Scott said...
Have you been watching any of those revival meetings in Lakeland ? What are your thoughts on that Joyce ?
May 24, 2008 7:17 AM
Joyce said...
Scott,
Wow. That's a big question! Yes, I'm familiar with what has been going on there and I've done a lot of research. There are many things about it that concern me.
True revival begins with repentance and a turning to God. The gospel is shared, hearts are changed. I've listened and read closely many of the messages being shared at Lakeland and rarely do I hear the gospel shared and even more rarely do I hear the name Jesus. That bothers me. A lot.
Now ... I absolutely believe in the gifts and believe that they are just as active and alive today as they were in biblical times. But there is so much about this "revival" that really disturbs me and has too many of the markings of a false revival.
There are many problems with Todd Bentley's teachings resulting inmost serious problems with the "revival" in Lakeland. There is a very heavy influence of the Latter Rain movement, word of faith, impartation of spiritual gifts and healing at the WILL OF MAN ...etc.
Todd Bentley claims to have frequent visitations with angels, trips to heaven, personal meetings with Jesus Christ and so on. He also has no higher biblical education (not that I think that is a requirement for God to use someone. Just an observation).
God can and will move when people are truly reaching out for Him, but that does not validate a person's teachings or beliefs - it is not God's seal of approval.
You should read some of Todd Bentley's teachings, also read up on William Branham, who Bentley calls his mentor. Also, see what Todd Bentley has to say about the angel 'Emma'.
I copied this following article (written by Todd Bentley, in his own words) about ‘his’ angel Emma from his own website back in December. I think that an urgent warning needs to resound so more people do not get caught up in this counterfeit revival.
There are a lot of concerns (not just one) that many watchmen in the church have about Todd Bentley and his ministry. Todd Bentley’s past has been brought up (he was jailed as a teenager for child molestation), but this is not an issue for me at all in terms of why I am critiquing him. Though I in no way condone his actions, nor do I glibbly gloss over them (I do not in any way, nor could I - it is horrific and inexcusable) - I do not think it fair to judge a repentant reformed forgiven born again adult (if that is what they are) for what they did as a messed up abused kid before coming to Christ. So that factor shall be of no regard in my weighing or testing his ministry at all - for if the old is done away with, I shall not bring it up.
Anyway here is the article by Todd Bentley:
“Now let me talk about an angelic experience with Emma. Twice Bob Jones asked me about this angel that was in Kansas City in 1980: “Todd, have you ever seen the angel by the name of Emma?” He asked me as if he expected that this angel was appearing to me. Surprised, I said, “Bob, who is Emma?” He told me that Emma was the angel that helped birth and start the whole prophetic movement in Kansas City in the 1980s. She was a mothering-type angel that helped nurture the prophetic as it broke out. Within a few weeks of Bob asking me about Emma, I was in a service in Beulah, North Dakota. In the middle of the service I was in conversation with Ivan and another person when in walks Emma. As I stared at the angel with open eyes, the Lord said, “Here’s Emma.” I’m not kidding. She floated a couple of inches off the floor. It was almost like Kathryn Khulman in those old videos when she wore a white dress and looked like she was gliding across the platform. Emma appeared beautiful and young-about 22 years old-but she was old at the same time. She seemed to carry the wisdom, virtue and grace of Proverbs 31 on her life.
She glided into the room, emitting brilliant light and colors. Emma carried these bags and began pulling gold out of them. Then, as she walked up and down the aisles of the church, she began putting gold dust on people. “God, what is happening?” I asked. The Lord answered: “She is releasing the gold, which is both the revelation and the financial breakthrough that I am bringing into this church. I want you to prophecy that Emma showed up in this service-the same angel that appeared in Kansas city-as a sign that I am endorsing and releasing a prophetic spirit in the church.” See, when angels come, they always come for a reason; we need to actually ask God what the purpose is. Within three weeks of that visitation, the church had given me the biggest offering I had ever received to that point in my ministry. Thousands of dollars! Thousands! Even though the entire community consisted of only three thousand people, weeks after I left the church the pastor testified that the church offerings had either doubled or tripled.
During this visitation the pastor’s wife (it was an AOG church) got totally whacked by the Holy Ghost - she began running around barking like a dog or squawking like a chicken as a powerful prophetic spirit came on her. Also, as this prophetic anointing came on her, she started getting phone numbers of complete strangers and calling them up on the telephone and prophesying over them. She would tell them that God gave her their telephone number and then would give them words of knowledge. Complete strangers. Then angels started showing up in the church.
I believe Emma released a financial and prophetic anointing in that place. That was the first angel that I have ever seen in the form of a woman. Some angels I’ve seen seemed like they were neither male nor female. However, Emma appeared as a woman who was like a Deborah, like a mother in Zion. When she came, she began to mentor, nurture and opened up a prophetic well. The people in the church began having trances and visions and the pastor began getting words of knowledge and moving in healing. That congregation also saw more financial breakthrough than they had ever seen before.
I was at another meeting in Atlanta when my wife, Shonnah, saw two financial angels walk into the service and pour oil out on the pastor. Shonnah then knew there was financial breakthrough coming. That night two people wrote the pastor cheques for $16,000 and $17,000 and others also wrote cheques to Fresh Fire for thousands of dollars, which we used for missions to the nations. In addition, many people experienced great financial blessing as well. The day after this angelic visitation one guy had millions of dollars released to him-he had been waiting for about 10 years for this breakthrough. All this financial release came because my wife saw two financial angels walk up and stand on the platform. Can you imagine? We need to pray for the Father to give us financial angels for our lives, our church and region. With this angelic assistance, we will prevail and overcome the warfare trying to hold back our financial breakthrough. Some of you don’t know how to use the angels in intercession like this. You don’t even know whether it’s OK or not….”
There are several red flags that immediately are raised from this piece.
We see straight away that this ‘angelic introduction’ comes through ‘prophet’ Bob Jones of the Kansas City Prophets. This, if we recall, is the man who had young ladies strip naked before him to recieve a prophetic word from him in private, and who claimed Jesus told him when he was in mental asylum he had to kill or forgive people to get his mind back, and from whom other spiritual abuses and elitism came from. (He is now supposedly under the pastoral care of Mike Bickle of IHOP/The Metro Vineyard fame, though I dispute these prophets have ever been pastored.) Bob Jones was then, and is still, a heretical false prophet - his words and practices are abusive and often weird (eg he claims his hands change colour to indicate spiritual conditions), his theology is Latter Rain Manifest Sons of God dominionism and blasphemy (direct from Branham’s ‘genetical’ line including Paul Cain), and many of his prophetic words miss the mark - scripturally and also historically. (But he claims that it’s not only ok to miss the mark, but it is to be expected as the church is not ready apparently for prophetic accuracy!) So therefore for someone to claim they got something spiritually imparted to them from Bob Jones is worrying. Of course it is also odd that one seems to have to be personally introduced to these angels by Bob Jones, which is spiritual elitism and bears all the hallmarks of cultlike tendancies. If these angels were truly from God, they need introduction from no man.
