See,

How silly can we get…Ghosts, Goblins, Ghouls, Witches and Warlocks….no different than Jesus, God, Holy Spirit and Angles…all make believe. Hey maybe a holiday where we can all dress up as Jesus or God..then maybe we won’t take them seriously either.

“The problem with highlighting these scenarios and equating them with damnation, is that it negates the real problem that separates us from God. Sin is our problem not bad behavior. “

But accepting this statement would require a complete rework many peoples ‘theology’. It is all about the ‘do’, and the hell house is another ‘do’ to show that you are a good christian.

Here is even more irony about Hell Houses. Lucifer. He is not red with horns and pitchfork holding a glass of poison. He is deceptive. He is alluring. He asks makes very subtle suggestions such as “surely God did not say….” He makes very tempting offers: If you do this….I will give you that….

” But what I find interesting is how much they are a reflection of mainstream evangelicalism’s moralism, which often focuses only on sins that affect the body and virtually ignore other sins that rot the mind and soul. Specifically, the sins of greed, covetousness, lust for power, and contempt for other human beings are usually passsed over (often with all too predictable results).”

Oh John, you are so right!

Thanks for this article, Dee! I admire you guys greatly, and here’s even one more reason to do so. I have always loved Halloween, and my parents always let me make a big deal about celebrating it (even though I had a few friends who thought it was evil).

Now, as an adult, I still celebrate! We decorate the house. I dress up to hand out candy (usually as my favorite movie or TV character). We enjoy spooky movies. I freely admit that Halloween is actually my 2nd favorite holiday.

Ironically, my favorite holiday is Easter 🙂 Which many people would think is a contradiction in terms. But I have just never seen the big deal about shunning Halloween. I’m pretty sure Jesus knows what’s in my heart, and he knows that I”m handing out candy and having fun.

I’ve always liked the “fall” things associated with Halloween (cider, carving pumpkins, etc.) but the spooky aspects have never been my thing. So… all that to say that I was part of the anti-Halloween brigade for a few years.

Now, though…not so much (at all!) I wonder if Halloween has become our version of Carnival (mostly celebrated in Roman Catholic countries) where people put on crazy costumes and everything gets turned upside down for a few days… 😉

I *would* give candy to trick-or-treaters *if* they were neighborhood kids, but these days, they’re kids who are driven into the ‘hood from neighboring towns; some of them have to be HS age.

So – no candy for you, impostors! 😉

Dave A A – well hey – that sounds like fun!!! If I had some candy here, I’d give it a try. (Am recovering from being sick, plus the stores cleared out almost all H’ween stuff a few weeks ago to put in xmas decs., candy, etc.)

I *still* don’t like a lot of H’ween imagery, but I think it’s great for kids to be able to run around in costumes, get candy, and generally have fun.

Dee – that’s hilarious!!! *Definitely* candy-worthy. 😀

Dee- what is on Miss Petunias agenda this evening? Will she be wearing a costume and going trick or treating?

How about a pug blog? You could call it The Pampered Pug Watch and give us daily updates on Miss Tulip, Lily and Petunia!

I have not done the Halloween bit in years. Several personal reasons why. If you want to, call it Halloween, Fall Festival, Reformation Day Celebration, have at it.
We now live so far out in the woods we don’t have not had anyone come by in years, so we’ll probably just make some roasted peanuts, drink a Dr Pepper, and watch a movie on Netflix….Pretty much a normal Fall night at our house.

Shhh! Don’t tell the fundamentalists and Calvinistas, but the Puritans were none too fond of Christmas either.

Fendrel, this isn’t the place to try to convert people to atheism.

Pam, the spiking of drinks and rapes at parties do indeed happen.

Nicholas, they’re very rare occurances. They certainly do not occur in the way the video above presents them, that was completely farcical. Most rapes and assaults are by people the victim knows, not by a random stranger.

Interesting comments all.

Maybe it’s a European thing, but my own feeling is that Halloween does get a little close to some of the pagan beliefs that held sway in the British Isles. However a read through of the Wikipedia article seems to indicate that there is disagreement about the origin of the custom, how far it is influenced by either Christianity or paganism, and how Christian groups view it today. Personally I feel it is a bit odd to want to commemorate entities which are largely seen as negative, but I’m not going to get into a battle about it (Rom 14).

