This link works, I hope.

That is, I think, a good interview with many very valid points. I enjoyed that one. He wasn't as over the top in this interview, he seemed more natural rather than forcing out little sound bites for the Maddow show. His comparison of the new atheists and the dogmatic Christianity is something I've pointed out a few times. Some good analogies (e.g. Martin Luther King and how the new atheists inadvertently show him great disrespect).

I do like his idea of not knowing theology.

And I had to cheer at his statement regarding the media. He said when someone tells a lie the media ought to point out it is a lie. There's too much dancing around the issue for "balance" to show both sides. There is no other side to a lie. His examples were the people who said Obama is a Muslim, he's a terrorist, he wasn't born in the U.S., he's setting up death squads for granny (which Schaeffer points out is the rhetoric he and his dad started in the 70s). They're lies, and some are easy to spot lies.

Heh, he says without the backing of Fox Beck would just be another crazy person standing on the street corner hollering away and being ignored.

In this message from the Word of Almighty God from this past Sunday evening, November 8th, 2009, Pastor Loran Livingston shares with us about the fact that true Holy Spirit-led witnessing evangelism for the Lord Jesus Christ comes from the heart of the believer in Christ, and is NOT done by following a set of "rules and regulations."

The Bible text for this message is from The Book of 1st Peter, Chapter 3, Verse 15.


Chess Fan

Thanks for the link, Ken, it worked fine for me. Yes, he made many good points that I also agree with.

He does know theology, it just wasn't the point of this discussion.

There is too much "I'm right and your wrong aguements" these days and not enough listening to the other side. Not enough respect for others opinions. I like how he says he can sit and have a cup of coffee with people that are on an opposite side of issue with him.

There is nothing wrong with thinking you are right in a discussion, but it should be nothing personal.

Mark.

As someone who spends a lot of time in 100 degree weather, I can tell you that a lot of clothing is not always a bad thing. It keeps the sun off, which protects your skin. I bet the burqa was ivented by a woman to protect her skin from not only the sun, but from dry wind and other desert conditions that ruin the skin. Women who wear the burqa never have to worry about make up, hair style, shoes, or a million other things that Western women use to toture themselves--all in the name of vanity and beauty.

Come on Ed, get real here!


Chess Fan

I did pretty well, thanks - finished third in the bottom section of the tournament. Performed well above my grade but I was the top rated player so I'm a tiny bit disappointed I didn't win.


Well, maybe I don't believe that God is omniscient by your definition of omniscience! I'm at an early stage of thinking through these issues and I only came across the open theism idea quite recently. But it does harmonise well with several awkward bits of the Bible, like when God is portrayed as changing his mind due to people's prayers.


I think it is fair to blame me for the wrong things that I do. Forgetting any original sin ideas, I need God's forgiveness because I am separated from God by the wrong things I do (and right things I don't do) every day. As for babies etc. who have not made any choice to do wrong (or not do right), I'll leave them in God's hands as I believe he is loving and fair.

What about you, Ed? Do you believe in any kind of God? I'm assuming you don't believe in the Christian God at least, going by your views here. But if you do, please share how you (with your philosophical and theological training) reconcile God's omniscience with his creation of humanity, many millions of whom God knew would reject him.

Yes, that is interesting. I'm not one for lavish costumes or expensively fitted out buildings in the context of church meetings but it is good to engage all the senses. Too often, evangelical / charismatic churches are all about singing and listening to a preacher, with nothing much to draw in those who do not learn so well through listening.

At my church we have each home group in turn take responsibility for planning and running half of the Sunday meeting. We have a framework to work within but there's a lot of freedom to do musical things, art and craft, meditation etc. I think it really helps in giving everyone an opportunity to be involved and to bring something that will encourage others in the church.

There's a church in Portland, Oregon that has a well-developed artistic programme. I was hoping to visit when I was in the USA in August but I was flying out of Portland on Sunday morning so couldn't go to their meeting. They call themselves the Imago Dei Community and you can click here to go directly to their arts page.

In religion, philosophy and other non-empirical areas, I completely agree. I like how he admits he could be completely wrong...and it seems he actually believes it to.

Of course in other areas there is a "I'm right and you're wrong" which can be demonstrated. As Schaeffer says, there is no "other side" to a lie. A person who continues to cling to that which is demonstrably false does not deserve respect. There is no "balance". There is no point in holding a dialogue with them except to expose their lie for others to see so that they aren't deceived too.

I'd agree, but the key word there is "demonstrably". When a person believes that which is truly demonstrably false, then they deserve no respect. But it may be different in a case like "Everyone says Freddy robbed that bank, and the evidence looks very damaging, but I still think he's innocent." In that case, his guilt is not quite demonstrable, only very likely. Believing in his innocence may be virtuous. The problem may be in identifying the exact point that we pass from "Likely" to "Demonstrable". If it's been only "Likely" for 6 months, and finally enough evidence comes in to make it "Demonstrable", someone who has defended Freddy for 6 months might find it hard to adjust.

So was Freddy's defender reasonable or not? Well, that depends. If it was "Freddy is in the Rotary Club and Rotarians don't act that way", that's not much of a reason to have doubted the evidence in the first place. On the other hand, if it was "I've known Freddy for 20 years, and so have faith based on my knowledge of his character that there is some flaw in this apparently damning, but not quite demonstrable evidence, such that all of it can be explained without his being guilty." Is that unreasonable? No, not necessarily.

But we're only discussing ONE instance here (The Great Freddy Bank Caper). The really unreasonable people are the ones who feel that way about most or all cases. "Any time I seem to be wrong about an important question, it will turn out that I'm right, even if I haven't got the slightest idea why or the slightest ability to demonstrate it." In any individual case the facts may not be what they seem to be. It happens. But the person who thinks that in EVERY case the facts aren't what they seem to be unless they support his own feelings is a borderline megalomaniac. We all know someone like that, that people keep trying to deal with, and not understanding why they failed. They fail because they deal only with the facts and not with the feeling that the facts MUST be wrong. It's kind of like in Blackadder, when Melchitt plans to send the troops to charge the enemy trenches, even though that plan has failed 18 times before, because he can't think of anything better. Under the circumstances, doing nothing would be better.



Ah, but it's not exactly a lie, as such. A lie is when you're consciously aware that you're wrong. If a guy walks past your office every day for 10 years with a sign reading "The World Will End Tomorrow", he doesn't, technically speaking, KNOW that the statement is false. How could he? He's more likely an idiot than a liar. There'd be no point in following along behind him each day with a sign reading "No it won't!", because he's probably not fooling anyone.

P=0.05. Ok, being a bit facetious there.

I'm thinking in terms of measurable evidence, backed up by repeated experiments, as well as one party says something but all you need to do is go look and see that what they say is completely false. Beck, Limbaugh do this all the time. They just make things up, and sheep bleat for more. If those two aren't delusional themselves (and rumour is at least one of them may have some serious mental issues--aside from low IQ) then they must spend half their time laughing at the stupidity of their audiences.


And this is what Schaeffer was referring to. The lies about Obama's health care, about his place of birth, about his religious beliefs etc. Some people will be delusional and believe them and not even bother checking for themselves, but I have difficulty believing that 2/3rds of the elected Republicans are delusional. It is much more likely they lie for the same reason talking heads lie...to pander to their support base.