Bob Jones has, however, ‘introduced’ various angels to the many of the ‘new’ line of (false) prophets (eg the Elijah List favorites) including Patricia King of Extreme Prophetic (to whom Todd Bentley is linked) and Sharneal Wolverton of Swift Fire Ministries (Note the name ‘Swift’ Fire). One of the angels is a golden eagle called Swift - have you seen how many golden eagles there are on most modern prophetic websites? It was the erroneous false prophet and healer and occultist William Branham (who many pentecostals revere despite his terrible theology - including Todd Bentley (Todd also claims one of Branham’s angels now accompanies his ministry: allegedly, Cal Pierce of the Spokane Healing rooms (linked to John G Lake) came to a meeting with a 15ft high angel ‘in tow’ and told him that the angel was John Knox’s and William Branham’s angel and that if Todd ‘received’ the angel it would partner him in ministry.) It was William Branham who wrongly said that ‘Prophets are often represented by Eagles in the Scriptures, known for their vision, power, and speed…’ So the symbolism for the golden eagle is an identification with the NAR prophets, but also with their false spirits and ultimately to William Branham, his false spirits, teachings, prophecies and the heresies of the Latter Rain.
Then we move on to ‘Emma’s’ identity. (Incidently, all angels in scripture appeared to people as ‘men’ and they did not float above the floor, they were not all weird colours as described, they appeared as tall ‘normal’ looking men). We are told by Todd Bentley that Bob Jones told him: ‘Emma was the angel that helped birth and start the whole prophetic movement in Kansas City in the 1980s. She is a mothering-type angel that helped nurture the prophetic as it broke out…’ That is one huge reason not to touch Emma or any of her ‘gifts’ with a bargepole (if she even exists and is not a lie or urban legend - for many of these ministries are NOT adverse to lying or to charlatanism or at least gross exageration, double-speak and cover-ups). The prophetic movement in Kansas City reeks and is false as can be. (See previous articles on this). It is not the true prophetic, and thus any angel (if there are angels involved as claimed) was not from God in birthing it, but is rather an angel from the Father of Lies, albeit dressed as an angel of light.
The described mothering element to Emma is also troubling, for God’s real angels point to the Father, or the Holy Spirit as a comforter - they are not mothers or fathers who ask men to come to them to be comforted or mothered or salved, but ‘only’ ministering spirits, servants of fire, sent to help those who will inherit salvation.
The next red flag is the gold dust and gemstones and oil element - a false sign and wonder (again not adverse to being counterfeited by human trickery). Patricia King, Joshua Mills, Rick Joyner and others are even now pointing to stigmatism as another sign and wonder and Rick Joyner. Patricia King apparently has three angels who appear wherever she goes. One is red - one is green - her prosperity angel (green like the dollar which these prophets are overly fond of) - and the other angel is either blue or yellow.
The next red flag is Todd Bentley’s prophetic testimony that God told him “I want you to prophecy that Emma showed up in this service-the same angel that appeared in Kansas city - as a sign that I am endorsing and releasing a prophetic spirit in the church.” If this actually happened as I believe many of these men and women are fakes, then Todd testifies he is a false prophet as God could not, and would not, and cannot endorse these manifestations or the word testimony that goes with them which is false Latter Rain heresy and dominionism. Furthermore, if God is ‘endorsing’ the release of the prophetic spirit within the church then Todd still has a long way to go if his own prophecies are anything to go by. It is a very odd and very false prophetic spirit indeed that Emma testifies to.
‘When she came, she began to mentor, nurture and opened up a prophetic well. The people in the church began having trances and visions and the pastor began getting words of knowledge and moving in healing.’
I also see the fleshly and not spiritual focus of these manifestations- the odd bodily behaviour that historically accompanies the counterfeit which we are told by Todd Bentley is actually being ‘whacked in the Holy Ghost’, yet the Holy Spirit is one of order and of self-control -- and the focus on the gold, on the money, on manna. ‘That congregation also saw more financial breakthrough than they had ever seen before.’ Yet the true test of the Holy Spirit is NOT the fleshly manifestations, not the alleged angelic encounters, not the prophecy, but whether the congregation are led to God, are led to their knees in submission and obedient service and self-sacrifice (is this church involved in more missions, are they feeding more widows and orphans, where is that gold going to, that is a test), and ultimately and always, that they are led into all truth. If they are not led into truth but error by the angel Emma and her servant Todd, then it is the spirit of error that accompanies him, and not the truth.
So ... I obviously have serious reservations and doubts on the authenticity of this so-called revival.
What are your thoughts?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Lakeland "Revival"?
Someone asked me a question on my blog entry about having a terminal disease. I answered it in the comments section but it was so long I thought I'd post it here. I'd be interested in your comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
I'll just say "Wow".
I had no idea about talk of an angel named Emma. That alone raises red flags for me.
I was just wondering what you thought of the revival, being as there were many reported healings.
Thank you so much for such an informative post!
Ah.."reported healings"!!! yes...always evidence of god acting through his self appointed prophetic surrogate on Earth.
Hasn't anyone read "Elmer Gantry", by Sinclair Lewis?
Has anyone ever read of a single spontaneous healing brought on by religious healers documented in The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or The Lancet?
Doesn't anyone read the exposes about Benny Hinn, and similar fakes, by their confederates and investigative reporters?
In the dawning of the 21st century, can it be possible that people still be so credulous as to believe these tent preachers, and TV evangelists can heal your diseases, make the lame walk, the blind see, and the AIDs afflicted well? And all for just a "love offering" of cold hard cash?
If so, I have a lovely piece of the original cross I'd be willing to part with for a small fee. By holding it over your head and clicking your heals together three times while repeating "There's no place like Calvary" it will cure any ailment. All sales final.
Joyce...a long tome, but a good read, albeit, I sense you could have arrived at the same conclusion in fewer words. But who am I to talk ;)
There are many "healers" that I have problems with. But if you back up to the beginning of my blog, I said this:
"Now ... I absolutely believe in the gifts and believe that they are just as active and alive today as they were in biblical times. But there is so much about this "revival" that really disturbs me and has too many of the markings of a false revival."
I do believe in healing. As with anything from my faith, I don't use my blog to defend my beliefs. But if there is something that to me is blatantly wrong, I feel compelled to say something.
And yet, even with your belief that faith can bring about spontaneous healing (with no more scientific corroborated evidence for it than aliens landing on Earth, or BigFoot existing), my guess is you still will use prescription medicines, and frequent medical doctors, and partake in the use of the latest scientific advancement/technology to control pain and eleviate illness/injury.
That doesn't sound like you're all THAT convinced of the healing power of faith.
Once again, Drom, I don't use my blog nor do I feel the need to use this forum to defend my beliefs. It's just a place where I post my personal thoughts about my life, my experiences, stuff I find interesting and random thoughts.
However, I do absolutely, without a doubt believe that God can and does heal. I also believe that sometimes that includes a supernatural healing and sometimes it includes the widsom, science, and medicine that He has given us the knowledge to use.
True, He doesn't always heal. In my own situation, I believe that God wants to use me in my brokenness and sickness to be an encouragement and example to others that even though you may have physical or other limitations, you can live a life of joy, purpose, and fulfillment.
That's about all that I'll comment on this because we both know each other well and know where we stand on things like this. I respect you and the life you've chosen and I know you respect me and the life I've chosen.
Let's leave it at that. I love ya, Bart, but you know we don't agree on this. I won't condemn you for not believing as I do and I ask the same of you.
Peace to you, man.
I don't condemn you, Joyce. I guess its just a matter of trying to understand the conflict between using the full spectrum of medical science's advancements, while at the same time professing belief in supernatural healing for which no evidence exists outside of anecdotal testamony from fellow theists.