I think our church got a reasonable approach in suggesting that people give sweets to trick or treaters and a leaflet (a reasonable one, not some of the more lurid ones!). But actually this year it’s been quiet – maybe the cold weather had something to do with it!

I have reservations about the “Hell House” phenomena as well. I wouldn’t say that God hasn’t saved people before through an awakening of their fear of his judgement, but again that may be the Holy Spirit’s working in a particular individual, perhaps one who could not be reached either way. C S Lewis noted in one of his essays that “divines” of previous ages seemed surprised and shocked that people were not generally converted no matter how luridly they portrayed the effect of a Christless eternity, and he suggested that once the purely psychological effect wore off the listeners’ hearts were unchanged. On the other hand, Jonathan Edwards’ notorious “Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God” did have some effect – but R T Kendall said when he tried to repeat the experiment with this sermon, it seemed to have no effect and at least one person had fallen asleep! So I would fall on the “sovereignty” side of the debate in this particular example in that I believe God uses whichever methods he chooses to bring people to himself – trying to manufacture revivals, whether by Finney’s methods or more modern ones, seems to have a bit of a chequered history.

Hmmm….first, every person I’ve known who went through a Hell House, far from being ‘convicted’ and ‘converted’, was just plain ticked off. They spent good money to go through a haunted house and felt like they got the old bait and switch. Which, actually, they did. This concept that we have to highlight and magnify people’s sins or they will never get saved is so not (pardon the use of the word) Scriptural. Paul actually wrote that (gasp) it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance.

I was confronted by a Calvinista type on another blog a while back. He accused me of being a heretic, blasphemous, back-slidden and following the blog author to hell. When that didn’t seem to rile me up, he asked, “are you trying to tell me that you came to salvation without having the Law preached to you?” That was the point where I just walked away. But the short answer is, “Yes.” It was the preaching and condemnation of the Law that almost drove me away from Him.

As to the Jaycees Haunted Houses…. I was a Jaycee for some time – even spent a couple years as president. And our Haunted House was a local legend/landmark. 🙂
Ours had a 9 foot grim reaper with a chain-less chainsaw. He was a contractor and would wear drywall stilts and had a custom made costume. He scared people the most and was why they came. And yes, they would run out screaming – full tilt…and get right back in line. It was a blast!

Have you heard of “Hellbound?” It’s an very insightful new documentary that examines the Biblical doctrine of Hell. In it are several scenes from a hell house. Director Kevin Miller asks one of the church members hosting the house if he thinks Jesus would use them as a way to witness. The guys response: “Welllllllll . . . . I’d have to think about that.” Point made.

Incidentally: the movie also features Driscoll drawing what he calls “state boundaries” (grey areas where Christians can move freely back and forth and, in his mind, still be Christians) and “National boundaries” that simply can’t be crossed (the idea of universal reconciliation being, in his mind, a National boundary).

And yes, Dee, Russell Moore’s list there is actually pretty funny. One to add to the “confessional evangelical” category – the folks at the PCA church I used to attend made a cake for Reformation Day decorated like the Wittenberg church doors.

the folks at the PCA church I used to attend made a cake for Reformation Day decorated like the Wittenberg church doors.

How funny – they go much further than Lutherans would. 😉

In this area, most Lutheran and Methodist churches have Reformation Sunday recitals/concerts. We Lutherans love our chorales!

@ Numo:

Yeah, nowadays Neo-Calvinists talk more about Luther than Lutherans do. I think they actually do think he’s Reformed and “one of them.”

I have to admit, I haven’t yet read Young Goodman Brown (somehow). But yes, you definitely should visit Salem in October! It’s a blast – lots more to see/do than just witches and Halloween too. And LOTS of costumes to see.

I’m not really into lurid either. I’ve only ever enjoyed one thing in the horror genre and that was a video game – horror movies usually either gross me out or annoy me. I read Frankenstein in high school and I seem to recall it was interesting, but that’s the original book and not any of the various (essentially unrelated) Halloween-ish remakes. (There’s no character in the original book named Igor. Where did he come from, anyway?)

Ironclad – I lived in NoVA for 21 years and, back in the day (before Eagle’s time at McLean Bible), I knew of some very – to my mind – questionable practices and doctrines there.

That’s not to say that everyone associated with the church is off the wall, only that the place has been controversial since the early-mid 1980s.

Which might be an indication that something was wrong to begin with… but I’ve been out of D.c. for a long time, and thus, out of the loop.

