tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post7821109449568445675..comments2023-06-29T02:07:49.894-09:00Comments on The Mustard Seed: A Comment Thread to a Christian NationTMShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-77465052256514786802009-09-24T09:01:08.996-09:002009-09-24T09:01:08.996-09:00J: "Do you care at all about the actual reaso...J: "Do you care at all about the actual reasons for the Inquisition, or the Church's role in New World colonization, or are you just interested in bashing the religion at every chance?"<br /><br />TW: The first two.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-4845891241122733782009-09-24T08:54:12.526-09:002009-09-24T08:54:12.526-09:00TW: I would wager to say that the genocide of here...TW: I would wager to say that the genocide of heretics found in the Old Testament gave the Church's leaders of the Middle Ages the authorization they needed.<br /><br />Honestly, Todd, that is pretty lame. I am getting the impression you are not a free thinker interested in evidence, but simply anti-Christian. <br /><br />Do you care at all about the actual reasons for the Inquisition, or the Church's role in New World colonization, or are you just interested in bashing the religion at every chance?Justinhttp://religionnewsblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-20456097634601634042009-09-24T05:01:37.293-09:002009-09-24T05:01:37.293-09:00Anon: "Where is your physical evidence of thi...Anon: "Where is your physical evidence of this "god's" existance?"<br /><br />TW: I briefly state the case here...<br /><br />http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/best-evidence-for-god-in-one-paragraph.html<br /><br />Anon: "Is this 'god' a person?"<br /><br />TW: You'll have to clarify what you mean by "person."<br /><br />Anon: "Does this being have a mind?"<br /><br />TW: Yes.<br /><br />Anon: Has this "god" ever spoken?<br /><br />TW: Yes, I think there's a good possibility of that.<br /><br />Anon: Is this being the Creator of the universe? <br /><br />TW: Yes.<br /><br />Anon: Is this "god" omnipotent? <br /><br />TW: Yes.<br /><br />Anon: Has this "god" demonstrated any interest in your life whatsoever, much less any indication of love?<br /><br />TW: Yes. In addition to what I wrote in the essay I linked to above, I can think of at least one area of my life in which things had a habit of turning out in a way that made me think it was more than coincidental.<br /><br />Anon: "Who is this "god" anyway? Allah? YHWH? Zeus? L. Ron Hubbard? Perhaps it is the "god of this world"?"<br /><br />TW: I feel pretty confident saying that God isn't the Allah, YHW, or Zeus you find in traditional religious texts. <br /><br />I simply call God "God." I don't have any better term in my vocabulary.<br /><br />Anon: If this "god" is silent, how do you know this being hears your prayers? <br /><br />TW: I don't know if my prayers are being heard (I think they are, but it's possible they're not). Even if they're not being heard, I think they have value in giving me an opportunity to express my relation to the divine.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-39027125276138527912009-09-24T04:49:43.334-09:002009-09-24T04:49:43.334-09:00Anon: Please show where the Bible authorizes the I...Anon: Please show where the Bible authorizes the Inquisition.<br /><br />TW: I would wager to say that the genocide of heretics found in the Old Testament gave the Church's leaders of the Middle Ages the authorization they needed.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-80288364325224061852009-09-24T03:40:51.044-09:002009-09-24T03:40:51.044-09:00Inquisition = Christianity?
Please show where the...Inquisition = Christianity?<br /><br />Please show where the Bible authorizes the Inquisition.<br /><br />Include chapter and verse, please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-59838834441034705472009-09-23T13:56:22.653-09:002009-09-23T13:56:22.653-09:00This "god" you pray to:
Where is your p...This "god" you pray to:<br /><br />Where is your physical evidence of this "god's" existance?<br /><br />Is this "god" a person? Does this being have a mind? Has this "god" ever spoken? Is this being the Creator of the universe? Is this "god" omnipotent? Has this "god" demonstrated any interest in your life whatsover, much less any indication of love?<br /><br />Who is this "god" anyway? Allah? YHWH? Zeus? L. Ron Hubbard? Perhaps it is the "god of this world"?<br /><br />If this "god" is silent, how do you know this being hears your prayers? How do you know this being even cares about you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-41954051820902417112009-09-23T12:36:31.828-09:002009-09-23T12:36:31.828-09:00Challenge: I don't see the Holy Spirit.