You see, I can't even think of an example of anything that I can accept as true for which I have no supporting evidentiary basis.
To me it would be like saying: "Even though I have no proof , I know we all have the ability to transport ourselves across the country by simply using our mind. Oh, and by the way, I'm taking an airplane to California next week." It is both contradictory and counter to reason.
Anyway, I hope you know no disrespect intended.
Not always healing doesn't mean he can't heal and doesn't heal.
We cannot with our earthly minds understand God's will in many cases. We really don't see the big picture. That's why we need to rely on him daily and trust that he is in control and is guiding us in the right direction.
If you have children you understand that their level of knowledge can make it hard for them to accept your decisions.
God can heal anyone. But I don't believe his goal is about everyone being healthy all the time. Not that he doesn't want that and desire that for us. But there are much more important things in life than health. For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?
I personally am enduring an attack on my faith, just 6 short months after being saved. God wants me to be happy, but this discomfort is needed to teach me to trust God and fulfill a greater purpose. That is my belief.
I am trusting that this trial will yield greater happiness than I could have ever expected without going through this.
God could make us happy all the time too. Are we happy all the time ? There are reasons. Don't discount his abilities, trust his wisdom and plan for our lives.
Drom said:
"You see, I can't even think of an example of anything that I can accept as true for which I have no supporting evidentiary basis."
I know this, my dear friend. That is why you are an atheist and I am Christian. lol ;)
And yet we're friends. And quite good ones at that. That in itself allows each other to dialogue opening and honestly. We're different, no doubt. Yet we have learned how to agree to disagree.
No disrespect taken. :)
I'd say I was pretty close to being an atheist about a year ago. :)
God Loves the Atheist! He even pursues them.
Joyce: (k) (f) :D
Scott: sorry pal, your post is just waaay too much theist gibberish and platitude for me to respond to, or take seriously. But, good luck with that.
Drom,
You've definitely taught me a new word (Platitude)
So, your reply was not wasted :)
Drom,
Scott has recently become very good friends. He is an encouragement to me and I love spending time chatting with him and sharing our struggles and joys with each other. Scott's a good, good guy.
And so are you! In fact, Jeff and I consider you one of our dearest friends. (And yes, we have other friends! LOL!)
But I need to tell you that just today when I was talking to Scott, I told him that he probably shouldn't argue with you. He replied by telling me that he's learned that arguments never get anyone anywhere anyhow. And he's right.
I know that when you, me, and Jeff first met, our *ahem* 'discussions' sometimes became more argumentive than I'm sure neither of us intended. Because I respect you and care about you so much, I never want to be saying things about you behind your back that I haven't told you about. So there it is.
I think you'll really like Scott as you get to know him. He's a humble and kind man and I'm sure you'll find some common ground that you can begin a friendship with.
Thanks for listening and thanks to both of you for being such good friends to me and Jeff.
Joyce,
What bothers me about your attitude in believing in supernatural faith healing (be it Christian, Wiccan, New Age mysticism, et el.) leaves you (and the more desperate) open for the type of fraud and hucksterism that your blog railed against. What further confounds me is the magical thinking that faith today heals any more then faith healed 2000 years ago. Consider (from http://skepdic.com/faithhealing.html):
“Most cases of faith healing need no cure, since most patients will get better even if they receive no treatment at all (Hines 2003). Some serious ailments like cancer and multiple sclerosis abate for months or years for reasons we don't understand (Nickell 1993: 134). There is an "impressive variety of ... ailments, ranging from back pains to hysterical blindness, [that] are known to be highly responsive to the power of suggestion." The "main requisite for curative effects" is "the patient's belief in the practitioner's assurances." And, having a positive attitude seems to enhance the body's healing capacities (Nickell 1993: 134).
The majority of faith healings are successful because of the cooperation of healer and patient. Working together, believing in the treatment, strongly desiring the treatment to work, not only can relieve stress and bring about the curative effects of the power of suggestion, it can lead the patient to give testimony that is exaggerated or even false in the desire to get well and to please the healer. The power of subjective validation is enormous and essential to many, if not most, faith healings.
The faith healer can't lose. Any treatment he or she gives is likely to get a high approval rating. Most patients will validate their treatments. There will be no follow-up, so there will be few bothersome failures. The healer is likely to be showered with proclamations of gratitude. It is no wonder, then, that the healer comes to believe that his or her method, whether it be invoking God or the life force or some other mysterious entity, truly works. Even obvious failures can be blamed on the patient for not having enough faith in God or the healing method or for not cooperating fully. Also, many patients are afraid to admit they're not better because that would imply that they lack faith or didn't participate properly. They blame themselves if the treatment doesn't work.”
This is the path which leads to bad things happening to good people who decide that faith is sufficient.
- Fastthumbs
Guess I'll weigh in my two cents...
Joyce,
What bothers me about your attitude in believing in supernatural faith healing (be it Christian, Wiccan, New Age mysticism, et el.) leaves you (and the more desperate) open for the type of fraud and hucksterism that your blog railed against. What further confounds me is the magical thinking that faith today heals any more then faith healed 2000 years ago. Consider (from http://skepdic.com/faithhealing.html):
“Most cases of faith healing need no cure, since most patients will get better even if they receive no treatment at all (Hines 2003). Some serious ailments like cancer and multiple sclerosis abate for months or years for reasons we don't understand (Nickell 1993: 134). There is an "impressive variety of ... ailments, ranging from back pains to hysterical blindness, [that] are known to be highly responsive to the power of suggestion." The "main requisite for curative effects" is "the patient's belief in the practitioner's assurances." And, having a positive attitude seems to enhance the body's healing capacities (Nickell 1993: 134).
The majority of faith healings are successful because of the cooperation of healer and patient. Working together, believing in the treatment, strongly desiring the treatment to work, not only can relieve stress and bring about the curative effects of the power of suggestion, it can lead the patient to give testimony that is exaggerated or even false in the desire to get well and to please the healer. The power of subjective validation is enormous and essential to many, if not most, faith healings.
The faith healer can't lose. Any treatment he or she gives is likely to get a high approval rating. Most patients will validate their treatments. There will be no follow-up, so there will be few bothersome failures. The healer is likely to be showered with proclamations of gratitude. It is no wonder, then, that the healer comes to believe that his or her method, whether it be invoking God or the life force or some other mysterious entity, truly works. Even obvious failures can be blamed on the patient for not having enough faith in God or the healing method or for not cooperating fully. Also, many patients are afraid to admit they're not better because that would imply that they lack faith or didn't participate properly. They blame themselves if the treatment doesn't work.”
This is the path which leads to bad things happening to good people who decide that faith is sufficient.
- Fastthumbs
Joyce...
My bad. I didn't realize you had an approval filter active for your blog...
Please forgive the multiple attempts at posting.
(and there's no need to include this post)
Thanks
Fastthumbs
Fast,
Well stated points of irrefutable fact.
I just read "Blind faith: The Unholy Alliance of Relgion and Medicine" by Richard P. Sloan. Not a great book, but there is some interesting info on the push by religionists for the medical profession to get involved with the "spirituality" of their patients... some actually endorsing direct proselytizing of patients.
down right creepy.
I have a Christian doctor now and sometimes I think he's great and other times ... not so great. I have several documented medical disabilities and am considered legally disabled by our government yet sometimes this guy wants me to try "Biblical foods and diets" and stuff like that instead of treating me medically.
