Christianity thing.

 

Earlier I quoted Jeremiah when he said, "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom...but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am God who exercises justice, kindness, and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight" - Jeremiah 9:23

 

My hope does not rest in my wisdom or my knowledge. My hope rests purely and completely on what I know to be a merciful God. Again, Jeremiah, "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end, they are new every morning, great is thy faithfulness (he's not like the tax collectors Jesus refers to in Matthew 5 who only loves those who love them back). The Lord is my portion says my soul, therefore I will hope in Him" - Lamentations 3:xx (I forget the exact verses where you'll find this passage, probably in the 5th verse of that chapter would be my guess.

 

Therefore, my hope rests totally and completely on God's mercy!!! -- nothing more and nothing less.

 

The Apostle Paul, while quoting God in the Book of Romans by saying things like "I will have mercy on whom I'll have mercy, and I will destroy whom I will destroy" concludes this: "Our salvation, therefore, does not depend on mans desire or effort, but on God's mercy" - Romans 9:27 I believe.

 

My hope is not based upon what I think I know, what I fear I don't know, what my behavior has been like lately, what doubts, concerns, questions and grievances I may have -- none of that. Not based upon what church I go to, my ministers opinion of me or my life -- zippo. It rests purely and completely on the fact that God is love, God is light and in him is no darkness (I John), and that God is merciful -- for in these I delight!

 

Otherwise, I'll just ask St Peter, "why doesn't the scripture in Jesus sermon on the mount in Matthew 5 read, 'Hate those who hate you so that you may be children of your Father who is in Heaven' -- instead of 'Love those who hate you'? After all, vengeance, hatred, eternal punishments -- these are all things of which God does and of which God delights in, right? Therefore, if I want to be like God, then I must learn to harbor hatred and vengeance in my heart toward my enemies, right? Are these God's values or not?!

 

I don't believe they are and in fact, I am betting the farm on it so to speak. Forgiveness, reconciliation, redemption, turn the other cheek, mercy, loving the unlovable -- these are what I believe to be God's values, therefore I will hope in Him.

 

Nice response, James. I hope you took my post in the jocular sense intended, rather than as some caution to you.

 

Pilgrim

Link to comment
Nice response, James. I hope you took my post in the jocular sense intended, rather than as some caution to you.

 

Pilgrim

 

Oh yeah, of course I did; I was being rather emphatic in the hope of sparking responses, counterpoints, and debate, that's all.

 

This stuff is absolutely fascinating to me; in fact, this thread has forced me to solidify my thoughts and my position on matters that have, until now, been kinda loosely floating around in my head. I have had these convictions for some time now, but only now did I feel somehow ready to share the "what" and the "why" behind my views.

 

I'm seriously explaining myself, but I am not taking any of this stuff too seriously, that's for sure. Just sittin' around the dorm room enjoying the beer and conversation thumbsup.gifthumbsup.gif

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...