Respo...Challenge: I don't see the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Response: [hold hands over eyes] I don't see you.<br /><br />Borrowed from: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/02/existence-of-god-next-2.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-80969554323227731572009-09-23T12:32:46.874-09:002009-09-23T12:32:46.874-09:00Anon: Where is the conflict? You don't see the...Anon: Where is the conflict? You don't see the Holy Spirit right now. Do you know where to look? <br /><br />TW: I'm looking right now. I twisted my head from side to side and turned around. Didn't see anything.<br /><br />Anon: "God won't enter your life unless you ask Him."<br /><br />TW: God is already in my life.<br /><br />Anon: "Have you ever read the Bible?"<br /><br />TW: I've read the New Testament.<br /><br />Anon: Have you ever prayed? <br /><br />TW: Yes. I pray all the time.<br /><br />Anon: Keep seeking and God Bless.<br /><br />TW: I will. God bless you too.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-10920468051784721402009-09-23T12:27:40.639-09:002009-09-23T12:27:40.639-09:00"And since in many ways what you're sayin..."And since in many ways what you're saying CONFLICTS with MY sensory data and emotional feeling"<br /><br />Where is the conflict? You don't see the Holy Spirit right now. Do you know where to look? If I went looking for elephants in my downstairs bathroom, is it a conflict that I don't see any?<br /><br />"it's not good enough for me to take another person's word for it."<br /><br />Again, I wouldn't promise that anyway. As a sinner, I can't send you the Holy Spirit, only Jesus can. Trust yourself, for now, until you come to Trust God. But God won't enter your life unless you ask Him. <br /><br />"In other words, I am open to new knowledge and experiences. My interest is sincere."<br /><br />Have you ever read the Bible? I mean really read it, as you would read any other non-fiction work (I'm not saying you can't read with a critical mind, only that you must take it seriously).<br /><br />Have you ever prayed? You can Pray for the Holy Spirit to open your mind and give you the Truth about God. Try it. Worse case, it does nothing. <br /><br />Keep seeking and God Bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-23087371115439295752009-09-23T10:31:31.362-09:002009-09-23T10:31:31.362-09:00Anon: "I have a guess. You don't know ver...Anon: "I have a guess. You don't know very many Bible-believing Christians in real life."<br /><br />TW: Actually, I do. I can think of at least 5 close friends. Plus most of my family.<br /><br />Anon: "The Holy Spirit is NOT an emotional feeling. It's a real presence, as real as any other sensory data."<br /><br />TW: I'm open to that possibility. But it's not a part of MY sensory data or MY emotional feeling. <br /><br />And since in many ways what you're saying CONFLICTS with MY sensory data and emotional feeling, it's not good enough for me to take another person's word for it. That would be a dereliction of my rational, independent judgment which enables me to distinguish between what is true and false.<br /><br />I'm not saying Christianity is false. Note the title of my original essay: "Why I Am Not a Christian (At Least Not Yet)."<br /><br />"Not yet."<br /><br />In other words, I am open to new knowledge and experiences. My interest is sincere.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-46950671274632355192009-09-23T10:21:16.491-09:002009-09-23T10:21:16.491-09:00I have a guess. You don't know very many Bible...I have a guess. You don't know very many Bible-believing Christians in real life. So you give the the standard "reasonist" answer than I am just a deluded idiot. It's insulting. And boring enough to make me move onto something more interesting.<br /><br />But moving on: The Holy Spirit is NOT an emotional feeling. It's a real presence, as real as any other sensory data. That you present the Christian's experience as "contradictory to his rational mind and his experience of Reality" is simply begging the question.<br /><br />Perhaps you label logical fallacies (such as question begging) as "rational." Perhaps logic plays no role in your definition of "reason." <br /><br />Speaking of trust issues, I don't believe you are interested in how other people experience, understand, and justify their faith. I see little evidence of an intellectually curious person. I see someone with very little understanding of theology, the Bible and church history, standing on a soap-box and preaching about a make-believe conflict between "reason vs. faith" -- like it hasn't been discussed to death in 2000 years. It's boring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-20869928014498079972009-09-23T10:18:23.105-09:002009-09-23T10:18:23.105-09:00J: "People do all kinds of wacky things in th...J: "People do all kinds of wacky things in the name of spreading Christianity, which CHRIST HIMSELF CONDEMNS."