I'm not going to a doctor's office looking for a pastor. I'm going to get medical treatment for my health issues. Sure, he can be an encouragement sometimes, but still ...
Biblical Foods and diets"??????
Like what?? Unlevened bread? Spelt? Barley? Figs? Oxen? Locust?Gourds? Rue? Mustard? Pigeon?
Perhaps you should stop eating shell fish and pork, and make sure your dairy isn't served on the same plates as your meat, ala the kosher restrictions?
Theres something to be said for eating unprocessed foods, les sugar, less fat / lower in cholesterol...but thats common sense.
Joyce, far be it from me to give you medical advise, but if youre still in pain, can't get the relief you need, aren't getting state of the art treatment / benefit of advanced techniques for your illness, but get advise like "eat Biblically", you need a new doctor, be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever.
Oh, I let him know that I'd be willing to look at that stuff (especially when it comes to my sugar levels, my weight, stuff that can and will lead to diabetes if I don't take action), but I also insist on my medications. I like to be able to sleep, to not be depressed when the depression isn't situational and would actually make sense, and I certainly don't like being in pain.
He writes those scripts. Trust me.
Fastthumbs wrote: "This is the path which leads to bad things happening to good people who decide that faith is sufficient."
I don't disagree. There are many vunerable and desperate people being misled and made promises that aren't going to be delivered by those who can't deliver.
It's hard to explain my position on this because I know that supernatural healing is something you adamently do not believe in. Yet I do. I also believe that God gave us a brain to use and to be wise at all times. Wisdom, balance, and common sense play a huge role in anything we do, whether we are believers or not.
Hey, Joyce... nice blog and nice thread. Here's my pseudo-intellectual injection for your amusement.
I, as you recall from working on the Cornerstone mag with me all those years ago, am awfully skeptical -- often moreso of my fellow Christians than of nonbelievers! Maybe New Agers are more gullible... but the jury's out on that one. After all, Evangelicals [no hitting, Joyce!] elected GWB! TWICE! [OH, that snarky Jon!] I did not vote for him either time, and will doubtless get two additional gems in my crown for such wisdom [Are you laughing yet? :-) ] And then a kick in the fanny for being such self-satisfied pain about it.
But as for miracles.... And this a moderate response for Jeff's enjoyment or annoyance... I think the whole thing about a miracle is that it doesn't happen often. If it did, how miraculous would that be? There's Oprah miracles (everything that makes her go "OOOOO!") and then there are miracles of the dictionary-definition type -- stuff that breaks through "natural" law and indicates God is intervening in the natural process. Whether it is Ax-heads floating in water (an OT story) or the Resurrection of Jesus, these are events which "break the rules." By their nature as one-time events, without precident and without repeatability, they are notoriously hard to document.
I've continued to grow in my understanding of Scripture as a believer (though others might call it caving in to the humanists?), and I currently believe that God did indeed use some form of Evolution to create the world. Genesis in such a light is at least partially metaphorical, not ever meant by either its human author or by God to be read literally. But where that impacts miracles is whether or not we believe God -- who is immanent in Creation now as he was then, yet without actually creating it out of his own "God stuff" -- occasionally intervenes to "tweak" Creation directly, even though the laws he put in place to self-organize it (those Darwin and one or two others noted) are normally operative. I'm dubious of I.D. theory, which posits this as a "have your cake and eat it too" response to Evolutionary theory. But I do think in order to be a Christian I must believe in the very least that Jesus' birth, death, and resurrection were real (as in actual, real-life events rather than mere myths). That means miracles are possible, or Christianity is untenable.
The form of evidence I think is left out in discussions of miracles, science, and the like is evidence of a Pascalian nature. That is, human existence, human consciousness, and human "existential" encounter, are also forms of evidence. Yes, they are hard to measure. Yes, they are most strongly evidential to the one experiencing them. But no, they are not easily revoked by the observer, who oftentimes has not taken into consideration his/her own humanity in the analysis of the role of being an "observer."
I could go into a discussion about construction and deconstruction, a sort of moderate post-modern riff. But this is too long already.
Joyce, you are blessed. Take care... you and your good friends, of whatever metaphysical (or lack thereof) persuasion.
jon
Jon!
Great to see you here. It was largely your influence (and the other brilliant folks at Cornerstone mag)that made me question, research, and discern what is what in the latest Christian happenings.
My brother brought up a point with me the other day ... why is it that people have to travel someplace to have an experience with God? If there was true revival, wouldn't that be happening in our hearts right where we are and wouldn't the fruit be what judge it by? Why do I have to go to Florida to have a "God experience"?
I do partly agree with you on true miracles, the ones that defy the natural laws set in place. I think they are rare -- here. I believe in other parts of the world, where God has to be the one to deliver them, that they see far more bonafide miracles in their lives than we do here.
Thoughts?
Jon, if i may: the reason youre willing to accept Evolution, but continue to cage it in terms of an act of god, is you are caught between your 21st century logic/acceptence of scientific proofs, /and ability to reason, and your 2nd century mindset of having to have a supreme creature control things and "fill in the gaps" of your knowledge.
Its a conundrum faced by any number of theists who refuse to, or are unable to due to the poweful religious meme, to fully enter the scientific age and abandon superstition. But I commend you at least on the effort... the evolution of your thinking.
Your need to hold onto the belief in miracles / the supernatural, is clearly defined and emphasized by your statement that without miracles "christianity is untenable". Theres a natural fear in accepting that you cannot give one instance of a genuine miracle, nor could Joyce, nor anyone, either witnessed or independently documented outside of the Bible. To accept that, to state it, would result in your "faith" going up in smoke... and with it, the X number of years of intense indoctrination and growing dependency on supernaturalism and myth. No doubt, a scarey thought.
For who wants to ultimately admit that their parents, clergy, and freinds have unintentionally deceived them; that the years of devotion to fable and the supernatural, passed on from generations down to you, were as meaningful and valid as being tied to belief in aliens, Bigfoot, or Tinkerbell? That to come to terms with the reality that you are responsible for who you are and what you do... your successes, your failures, your growth, or your stagnation, your acts of kindness, or acts of badness, is the effect of who you are and how your personality is shaped. That no "heavenly protector's" influence is doing it for you, is a forboding step.
I imagine it takes alot of courage.
PS: one didn't have to be an Evangelical fundie whacko to vote for Bush twice. I did, and I'm ashamed.
DromedaryHump...
Heh, memes! You must be a fan of Richard Dawkins. My brother turned me on to the meme business, and it is intriguing whether or not one wholly goes w/ Dawkins (who sometimes strikes me as rather "fundamentalist" himself) re his atheism. There's another group of atheists from (I think) Harvard who are far more respectful toward those differing with them, and who indulge in dialogue rather than... well... war with Christians.
Not that I as a Christian can defend how Christians often react to those philosophically / religiously differing with us! Yeesh...
Re the idea that I "have to have" a Supreme Being due to some 2nd century thinking... see, that sounds a bit too much like Dawkins again. Namely, a bit too dismissive of those whose life experiences, choices, and understanding don't match his own. Wouldn't you agree that whether discussing Christianity, Atheism, or the War in Iraq, humility and openness toward one another's humanity is an important foundation to start with?
There are many people who are intelligent Christians, far more intelligent than I am (and I hazard a guess, even more intelligent than you are). Likewise, there are many intelligent Atheists who would believe in a God if they could honestly intellectually do so. But they cannot. I believe them.