I feel uncomfortable with Halloween, but for a very different reason. It is not a traditional Australian holiday — never existed here when I was a kid, and even when my kids were growing up I’d never come across it. But just in the last few years it’s started to appear round here — last night was the first time in my life I’ve ever had trick or treaters knock on our door. Thankfully I always have sweets in the house, so I found them something — I want to be a polite neighbour, but it leaves me feeling disturbed because it’s something that’s obviously being fostered by commercial interests. It has no roots here — and when you consider that we’re having it in the middle of Spring, it’s even odder.

or maybe I’m just a curmudgeon ..

Halloween was always a traditional thing over here in the UK, but it’s noticeable that the North American custom of trick or treat has only appeared in the last 10 years or so (from my own observation). Having said that, I don’t think it has got any more commercial, although obviously supermarkets and fancy-dress shops see it as an opportunity. We haven’t seen greeting cards yet anyway!

Hi Eagle, re your “Horror House” (quite satirical!), I don’t think the problem for most of us is Richard Dawkins teaching biology – when he’s just talking that he seems OK. It’s when he lurches into religion that the red mist comes over his eyes.

I also appreciate what you say re Piper and cancer. If a believer wants to believe that their cancer is a gift from God, the sentiment at least is admirable. However for someone to tell a cancer sufferer the same is rather hair-raising to say the least.

@ Dee:

Around here the commercialization of Easter is starting to look a lot like a pastel version of Halloween. Easter “baskets” that look like trick-or-treating buckets, pink skulls, etc. LOTS of pink skulls. Don’t ask me why. I still can’t figure it out. Maybe because both holidays involve candy…?

HUG, Thanks for the link. Exactly!

MBC: Facing a formidable brick road?

Numo,

    Hello,

       It has been said that Mclean Bible Church is, by every worldly standard of success, is an immense and glorious triumph of a church. That what MBC does, people want. It is big, prosperous, and diverse, and offers a cornucopia of ministries and services that fully meets the perceived needs of those who attend it’s many worships and groups and studies. 

If you’re looking for best practices for building a successful faith organization, be advised, you’ve come to the right place.They’ve got a tried and tested business model. Afflicted with church revitalization maylase? Not on your life.Thriving and growing. you bet!

As for the route seven central building complex, it is unquestionably of a utilitarian design being a modified structure under several occupants over the years, practical and immediately useful. Does it have a church feel? Certainly the plethora of flat screen monitors strategically seeded throughout the complex give general continuity. Even those tired feet in the bathroom lounge are not left out.

Considering a  visit to this “great golden Jesus behemoth”? 

First of all, McLean Bible Church seems on a first encounter, to give the appearance of community in name only. Is it simply too vast to serve that purpose, you ask? An overwhelming experience? On any given Sunday, while in attendance, you are as acquainted with the individuals around you as you would be, say, at the local Multiplex theaters, or as you wind your way through the crowded Tysons 1 mall.  While in observance, the behavior of most was predictable in such a large setting, as there were little clusters, those who knew one another, but a  sense of connectedness between the clusters was alien. Typical of this type of environment, people who knew one another tended to bunch together. It is a fast pace environment, where the individual tends to submerge in a sea of the moving masses. Is it an easy place to disappear, to be both nameless and faceless? Possibly. But isn’t this, quite frankly, the challenge in any megachurch? Certainly MBC’s leadership knows this, as seen by their relentlessly pitch for connectedness; i.e. for small groups, various diverse study groups, and a plethora ministries to help people connect to a sub-community within the church. But, to be sure, it is easy, oh so easy, to move through the church like shadow mist. But is this not, quite frankly, the challenge in any megachurch?

Does this environment provide little opportunity for transforming relationships in the broader life of the church, you ask? Does this environment runs the strong risk of being “diverse” in the way a high school cafeteria is diverse. Or, again, as a mall is diverse? Large, diverse, and impersonal? How do you interact meaningfully with people who are different from you, or don’t share your particular interests? That is an age old question, and MBC is certainly a diverse lot! Then there is the issue that this is a church that while diverse in attendance, is run entirely by men. That perhaps is not going to endear it to some of the ladies here at Wartburg. Yet they don’t seem to rub it in. 

 Connect & Plug in!