<br /><br />T: I should clarify. Yes, if a crazy guy kills an abortion doctor because he said "Christ told me to" that does not discredit Christianity. Not at all.<br /><br />However, that is quite different from the examples I used in my earlier post - especially the Inquisition. <br /><br />When the Church itself is the instigator of the evil and does it in the name of Christ, then skeptical people like myself have a right to question how well Christian leaders truly understand their faith, or - if they DO understand it correctly - how beneficial that faith truly is.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-80793901456789173582009-09-23T10:11:21.504-09:002009-09-23T10:11:21.504-09:00You said "I only examine things that were don...You said "I only examine things that were done specifically in the name of Christ. Hence, I used the example of the Spanish Conquistadors." But that is avoiding the issue. I said the improvement was from "the work of the people devoted to the Gospel."<br /><br />People do all kinds of wacky things in the name of spreading Christianity, which CHRIST HIMSELF CONDEMNS: <br /><br />"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not ... done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."<br /> <br />I understand people's problems with historical Christianity. Frankly, that is exactly what the enemy wants you to focus on... lest you encounter Christ.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01023125641719686613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-22757203370558822282009-09-23T10:01:22.086-09:002009-09-23T10:01:22.086-09:00Regarding experiencing the Holy Spirit, that is so...Regarding experiencing the Holy Spirit, that is something that all Christians have replicated following their conversion.<br /><br />Unfortunately for you, you do have to take my word and the word of other Christians on it (unless you choose to accept Christ yourself, in which you will experience the Holy Spirit).<br /><br />TW: Ah yes. Thank you, Sir. I love that: "You do have to take my word and the word of other Christians on it."<br /><br />Yes, now we are at the heart of the matter. In my book, Mark (the Christian) essentially says the same thing to Brian (the protagonist): "You must trust us. And once you trust us, you will FEEL the truth."<br /><br />At the risk of spoiling the middle of the book, Brian DOES trust God and Mark and the Christians, and while it does FEEL good for awhile, that feeling is not sustainable because it is contradictory to his rational mind and his experience of Reality. Thus, he eventually abandons Christianity.<br /><br />If Christians are so blatantly irrational, why are you bothering to communicate with them?<br /><br />TW: A fair question. In fact, you might even say, "it's irrational for a rational person to try to communicate with an irrational person, and thus, he himself, becomes irrational!" <br /><br />Whoa, my head is spinning! <br /><br />But seriously, the real answer is that I am sincerely interested in how other people experience, understand, and justify their faith. I'm an intellectually curious person. Love me for what I am.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-27755001161404327502009-09-23T09:49:31.934-09:002009-09-23T09:49:31.934-09:00Evidence that God spoke:
- The Bible
- The Church...Evidence that God spoke:<br /><br />- The Bible<br />- The Church<br />- The Holy Spirit<br /><br />I actually said that I have faith in my reason. So do you. We both start with a priori assumptions and work our way up.<br /><br />Regarding experiencing the Holy Spirit, that is something that all Christians have replicated following their conversion.<br /><br />Unfortunately for you, you do have to take my word and the word of other Christians on it (unless you choose to accept Christ yourself, in which you will experience the Holy Spirit). <br /><br />In other words, you would have to accept my word based on trust (faith) that I wasn't lying. This being the Intertubes, I don't expect you do that for me personally. But there are plenty of sources in the real world for you to interview.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. I was skeptical for 25 years myself. But if Christians are so blatantly irrational, why are you bothering to communicate with them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-50193766953991890642009-09-23T09:22:07.056-09:002009-09-23T09:22:07.056-09:00The evidence says that God spoke.