Then there are Atheists who, like Christian fundamentalists, are very angry and belittling toward their opposites. I saw a video where Dawkins takes on Ted Haggard (before the latter's exposure as a hypocrite). Haggard has always been an easy target; I went after him myself when he said that the prayers of Evangelical Christians were what helped American troops kill Saddam's sons. (AAARGH!!!)
That aside, however, Haggard was pretty much mocked, ridiculed, and called (among other things) a Nazi by Dawkins, who did so by comparing Haggard's church services to SS Rallies.
That sort of thing rallies ones' own troops, and I've watched Christian Right folk do it for years. Screaming at the Other as though they are Satan's minions... but is it much different for an Atheist to do it when confronting Christians? Satan, of course, would not be invoked by an Atheist. But what would usually be invoked is (1) the Christian's lack of intelligence, (2) the Christian being (instead of a Satanist) a fascist, (3) the Christian who might be intelligent being warped psychologically (Freud) exhibiting a neurotic religious impulse.
And then the conversation breaks down and everyone walks away thinking their side won... whereas in actuality no one wins such debates. They are rooted in rudeness, not evidence.
I submit this for your thoughts rather than asserting my absolute truth over against your truth. I am just a man, after all, and truth is a pretty weighty thing for me to claim to be able to lift.
Blessings,
jon
Jon,
Thanks for the reply. I trust your reference to rude and aggessive behavior ala Dawkins, wasn't directed at me.
I only get angry when Fundies try to dumb down our schools with Creationism / ID; or when their moral dictates from their supreme being subvert the freedoms of Americans, or when government picks mypocket to suborn religious organizations. Otherwise, I just make fun of them as a hobby... no anger.
I'll respond to one point in your reply, that of being "dismissive" of others life's experiences / choices, that then give rise to their "beliefs" or lack thereof.
I am dismissive of people who invest their lives in conspiracy theories that are unsubstantiated. People who believe Area 51 houses alen corpses. I am dismissive of those who think the US government contrived 9/11 for some nefarious purpose. I am dismissive of people who to this day believe we never landed on the Moon, that the pyramids were built by aliens, and that Heiligh Salasi [sp?] the deceased Emperor of Ethiopia was the savior, and will come again.
My guess is you are dismissive of many if not most of these things as well... inspite of whatever experience, instinct, rumor, or enthusiasim may drive these people's beliefs.
Do they have the right to these absurd thoughts and beliefs? Absolutly.
Do they warrent my respect? Nope.
Religious belief is no more deserved of respect than any other unsupportable, debunked, and dissmisal deserved belief system grounded on fantasy. I owe it no more respect, and it deserves no less dismissal , than a modern day practioner of Aztec sacrifice to the Sun God, or someone who believes that Athena sprang from the head of Zeus.
That you, and many other, Xtians have been able to encorporate science and logic into your belief system...creating a hybrid as it were between total dependency on supernatural, and recognition of man's discoveries ... is a good thing. I welcome and commend it. I see it as a step in the evolution of religion that began some 300 years ago with the advent of the scientific age.
That you retain that hand hold on supernaturalism, and can't just acknowledge the teachings attributed to Jesus as a refinement of morality and good guide for civilization, and accept the singularity and reality of the physical world is tantamount to why we still have a vestigial tail, and body hair. Eventually, that too will pass.
Regards,
Hump
Dromedaryhump...
Egad... no, I certainly was not targeting you w/ my comments re Dawkins. Nor was I neatly dismissing everything he says merely because of the manner and attitude he sometimes displays while saying it.
I -- quite predictably -- remain unconvinced that one can logically equate belief in a God with belief in aliens, a "faked" moon landing, and so on. For one thing, there's a certain disconnect I've experienced when talking to folks obsessed w/ UFOs, Illuminati conspiracies, and the like. They are not, as a rule, intelligent folk or folk capable of admitting to the power of doubt.
Unlike them, I point to Christians as disparate as Dostoevski, Walker Percy, Blaise Pascal, Gabriel Marcel, Soren Kierkegaard, and even the current head of the Genome Project (name escapes me), an Evolutionist and Evangelical.
Nor, when reading UFO materials, do I detect a rich subcurrent of self-doubt and uncertainty as I do among Christian thinkers. Of course, you might see in that doubt an admission of cerebral discord between two beliefs in conflict. But what I see in it is the ability of a healthy mind to acknowledge the (at least mathematical) possibility that one is wrong about everything important. Some atheists have that ability as well... I don't honestly think that Dawkins or Hitchens do have it. They are, like Christian fundies, so afraid (it seems to me) of being wrong that they cannot admit such a possibility might exist.
But... perhaps I am a link in the chain of human progress past God. Hehehe... if so, I must be a missing link.
Blessings,
jon
Jon,
yes, Xtians like F.S. Collins, the head of the gnome project, are a rarity. That he is able to compartmentalize his belief, so that it is kept distinct and separate from his scientific side is an accomodation that is rare and unusual.
No doubt you are aware that upwards of 93-96% of the most respected scientists of the "hard sciences" in the world ... members of the UK's Royal Society of Science, and its American counterpart, the National Academy of Science ... claim no belief in God/s. Collins falls in the remaining 4 - 7%. It makes him a very rare among his peers.
I think you are wrong in dismissing Dawkins or Hitchens as having zero ability to accept the possibiity that God / gods exists, along with all the traditional accoutrements (i.e. heaven, hell, angels, demons, satan, witches...et al). I am sure that they are willing to reserve the exact same amout of credulity for such things as you are in accepting the existence of "Russell's Teapot".
Refreshing your memory allow me to paraphrase and embellish the concept a tad: it proposes that a teapot, fine porcelean I believe, is in orbit around a distant star...alpha centuri lets say. Its white, with a wedgewood blue lid. It may be 1/2 full with steaming Earl Grey, I'm not sure on this point.
That it can't be seen, or detected in anyway; that there is no evidence of its existence; that the mechanism for its existence is unknown does not dismiss it's possible existence. The fact that we can imagine it's existence, write it down, and declare its possiblity is good enough to attribute some degree of likelihood.
The percentage of likelihood that you are willing to attribute to Russel's Teapot existing, is very close to (albeit, probably higher than) the percentage of likelihood that Dawkins and Hitchens, and Harris, and I are willing to attribute to the possibility of the existence of a supernatural being and it's/his/her complimentary supernatural accoutrements.
I'm quite sure that you'd require some very extraordinary, hard, objective, and compelling evidence to convince you to believe that teapot really exists. So would I.
Thats because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Yet strangely, while I (and Hitchens, Dawkins et al.) need the exact same level of hard and compelling objective evidence to convince us of God/gods/supernaturalism, YOU accept supernaturalism with no more hard and objective evidence than you have for that teapot.
Its an inconsistency that dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and I do not have; and one that defies logic, albeit...we know that "faith" in Gods (and cosmic teapots) defies logic.
That alien advocates, conspiracy theorists, young earthers, flat earthers, Rasafarians, witch believers, etc, need no hard evidence to justify their beliefs, pretty much places them in the same catagory as Christians and theists in general ... as far I am concerned. I'd guess that 93-96% of the best scientific minds on the planet would agree.
Gesundheit,
Hump
Hahaha @ "Gesundheit" to Jon's "Blessings".
You guys are too much fun.