This ministry is intentionally structured around appealing to particular demographic categories or areas of affinity. Find yourself following a formidable brick road? Well, a map and a wall of information packets, an information desk, a welcome center, should serve as an able deterrent to anonymity and that hollow sense of feeling lost in the vastness, unless of course your not willing to take the plung. In that case just welcome your self to a cup of joe, and a tasty pastry, there’s a bookstore and a full cafeteria for your connivence.  

Ultimately, does it felt too conformed to the world? In skillfully using the tools of the marketplace, It gives ever appearance it has wildly succeeded according to the terms of the marketplace. But…as the early church learned when it conformed itself to the power of the state and reaped worldly prosperity…sometimes that comes with a cost.

Say what you will about the “WalMart aura of that Route Seven traffic monstrosity”, the “incessant commercialism” and the “perpetual self-promotion” by Lon Solomon- but I have it on reliable sources that this former recreational Pharmacist is not selling absolution.

Message? What message? Oh! I heard that Saturday on the Internet. Pass the salt!

Blessings!

IronClad

I don’t think the problem for most of us is Richard Dawkins teaching biology – when he’s just talking that he seems OK. It’s when he lurches into religion that the red mist comes over his eyes. — Kolya

And he starts foaming at the mouth and HOLLERING like a Calvinista Megachurch Preacher. Dawkins is just as Fundamentalist as any IFB, just in the opposite direction. Funhouse mirror reflections of the Other, just like Ayn Rand and Josef Stalin.

No joy?

Numo,

    Hello,

“questionable practices and doctrines there”?

Where there is smoke….?

Careful with the matches?

Blessings!

IronClad
—
P.S. Glad you weathered the Frankinstorm OK.

MBC: Without a vision, the people lavish in peril?

Eagle,

    Hello,

       The vision of McLean Bible Church is to make an impact on secular Washington with the message of Jesus Christ. 

As you know, the Metropolitan Washington area is a unique place. With over six million people, it is one of the most powerful, educated, and diverse cities in the world. It is also one of the most secularized. Understanding that, MBC believes that God has assigned a unique role to group of believers, which is to “to impact secular Washington with the message of Jesus Christ.” This vision has guided every element of their ministry for over a decade. 

In Romans 1:16, Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the message of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” 

At McLean Bible Church, they believe that a relationship with Jesus Christ is the only thing that can transform a person’s life. 

How about you?

Their church is unashamedly dedicated to presenting this message, so that every person in the Washington area is given a chance to understand it and believe.

Blessings!

IronClad

Nicholas,

It wasn’t “trying to convert”, it was more just making a point that belief in the supernatural without evidence is equally absurd whether you believe in goblins, unicorns, Santa, God or Jesus…

I would actually prefer that no one change their mind based on something I say, not that there is much risk of that, but rather because they re-examine their own basis for belief and decide for themselves that it is insufficient. I like to think I am prodding others to think for themselves and not that I am evangelizing or trying to convert based on what I say alone.

Hope that helps

No, unfortunately not, Dee, but my kids were very pleased with their loot – no cheapo candy here! 🙂

Muff…and sadly there will be no ruby slippers at the end for you. 🙁

Sorry I meant Calvinista

@ Gavin:

1. You’ve taken a quote from a letter about Bible translation and made it sound as if Luther was talking about holidays when he said that.

2. Halloween (the modern secular holiday Dee is referencing in the article) has nothing to do with saints anymore. It has much more to do with zombies, pumpkins and candy. Yes, it just so happens to coincide with the day before All Saints’ Day. (BTW, just for everyone’s general info, that’s different from All Souls’ Day in the Catholic church, which is 11/2.) But it’s a big stretch to claim that Halloween as currently practiced is a “saint’s day.” Your objection would apply much more to All Saints’ Day. Are you against All Saints’ Day?

(Also, since you quoted Luther – I have never ever even heard of a Lutheran church that did not observe All Saints’ Day. So if he was against it, he apparently failed to get the message across to his theological descendants – though personally I think it highly unlikely he was against All Saints’ Day. He was probably referring to the proliferation of saints’ days that frequently stopped work in the Middle Ages because they were “holy days.” Just take a look at a Catholic liturgical calendar. There are a GAZILLION saints’ days – thus Luther’s phrase “many holy days.”)

3. “What is or is not God’s word? What is not God’s word does not make Christendom.”

Okay, I can’t help myself. You actually used this quote in a post in which you did not quote a single word of Scripture – only Luther? Teeheehee.

@ Dee:

“Any child who did not sit perfectly still or a man, exhausted from his difficult labor, who fell asleep, got bopped on the head.”