TW: I have not ...The evidence says that God spoke.<br /><br />TW: I have not seen that evidence. And when I actively soliciting it yesterday at Vox's blog, I was told to look up the word "evidence" in the dictionary and then booted.<br /><br />We have both made a rational decision.<br /><br />TW: If you believe that Chesterton quote, I highly doubt that, because you believe that "reason equals faith" which negates the meaning of both terms.<br /><br />There is only two choices, either He spoke, or He did not. <br /><br />TW: My position, as of today, is that He did not speak.<br /><br />I have the additional testimony of having communicated with God through the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />TW: If that is the case, then the evidence for His existence - at least from your perspective - IS rational (using my definition of the word "rational"). However, unfortunately for me (and I guess everyone else) that experience can't be replicated, and thus I must continue to approach this issue with skepticism.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-19836527542825322502009-09-23T08:39:32.686-09:002009-09-23T08:39:32.686-09:00"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for ..."Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1 <br /><br />The evidence says that God spoke.<br /><br />You choose to disregard the evidence.<br /><br />I choose to accept it.<br /><br />We have both made a rational decisions.<br /><br />Your argument may be that I have NOT made a rational decision but made a decision on "faith," but that is your error. Either it's evidence or it is not. A is A. Rationally, there is only two choices, either He spoke, or He did not. <br /><br />My Faith in God is not simply a recognition of the evidence of His existance and His Word, but is relational -- I trust Him, just as my faith in my wife has little to do with believing in her existance or not. I have the additional testimony of having communicated with God through the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you can call me a liar, but you are simply making a faith-based judgment of my dishonesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-30221219217983801012009-09-23T07:29:46.133-09:002009-09-23T07:29:46.133-09:00OK, I was intrigued enough to read the essay.
A...OK, I was intrigued enough to read the essay. <br /><br />A few points which I made at Vox's blog yesterday, which were then deleted...<br /><br />1) The senses are not the only source of knowledge. However, they ARE the foundation of knowledge. In addition, we have a rational brain which can integrate the knowledge gained by the senses and make further deductions based on that knowledge.<br /><br />2) I think the author is correct that Rand believed in a "tabula rasa," and if that's the case, I disagree with Rand and agree with the author. The human being DOES HAVE consciousness which has a non-material source (but is dependent on a material substance - namely the brain). <br /><br />3) While the essay is above-average in critiquing Rand's philosophy, it is worth pointing out that the author never articulates an alternative philosophy. Of course, I presume his philosophy is Christianity. And if that's case, I seriously doubt he would be more persuasive in making the case for Christianity than Rand was for Objectivism.<br /><br />In any case, I'm not an Objectivist, so I really don't have a dog in that fight.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-78217346829527882082009-09-23T07:00:39.255-09:002009-09-23T07:00:39.255-09:00It is human nature to oppress one's fellow man...It is human nature to oppress one's fellow man to gain advantage (perhaps it's evolutionary advantage for one's genes). Stalin was simply following his nature. How is this irrational?<br /><br />TW: A life philosophy which encourages people to "just follow their genes" is by definition irrational because it denies and precludes the possibility of human reason. <br /><br />If you believe Chesteron had "existential despair and anxiety" then you have obviously never read Chesteron.<br /><br />TW: I'm familiar enough with Chesteron to know that he was an above-average Christian thinker. Obviously, based on those 2 quotes you sent me, that's not saying much. <br /><br />I suspect that for some reason you have a problem with the word "faith" -- since in your mind it means "blind faith" or "magical thinking" or some other nonsense (when really "faith" simply means "trust" -- pi'stis in Koine Greek of the Bible).