Hmm. Well, there are eyewitnesses regarding Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
Are there any eyewitnesses to the teapot?
YUh...sure Joyce. Yeah... I have seen the teapot. It's there. Now what?
Want me to find three or four others who will swear to it too? Not a major problem. I'm sure St. Fastthumbs, St. Holey Hands, St. Crazydad, etal, will confirm the sighting.
Strangely, there may not be any other corroborating evidence or testemony from other of our contemporaries, disinterested independent sources, but that shouldn't be a problem for you.
There are many people who have claimed to have seen Bigfoot; many have claimed to have seen/ been abducted / and anally probed by aliens; people in India swear they have seen Vishnu; people who have seen visions of the virgin mary while driving their cars; American Indians who have seen the Great Spirt in the form of the White Buffalo; people who happily killed themselves enmasse because they believed in their
"Heavens Gate" leader and the mothership that awaited them.
How many of those peoples theories or accounts are you readily willing to accept as true and real on their say so, with no other evidence?
I think we know the answer to that.
No...the ONLY one you'd be willing to accept is the one YOU have already bought into and devoted your life to. All those others are just...imaginary.
Actually, I think the "teapot" would fall under the alien abduction/conspiracy theory category.
I'll quote Jon here:
"I -- quite predictably -- remain unconvinced that one can logically equate belief in a God with belief in aliens, a "faked" moon landing, and so on. For one thing, there's a certain disconnect I've experienced when talking to folks obsessed w/ UFOs, Illuminati conspiracies, and the like. They are not, as a rule, intelligent folk or folk capable of admitting to the power of doubt."
There are a few issues with your last few posts, Hump, that probably won't lead us anywhere yet I feel compelled to at least mention.
First, the idea that "hard scientists" almost universally disbelieve in a supernatural reality. That's an odd thought on a number of levels. One, doesn't having a "belief" or "disbelief" in something which one cannot test for fly up in the face of science itself? Two, is science really the measure of all forms of "knowing" -- and by extension, are scientific forms of knowing more "real" than those arrived at via philosophy, existential experience, and even theology? Finally, it is to me interesting that you would divide out "hard" scientists from other scientists when discussing beliefs in God vs. non-beliefs. Up to three quarters of scientists overall believe in some sort of God, as did Albert Einstein. (I don't suggest that God is necessarily the Christian God -- but we're no where near that topic here.)
I continue to sense that you are shaping your arguments before you begin. Understandable, as "my side" (sigh) often does the same thing. In fact, it is a fairly potent argument to say that *no one* begins at the beginning. We all carry presuppositions along with our most foundational questions which for most of us are undetectable. Only a willingness to dig beyond any normal depth will expose them -- or some of them -- to our own eyes. Good discerning friends, and even "good" enemies, help in that process.
I do not pretend to be able to answer others' deep questions. I'm often unable to answer even my own. But speaking honestly, as I know you have here to the best of your ability, I cannot deny what I have seen, known, and lived within for the past 35 years. Nor can I, though a defender of science against (among others) young-earthers and the like, subscribe to scientism, a to me false idea that science will eventually subsume all other fields of knowledge within itself. This is a faith claim, not an evidential one... as far as I can see, that is. I continue to look and think and (yes) prayerfully consider these things.
I do agree with Betrand Russell on one thing, all teapots aside. If in fact there is no God, the only real choice is (I am nearly quoting him now) to see life as one way road between two impassible mountain ranges with a dead end soon to come into view. What I am also willing to say about that, apparently unlike Mr. Russell (and the other Englishmen whom Nietzsche so devastingly attacked as weaklings who had killed God yet insisted on morals), is that if there is no God then there certainly are no morals, no rights, no wrongs.
I am limited only by what other human beings decide to do to me if I exercise my randomly created life in a way they find offensive.
But as for love, meaning (in any deeper sense), or even defining humanness... how is one "good" (how does one even define "good") without God?
By the way, the tea in that teapot is undoubtedly Constant Comment, whatever the flavor.
Bl... uh, good thoughts!
Jon
Jon,
Please do not distort or pervert the discussion o the National Academy and Royal sociey scientists. The factsare plan, and you can check it yorself, since its been surveyed multiple times and the results reported. Simply stated, the greatest scientific minds we have reject supernauralism / god / gods. They do so at a high rate..93-97%. It speaks of their experience and exucation and knowledge of reality, the physical world, and the forces that created it. There is nothing more to it than that.
The reason the "hard disciplines" are specifically denoted is that social sicentists do not have the depth of understanding of naturl forces that the hard sciences require. Thus,its not unc0ommon for mathematicians,psychiatrists, sociologists, even anthropologists to hold religious views, albeit, they do so at substatially lower rates than the general population.
I implore you to NOT speak of Einstein as having a belief in god... as you understand the term "God" or god For three reasons.
1) because I have read ALL of Einsteins letters, including the most recently discovered one from this year, and his poistion on the supernatural and god is clear. He rejects it. His two statements about "science is lame w/out religion" et al", and his reference to his concept of a god being close to "the god of Spinoza" (a pantheistic god by the way) not with standing, Eintsein was agnostic to the end.
2) His concept of a god was essoteric , and was meant to describe the mysteries, awe, and beauty of the natural universe and the forces that drive it; the beauty of mathematics in its exactitude and application to those forces. It is akin to how I as an atheist would express a sense of awe and majesty to a magnificent sunset or rainbow, or mountain vista... or a fantastially complex formula. It was not about acknowledging a "being" or even a separate entitiy or force who creates, or controls, or exists, either in fact or in essence. His daughter was very specific about this.
3) I am something of an "quasi"expert on Einstein's life and letters, whereas I'm going to venture your knowledge is limited to those two extracts,from his many writings on the subject, that less informed Xtians love to quote.
Those two pargraphs had purposes you'd probably not understand, having never yourself been an agnostic of jewish descent in early 20th century German or America.
To put it bluntly, the only thing worse than a Jew back then was an atheist or agnostic. Things have changed somewhat in that regard over the past 65 years or so... in some areas, not all. i.e. One still requires "belief" to be elected to public office in this country
-----
YOU SAID: I continue to sense that you are shaping your arguments before you begin.
I have zero idea what that means.
-----
YOU SAID: I cannot deny what I have seen, known, and lived within for the past 35 years.
Well, I will proffer there is very little youve seen, known, or lived with in your 35 years, that I in my 59 years havnt seen... multiple times... and more so.
The difference is you are more prone to apply / attribute taught religious justifications for these things, while I am aware of the actual real world / physical / psychological causes. Thats what sets the mystic / witch doctor / and 2nd century peasant apart from the realist / scientist/ 21st century thinker. No offense intended, by the way, its not something you opted for or selected. I would no more insult you or condemn your thought process than I would condemn a Hindu raised in India for believing in Ganesh, or the power of Shiva ,Vishnu et al.
------
You Said: if there is no God then there certainly are no morals, no rights, no wrongs.
Ive heard this before, and it is without any basis in reality.
There are no absolute morals. If there were, they would be universally accepted by all cultures. They arent.
Morals and ethics have evolved over time as a basic need to maintain the fabric of civilized societies. It didnt take El, or Baal, or Tammuz, or Mithra to tell the persians, Cannanites, romans, Babylonians that murder is wrong, and was punishable by death.
Yet, it seems your god overlooked declaring slavery immoral. He had his chance in the Ten Commandments, yet blew it. Man established the laws against slavery, as an obsolete social construct.