I’m pretty sure G. I. Williamson’s commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism says that not paying adequate attention in church is a form of taking the name of the Lord in vain.

“I’m pretty sure G. I. Williamson’s commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism says that not paying adequate attention in church is a form of taking the name of the Lord in vain.”

Someone please explain to me how this does not sound like Pharisees keeping to the letter of the law. Not to mention that paying attention in church (to a preacher) is not the same as taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Dear Hester
1 If you read the whole treatise you will see that is exactly what Luther was talking about notwithstanding the fact that the main subject was translation.
2 Like all of our times our festivals are rooted in history and yes since all believers are saints I don’t celebrate all saints day. (Too much self adoration!)
3 I quoted Luther to explain Luther.

Dear Dee
My denomination did not cover itself in glory either in its early days. It was common practice to chain “sinners” to the gateposts at the entrance to the churchyard(see Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland).
Which takes me back to the first point I made in Wartburg, none of us is without sin and we should hang back on the judgment of others.
Regards
Gavin
Slippery? Me? Surely some mistake!

Halloween’s pagan roots probably are a little closer to the surface over here in Europe. (Oddly enough, it’s much bigger among the weans here in Scotland than it was in England where I grew up – don’t remember any of us even noticing it, to be honest.)

But hey; pagan shmagan. Most, if not all, of the traditional “christian” festivals emerged from a syncretistic blend of christian trappings and Roman paganism anyway. Just like reformed theology is a syncretism of christian soteriology and classical Greek scholasticism.

I love the comment from the RHE thread about post-reformation theologians turning Paul into Moses – puts it really well. On top of turning Paul into Moses, they’ve repaired the veil of the temple, exorcised the Holy Spirit and packed God off back to the top of a holy mountain somewhere.

Fendrel;

Every time I read your handle, I think of that (Tom Baker) Doctor Who two-parter.

@ Gavin:

“If you read the whole treatise you will see that is exactly what Luther was talking about notwithstanding the fact that the main subject was translation.”

I have located and read the open letter and yes, it is indeed clear in context what Luther is talking about. He says it himself in introducing the second section: “On the other question, as to whether the departed saints intercede for us.” Luther is talking about praying to/worshipping saints. This is hardly the same as thanking God for the saints around you and who have gone before you (which is all I’ve ever seen at a Protestant All Saints’ Day service), and in any case has absolutely nothing to do with modern secular Halloween celebrations. For Luther’s words here to have any relevance at all to this discussion (and even then minimal relevance at best), you must first prove that modern secular Halloween is a “saint’s day.”

(Note also: All Saints’ Day is November 1st – always has been. All Hallows’ Eve/Halloween is October 31st – always has been. You maintain that All Saints’ Day is a “saint’s day.” But under your own premise, then, November 1st would then be the “saint’s day,” NOT October 31st. Ergo, any celebrations, religious or not, on October 31st are not “saint’s day” celebrations. Eves of holidays and the holiday itself are not interchangeable. Case in point: it doesn’t become 2013 on December 31st just because the word “New Year’s” appears in the name “New Year’s Eve.”)

“…there’s no place like home…there’s no place like home…”

Gavin & Hester – Lutherans and Anglicans *love* to sing Ralph Vaughan Williams’ hymn For all the saints on All Saints’ Day (or All Saints’ Sunday, as it’s often celebrated on that day of the week in Lutheran churches.

Here are the 1st three verses – note how the “communion of saints” is mentioned here (from the Apostles – and other – creeds) –

For all the saints who from their labors rest,
who to the world by faith their Lord confessed,
your name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
Alleluia, alleluia!

You were their rock, their fortress, and their might;
you, Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight,
and in the darkness drear, their one true light.
Alleluia, alleluia!

May all your soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,
fight as the saints who nobly fought of old,
and win with them the victor’s crown of gold.
Alleluia, alleluia!

O blest communion, fellowship divine!
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
yet all are one within your great design.
Alleluia, alleluia! …

I really love this one, musically and otherwise, though the tune is not the easiest to pick up, and has some tough intervals and leaps for voice (possibly for organ as well – Hester & Kolya, what do you think?)