<br /><br />TW: Words matter. Faith has a meaning for which the statement you make shouldn't apply. For a good definition of faith (by a Christian, no less), see this quote by Lawrence Auster...<br /><br />http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/weekly-wrap-up_28.html<br /><br />"Reason is itself a matter of trusting an axiom. It is an act of presupposing to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."<br /><br />TW: But they DO have a "relation to reality." Thus, I have no need to trust it. It's like saying, "I trust that I'm typing at my keyboard this instant." The phrase is meaningless. I AM typing at this keyboard.<br /><br />Since you are a fan of Rand's epistimology you might want to read this:<br /><br />TW: I just bookmarked it. I'll try to read through it later today.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-21013206122790329812009-09-23T06:47:45.883-09:002009-09-23T06:47:45.883-09:00It is human nature to oppress one's fellow man...It is human nature to oppress one's fellow man to gain advantage (perhaps it's evolutionary advantage for one's genes). Stalin was simply following his nature. How is this irrational?<br /><br />If you believe Chesteron had "existential despair and anxiety" then you have obviously never read Chesteron.<br /><br />I suspect that for some reason you have a problem with the word "faith" -- since in your mind it means "blind faith" or "magical thinking" or some other nonsense (when really "faith" simply means "trust" -- pi'stis in Koine Greek of the Bible). <br /><br />Very well, let's rephrase the quote:<br /><br />"Reason is itself a matter of trusting an axiom. It is an act of presupposing to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."<br /><br />Since you are a fan of Rand's epistimology you might want to read this:<br /><br />http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/without_a_prayer.htm<br /><br />Better yet, read the actual book reviewed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-72991965302833827902009-09-23T06:36:02.206-09:002009-09-23T06:36:02.206-09:00"Actually Stalin was quite rational. His rati..."Actually Stalin was quite rational. His rational capacity was astounding."<br /><br />Stalin used rational means to achieve an irrational end. Communism is irrational. It is contrary to human nature. And it is deadly for that very reason. <br /><br />"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."<br /><br />Oh God, that's horrible! If Chesteron (or any person) actually believes that nonsense, they are cursed to a life of existential despair and anxiety. No exceptions.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-38634957075237236592009-09-23T06:29:50.588-09:002009-09-23T06:29:50.588-09:00Actually Stalin was quite rational. His rational c...Actually Stalin was quite rational. His rational capacity was astounding. To methodically and systematically slay 60 million people while oppressing millions more is a feat requiring the highest focus and intelligence.<br /><br />"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." Gilbert K. ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-54739536862653534102009-09-23T06:00:32.092-09:002009-09-23T06:00:32.092-09:00Chesterton: "The madman is not the man who ha...Chesterton: "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason." <br /><br />It's not? Really? Actually, that's the very definition of madness. <br /><br />Madness = the losing of one's mind; the loss of one's rational capacity.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-70581697049066117932009-09-23T05:50:02.329-09:002009-09-23T05:50:02.329-09:00"The madman is not the man who has lost his r..."The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." - GK ChestertonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-66315921318323517182009-09-22T19:40:23.072-09:002009-09-22T19:40:23.072-09:00J: "I am saying that the elimination of the n...J: "I am saying that the elimination of the native paganism was a huge positive gain for the natives themselves."<br /><br />T: "A huge positive?" I would say it was substituting one terrible yoke for a less terrible yoke.<br /><br />J: "It is standard anti-Christian rhetoric to lay all the negatives of Western Civ at the feet of the religion of Christ, which is not only unfair, but rather absurd."<br /><br />T: I certainly don't blame all of the negatives of Western Culture on Christianity. I only examine things that were done specifically in the name of Christ. Hence, I used the example of the Spanish Conquistadors.TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.com