Your god didn't seem to have issues with pedophilia, yet civilized man, relatively recently, established these laws.
Your God never had a problem with the Hebrew's genocide of competing tribes, or mass extermination of entire cultures including their live stock. He never seemed to have a problem with Infaticide, nor the abduction and rape of "women who have not known men" from those non-hebrew tribes.
Strange, that in spite of those less than attractive god traits and examples, man has evolved a moral code that defies your god's hideous examples of rape, genocide, infanticide and subordination of slavery.
In my most recent blog post I speak about "God Given Rights". The concept is as absurd as the concept of man being unable to extablish morals and ethics that are to his best advantage, both socially and economically, without some supreme being concept.
-----
You said: I am limited only by what other human beings decide to do to me if I exercise my randomly created life in a way they find offensive.
Uh, yeah. but with or without the concept of God / gods, that would be true. There will always be people who live outside the socially acceptable norms of civilized society... norms establiushed by that society.
I'll guarentee you this, you'd be more likely to be beaten and attacked randomlyby a fellow Xtian, than by an atheist, and not as a result of the fewer numbers of atheists.
This concept of "Without God how would we know what is good" is a platitude that Xtians have always fallen back on, but has zero merit or logic. It is tantamount to saying "Without drowning oneself how would we know its no damn fun?".
The fact that animals care for their young, group together to protect the pack or herd or flock, for the good of their "community" the continuity of their social structure, isn't "god given". Its survival instinct.
The fact that the earliest homonid's understood that if you steal from another memeber of the group he will steal from you, or kill you in return, wasn't a difficult concept to ingrain into group think.
But, I sense that what weve reached here is that point of impass. You want to attribute everything we have come to learn and develope to "God's will". I want to attribute it to an evolutionary process over thousands and thousands of years of hunter gatherer, agrarian, and industrial societies needs to exist and prosper.
One of us is basing it on archeological evidence, historical documents, species observations, and empericism by the greatest minds of the past 200 years.
The other of us wants to base it on age old mysticism.
Nice chatting with you.
Hump
Joyce,
OOps..sorry, didn't mean to neglect your comment above Jon's.
I'm not sure quoting jon is necessarily adding any new insights to the convo.
Unless there is some hard / statistical "evidence" that conspiriacy theorists, Bigfoot researchers, alein abductees et al, are, as a group, fundamentally less intelligent, less capable of denying the fallacy of their beliefs as Xtians, then no case has been made.
Jon hasn't demonstrated it, nor have you. He has made a subjective statement based on anecdotal one on ones with some small number of people he claims to have met who were advocates of these things.
My "experience" with Xtians and these other delusions is that:
1) There is likely no statistically signifcant variance in intellect nor education on the aggregate, between Xtians and these whack jobs.
and
2) I contend that the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists and big foot / alien enthusiasts etc., etc., ARE THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS! While I have no hard evidence to back this claim at this writing, it is more than likely factual based on deduction to wit:
a) Xtians comprise 78-83% of the US population! and
b) atheists are too skeptical, to believe in things for which no proofs exist... thats why we're atheists ;)
Thus, when insulting the intellect and voracity of these whacko belief people, you are infact insulting your fellow Christians.
Now, I personally have no problem with your doing that...just pointing it out. :D
Hey...heres an idea..why dont you and Jon come over to MY blog and read me the riot act there????
Here's the data on the National Academy of science (US)(93% disbelief) and the Royal Society of Science (UK) (97% disbelief) and the logic as to why. Interesting reading.
BTW...Neither of these publications are atheist and have no axe to grind in reporting the scientific survey results. They are Nature Magazine, and Telegraph Newspaper in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Oh..sorry. But this should be helpful on the Einstein issue.
That latest letter, which sold for $400k pretty much closes the door on any misunderstanding of Einstein and a belief in "God".
Heres the story, and the text.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
OK OK..LAST ONE... I PROMISE:
do a Google for "Christian Alien Abduction". You will be amazed!
Heres an exerpt from web site called "alien resistence" that reinforces my premise in my prior post to you, Joyce. It talks about resisting alien abduction thru Christ. They see aliens as demons.
" Remember, you are a sovereign individual, created in the image of God. You have the right to say no this "rape" of your free will. In Christ, you can have the power as well. Educating yourself on the truth behind the alien deception, then securing a frame of mind to resist through the authority of Jesus Christ, is the key. Bringing others into your life to pray with you is often essential - especially if you are not currently a Christian, or have certain avoidable "open doors" in your life. "
http://www.alienresistance.org/makeitstop.htm
I rest my case.
And here's one about an atheist group and aliens.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/raelians/raelians69.html
So what's your point?
well Joyce, I guess my point is this:
Google "atheist alien abductee" and you get one or two (inlcuding the link you posted) hits of people who claim no belief in god but who claim belief in aliens.
Do the same for "Christian alien abductee" and you get about thirty+ hits of chrisians and christian groups discussing their abductions and how to use christ to avoid them.
Now... you do the math.
Atheists = 10% +/- of the US population / Christians = 80%+/-. Mathematically, one would expect if there are 30+ Xtian alien believer accounts/ web sites, there whould be at least FOUR atheist abductee believers sites.
There arent.
Thus, religious believers are far more inclined to believe in alien abduction than atheists, disproportiinate to their representation within the US population, based on this admittedly unscientific snapshot of google sites.
As a matter of fact under the "atheist alien" search there are sites that explain specifically WHY atheist acceptence of such nonsense is so rare. It goes back to lack of objective proof and evidence, and Occam's razor.
I guess thats my point. And it's made.
Hump...
You wrote:
One of us is basing it on archeological evidence, historical documents, species observations, and empericism by the greatest minds of the past 200 years.
The other of us wants to base it on age old mysticism.
That is an illustration of the problem here. I could play this silly game and point out you have two misspellings in the above paragraph, then suggest this shows how arrogant you are. Actually, it proves nothing like that. But the false dichotomy you're making between any number of things -- "hard" vs. "not as hard" science, science vs. mysticism, physical evidence vs. psychological/sociological/spiritual evidences -- short circuits any real conversations with anyone disagreeing with you. Do you see why, for me at least, it is reminsicent of talking with fundamnetalists about womens' rights, evolution, why Barack Obama is a pretty darn good candidate, and the like?
There's no real beginning ever possible if one or both partners in a potential conversation have locked their brains into a way of thinking that freezes out the other.
To echo Soren Kierkegaard, I am "One who speaks without authority." I do so because when I meet those who speak with great authority, they invariably are not believable.
If you instantly marginalize anyone who suggests, unlike you, that there are additional ways of knowing beyond those of physical science, you are surely safe from ever having your beliefs shaken. But note... they are beliefs that you hold. Nothing, not even your own existence (despite Descartes) can be absolutely proven.
Or so I, without authority, suggest.
Jon
Jon,
I seemed to have raised your Christian ire, or offended your sensibilites. Sorry. Reality does have a way of doing that.
My mispellings not withstanding ( I tend to go for function vs form), my arrogance is one of my more endearing qualities. Thanks for noticing. I wouldn't change it for a minute.
The survey results that report high percentages of nonbelief in the two most esteemed scientific institutions on the planet distinguish the results in the "hard disciplines" (the sciences that deal with natural forces, quantum mechanics, biology, geology, astrophysics, astronomy, celluar biology, et al), vs the "soft sciences", the social sciences, mathematics, archeology, et al.