Gavin, both Luther and Calvin thought that devotions to Mary were good things. We all tend to cherrypick the Refomers when we don’t like their ideas, ans this is no exception.

btw, as a cradle Lutheran, I’ve gotta affirm what Hester’s saying about All Saints’ Day vs. daysw commemorating individual saints vs. (didn’t expect a 3d one, did you? ;)) various holy days and feasts that are still part of the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran church calendars. (The Orthodox have all of that, too, but the saints are not – foe the most part – known in the West, and some of the holy days and feast are different as well.)

You could check an online lectionary or church calendar to see what Hester and I are referring to…

Did someone say “goats”? I would *love to have a couple of pygmy goats – and a pet sheep or two – to go along with my spoiled indoor bunny! (the goats and sheep would live outside, though… :))

Nick – re. Halloween’s pagan roots, I think it’s yes *and* no. Keep in mind that tons of Scots, Irish, and what we usually refer to as Scots-Irish emigrated to the US and Canada, though at different times – and often for different reasons.

Case in point: how St. Patrick’s Day is a church thing in Eire, but in the US, it’s an excuse to drink lots of beer with green food coloring in it, don leprechaun outfits (complete with sequined derbies), take part in raucous parades and proclaim that everyone “has a little bit of Irish in them” – particularly true in cities with large Irish populaions, like NYC, Boston, Chicago et. al. (Never mind that most of the big breweries here in the US were started by German immigrants and are, in some case, still run by their descendants or other people of German descent.)

@ Gavin:

“I don’t agree that Halloween is purely secular. It is pagan, like Christmas, and we simply dress it up in modern clothes to make it acceptable.”

Thank you for stating your position so clearly. I take it you don’t celebrate Christmas either, then?

(BTW, saying Halloween is pagan is different than saying it is a “saint’s day”…)

Dear Hester
Like many pagan festivals the early roman church adapted them to their own purposes so to me there is no substantive difference between the two categories. As for Christmas, what can I say? The Victorian nonsense that is the norm, is, well, nonsense, and is, dare I say it, a form of exploitation of the people.
Regards
Gavin
(It might be appropriate at this point to counter your earlier tee hee hee with a Ho Ho Ho 🙂

Dear Dee
I’m sorry but the Luther and the Christmas tree story is a complete myth.

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/chrtree.html

Never let the facts get in the way of dogma or prejudice.

As for Mary, what has Abraham and co got to do with it? Or are you taking aim at your puritan loving brethren again?

Best wishes
Gavin

Regards
Gavin

“The best weapons Christians have is love and grace and they choose not to use it”

Reading about and from the early Christians affirms this even more for me. BEFORE the doctrinal wars started and Christianity became a political movement with it’s own nation state.

Gavin – your chameleon-like responses are … well, they are what they are.

You seem so very determined to prove everyone here wrong, no matter what. I’m sorry you feel that this is a bash-fest, because so many of us have been deeply hurt by churches.

so it seems (to me) that you’re missing a lot of the points being made.

best regards,
n.

Fendrel – on reading your latest, it strikes me that there is as much belief/faith in what you say as there is in any of Dee’s posts. It’s faith in a different system or set of ideas, but faith nonetheless. (No offense meant at all; just sayin’… :))

Re. unicorns, iirc, it’s the unicorns who were attracted to the young girls (see Unicorn Tapestry series at the Met in NYC).

Numo,

Is that in regard to my most recent post (12:16)..if so could you comment in more detail, because otherwise we most be on different planets…Mars/Venus maybe maybe 🙂

SW Disc. – re. Spanier, I know… but my guess is that he will be found guilty; also that he will take early retirement.

I have never liked the guy, for reasons that have little to do with the Sandusky (and related) problems….

Numo,

Take a look at 12:16 comment, I’d like to hear your opinion.

Thanks

Hester,

now just to play devil’s advocate … what about the idea that Christians are supposed to avoid even “the appearance of evil”. While you can justify reclaiming the holidays, isn’t there something to be said for the perception it might create in those not quite so enlightened?

Dear Hester

Commenting on the usage of the word ‘nice’, that great defender of good grammar and proper etymology, Mr Fowler said,” By 1926, it was pronounced “too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness.” ” Quite apt.

I’m not a great lover of denominations as such but I would describe myself as reformed, evangelical,presbyterian, baptist, occasionally charismatic, who is married to a roman catholic and I also have a lot of time for the Eastern rite, hasidic Judaism and political Islam. I can’t be more specific. I love Gaelic Psalm singing – the music of Heaven – even although I am a Lowlander and don’t speak Gaelic

Best wishes
Gavin

@ Gavin:

Though I do agree that “nice” is an overused and watered-down term…I doubt Mr. Fowler thought those ladies were actually insulting people when they called them “nice.” : )

So What? What is at the ‘core’ of McLean Bible Church?