The deliniation isnt mine, its common practice / accepted terminology. You may be unaware of that.
Those scientists that deal hands on witin the "hard disciplies" are the ones least likely to believe in the supernatural, God/s. The reason for that isn't hard to understand. Example: Some one with a Phd in Theology, who is an archeologist isn't likly to have his belief challenged by the natural laws and scientific realities of astrophysics.
If you read the two articles I provided, you'd have realized this isn't MY dichotomy. I'm just reporting the facts, your need to redress the messenger not withstanding.
I have always found it a marvel of Christian reasoning that they can refer to Free Thinkers, people who have read the mythical scriptures, studied comparitive religion, but chose to reject it and instead accept scientific evidence over religious faith, as having "locked their brains" or closed their minds.
We, the ones who have allowed new discoveries, new advances, new information to revise and ammend past errors and misinformation, or refined cursory knowledge with better understanding.. WE'RE the ones who have locked their brains!?~
I propose to you that having no more evidence, no new information, no revision to doctrinal beliefs in 2000 years, and mouthing the exact same devotion to unproven/unsupportable myth as 2nd century mystics did, infers one of us is locking their brains. But it isn't I.
What sets liberal Chriatins apart and more evolved, than a Fudie is their intertwining of what science has irrefutably proven, or for which it has provided evidence of overwhelming likelyhood; with the ancient mystical beliefs that simply require abandoning reason.
One of my favorite Christian platitudes is: "If you'd just open your mind, and let Jesus in...".
Indeed, if I could just close my mind to scientific evidence that has diminsihed the "God did it" explanations exponentialy over the past 300 years. If I could just stop reasoning, questioning , divest myself of my 21st century logical mind, and blindly accept myth with no more evidence than you have for any one of thousands of gods/man-gods/and spiritual entities past and present, then I could be as vapid and archaic in my thinking as they. What a wonderful prospect.
Yes, please ... demonstrate for me the "additional ways of knowing" beyond what science has taught us. I won't fear having my "beliefs" shaken, because i don't have "beliefs". I base my perspective ,opinion, positions, and acceptence/rejection of propositions not on "belief" but on understanding of the physical world, on evidence, on observation, on accepting or rejecting hypotheses pursuant to their validity and objectivity , or lack there of.
BUT, Jon, if you have some way of objectively "knowing" beyond science, veyond logic, beyond reason, beyond direct observation, or in contradiction to the scientific method or the laws of physics et al, I'd love to see that objective evidence.
My guess is you have only your subjective opinion, and ancient mythical cult writings, to support it. Sorry, thats just not good enough.
If thats "closed minded" if thats "brain locked", then I simply ask you to open your mind and accept the existence of Unicorns. If you can't without my providing hard evidence, I submit you're as closed minded as I. For there is little difference between the unseeable, the unprovable, the unknowable, and the nonexistant.
Finall, nice quote from Kierkegaard. But, I don't speak with authority. I am no scientist, I don't pretend to have all the answers. I am simply providing you my opinion, some objective information that is corroborated and verifiable and not subjective(i.e Einstein), and some documented fact(i.e. the survey results). If that makes me akin to a Xtian Fundamentalist, then I think the comparison is not only invalid, but hyperbole on your part. Fundies don't deal in objective info or documented fact... ONLY opinion and myth.... for their discourse and life choices.
Or so I have observed.
Hump
Jon..
IDEA.
This exchange can't progress simply by repeating our respective positions. Lets take a single example of how I view something from a scientific knowledge perspective, and you demonstrate for me how you "know" something beyond science.
Lets say: Ressurection.
Science tells me that upon the death of living organic tissue the cells begin to break down. The decomposition begins almost immediately. All the tissues in the body: brain cells, muscle, nerve cells, etc, start to rot. All electrical impulses in the brain cease, all synapses stop. The body stiffens with rigormortise. After three days, without embalming, the progression is such that the body gasses expand, and the stench of rotting flesh becomes rather significant. You get the picture.
With all our scientifc advancements, there is no known mechanism that allows this progressive deterioration to be reversed. No one has ever seen or documented an actual deceased cadaver of one, two, or three days duration having been brought back to life. Uh...except in various ancient scriptures from various mythological gods... where ressurection is a veritable prerequisit for any self respecting god.
So.. based on this limit of science, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, I reject Jesus' or Lazarus' etc.,ressurection as real, and dismiss it as myth.
Now. If you can provide me with knowldege of how this is possible, that transends and overrides scientific knowledge, a knowledge that is so compelling that it would override the known limitations of the physical world, I'd like to hear it.
But... if the best you will offer will be a platitude i.e. :
"The Bible told me so."
"God works in strange and mysterious ways."
"I know in my heart it's true."
"Jesus and God are ONE and all things are possible through God."
"Therefore I KNOW."
Then I suggest to you that you aren't provding "knowledge" at all, and that you are simply inappropriately calling your "faith" and belief in 1800 yr old docrine knowledge, which is not knowledge at all. Faith is belief in the absence of knowledge.
Anyway...if you're inclined to backup your statement of "knowledge beyond science" I stand ready to listen and be convinced.
If not, I'll fully understand.
Hump
I saw your Todd Bentley on TV last night. A bigger charlatan, and more ignorant and pathetic assembledge of believers would be hard to find.
When challenged to provide proof of spiritual healings, he just handed out a boiler plate PR folder...names of doctors and hospitals of the alleged "healed" strangely blacked out.
How ANYONE watching this buffoon in action, seeing the theatrics, the nonsensical falling over and shaking and jerking and "whooping" noises, and not realize that this is a money making scheme and utter foolishness is beyond stupid.
Sorry, but believers in this nonsenical crap are no better than believers in voodoo witch doctor healings. But,at least THOSE poor deluded people have the excuse of being primitive, uneducated. and without genuine medical recourse.
Drom,
Really? Where did you see him? I'd love to find it online so I can download it and share it with some friends.
As you know, it's all that madness that you mentioned (the theatrics, the nonsensical falling over and shaking and jerking and "whooping" noises) that put up my red flags to begin with and start really researching both Todd and this so-called "revival".
I guess the best way that I can at least grasp at understanding why so many are falling for this (pun not intended!) is that there is a scripture in the NT that talks about "not quenching the Holy Spirit of God". I think for many, including some of my friends, they become so determined not to do that and end up becoming deceived in the process.
What believing Christians need to remember are the other scriptures, particularly the ones about deceivers and about being like the Bereans who received what was shared with joy -- but then went back to the Scripture to make sure it lined up.
I know that this probably doesn't make sense to you as an unbeliever, but it's what I as a Christ follower believe is happening. And it really, really disturbs me.
Let me know where you saw the Todd Bentley segment. Thanks for letting me know!
Joyce,
it was on nightline July 9.
heres a link to ABCs report:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/story?id=5338963&page=1
There are also 9 minute clips on YouTube. Its a disgraceful display.
It seems "Todd", as a result of ABC's expose, is "taking some time off". Heheheh. Yeah, probably to makesure his funds are safely squirriled away in an off shore account before the shit hits the fan.
Frankly, people like him are simply businessmen. He see's a demand for his game, and is capitalizing on it. It's as American (or canadian) as apple pie. That he feeds off the gulliblity, hopes, superstitions of the most desperate, the least intellgent, and most superstitious is unfortunate, but that's their choice.
Post a Comment