Eagle,

    Hello,

       It is my sincerest understanding that LonS and the believers at Mclean Bible Church have for many years changed the Washington area’s spiritual landscape to the positive with a faithful message of Christ, Jesus.  Again, he and the believers at MBC  have my sincerest thanks, the heavens still rejoicing over one sinner who finds repentance. Is it the MBC core ten or is it a possible fault in their execution you find somewhat troubling?

Again, (for our TWW readers review) let’s take a closer look at MBC’s core values:

People matter to God and to this group of believers. Luke 15

The Gospel message transforms people’s lives. 2 Corinthians 5:17

The goal of this church ministry is to transform people into fully devoted followers of Christ. Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 4:11-16

At MBC, they believe that ministry and evangelism must be carried out in a relevant way. 1 Corinthians 9:22b

At MBC, they believe that people must be treated gently and respectfully. 1 Peter 3:15

Thar people need to be connected to a caring community. Acts 4:34-35

That every Christian has a God-given ministry. Ephesians 4:12

At MBC, they are encouraged and exhorted that everything they do must be done with excellence. Colossians 3:23-24

That the believers at MBC church must have an evangelistic impact on our community. Acts 6:7, 1 Thessalonians 1:8

To accomplish their mission, believers must be willing to step out in visionary faith and take risks for God. Hebrews 11:6

Again, is it identification or execution, you find most troubling?

Consider Carefully? You Decide.

Blessings!

IronClad

@ Fendrel:

True about the JWs – though they even reject birthdays as pagan so I suppose you just can’t win with some people. : ) And JWs do definitely qualify as conservative religious folk.

“Atheistic Shock Jock Bashed Wartburg Watch?”

Cough, Cough, Scoff, Scoff… 

Fendrel, youze such a scoundrel?!? Purging the resurrection and and the virgin birth from Christianity, you say? What a hoot! (that is so bizarre, so post-modern)

…my Jesus walked on da water… What is yours doin? In da cellar dig’in holes? Whatcha gonna do we da real storm comes? (Dat foxhole bedder be a deep one, friend!)

Whatya expect us ta do bend over and grab our ankles?

(grin)

hahahahahahahaha

hum, hum, hum…

…♪♫♪ “A mighty fortress is our God…”

hum, hum, hum… hum!

S“㋡”py

Fendrel – I’ve gotta agree with Hester on “pagan” customs having made their way into all kinds of Western holiday celebrations. I mean, so what?! 😉

Most people don’t give a hoot – and things that are fun (and, like trees, wreaths, greens and lights) and make a literally dark season less so are, imo, most welcome! (I have SAD, use a light box daily and *still* need the seasonal lift of xmas lights and decorations. It helps a lot, on a purely visual level – and makes things feel a little less cold and dark, somehow.)

Keep in mind that xtianity developed in urban centers (of the Roman empire) that were nothing if not pluralistic and cosmopolitan – major cities in India today would probably be a reasonably good analogy. And established social customs were what they were. In order for xtianity (or Judaism, for that matter) to be “culturally ‘pure,'” its followers would have had to emulate the Essenes and live apart from the rest of society.

Even Jesus didn’t do that. (Quite the opposite, as far as we know.) So why people get their knickers in a twist over xtian holidays having been melded with “pagan” ones is beyond me. (So is the so-called War on Xmas, but that’s another story entirely!)

As for renaming days and months, well… that was done after the French Revolution, and the calendar/name changes didn’t last long. I doubt any but the most die-hard Jacobins liked them.

Fendrel, per your comment at 12:16, I have already tried to reply to it in my previous comments above. You are (more or less) stumping for a kind of faith, even though it is an absence of all religious belief.

As for “evidence,” not sure that being unable to prove the existence of something invalidates belief in it, whatever “it” happens to be. Think of the absolute shock people got when they were 1st able to see a whole microscopic world via finely-ground lenses, and the literal revolution in thought that accompanied the development and refinement of the telescope. If nothing else, that put paid to old notions of the “heavens” being an upturned blow of sort, with various “spheres” (Greek idea) and/or holes rent in it as an explanation for stars; planets and stars being determinants of peoples’ destinies (though of course that’s never died off) and much, much more.

If I use only visual evidence for things, I cannot believe in the reality of sound waves, barometric pressure or electricity. Even though I might use instruments to detect these things, I *still* can’t see them with my eyes, hear them, feel, taste or touch them – though i can see artificial lights, I can feel the effects of barometric pressure (it’s a big factor in many kinds of chronic pain, for example), and I can listen to music using all kinds of speakers, even “hear” via bone conduction.

Another example: animals can see, hear and smell things that are beyond the range of human senses. Does that make their visual, auditory and olfactory perceptions invalid? I don’t think so… (but I’m a big believer – hah! – in the intelligence and heightened perceptions of many other species, so…)

OK, I’m rambling – time to call it quits! 🙂

“bowl,” not “blow.”

Oh man, my typing… 😉

Yep – neither you nor I – nor anyone else – knows for certain (based on empirical evidence) whether there is – or isn’t – life after death.

You and I can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, based on our beliefs about that data + other things (religious and/or philosophical beliefs, cultural influences, etc.).

But then, I know atheists who enjoy singing xmas carols… and people of other faiths who do as well. And I don’t mean “Frosty the Snowman” – more like “O Come All ye Faithful,” “Gesu Bambino,” etc.

well, science-minded people used to believe in spontaneous generation… 😉

I am trying to say that we have no data to support the belief in life after death. Data does not equal how people interpret it, per further conclusions (if any).

And yes, data is data, but in studies it *is* interpreted (depending on the kind of study and the discipline, of course). But given the number of “hard science” people who argue over the meaning of many different kinds of data, I have to conclude that people are making conclusions about what data means… ergo, they are choosing to believe in/interpret data (on whatever) to mean one thing or another.

Clear now?

iow, the whole realm of theoretical physics is… equations and ? 😉 (I know I’m drastically oversimplifying this, ’cause theoretical physics isn’t exactly my forte, but hey… ;))

A fave of mine – that until very recent times, most respectable natural science types believed that birds hibernated in the mud, underwater, all winter long.

I know that sounds totally crazy, but that *is* what people held to be true, until some folks noticed that birds actually migrate. (How they know where to go + how they navigate is yet another mystery to us, still…)

Dee, Numo

What you need to look at is not whether those beliefs turned out to be correct or incorrect, but rather whether the data and information they possessed at the time made those the most logical conclusions.

That’s what science does, it keeps gathering information and building a more accurate picture of how nature works…The difference between how science works and faith works is that faith thinks it already has the ultimate answers, science on the other hand, basis what it believes to be true based on the data at hand at the time. Science doesn’t claim to have “truth” only that it has confidence in a particular answer because the lion’s share of the currently available data points to a particular thing or not.

This is why it is difficult, if not fun, to have discussions with people of faith…they believe they already know the ultimate truth and are unwilling to constrain their “beliefs” based on existing data.

You may choose to believe that life continues after death, and in the end you may even being right, but the assumption that this is an accurate representation of realty is unwarranted by the data, it belongs solely to the domain of faith and religious conviction and thus, in not based on reason or logic.

Fendrel – I also think you might be skirting around the problems posed by scientific data’s unavailability… and the clear fact that even scientists believe in something (many “somethings,” I’d guess) even if their faith is *only* in the data they collect and study.

Even then, making sense of the data requires more than sheer logic.

But then, I’m not good at hard science – lab reports and all of that – nor at math. My strong suits are music and some of the other arts, and I have difficulty with logic problems, etc. etc. (I know that higher mathematics can be very beautiful in an aesthetic sense, but “lower” math is a struggle for me, so …)

Dee,

my friend (uh oh now you’re in trouble! At least I didn’t use your middle name!), please tell me though that you can see that the class of belief is very different between you and I, that you are extending and going way beyond what the data would indicate about death while my position is to stay very close to home as it were…and continue on the line of reasoning that the current data would indicate is correct.

I am NOT saying that I am right and you are wrong, only that your belief is NOT in line with the data we currently have while mine follows what the current evidence (or lack thereof) implies…that life does not continue after death.

I am not trying to make a case for who’s position will ultimately be found out to be true. I am only trying to get an acknowledgement that your beliefs go way beyond what the data implies.

Dee,

Close, I would say that the only rational course of action is to adopt or accept a belief that is in line with the data that you DO have as opposed to adopting a belief system that is either in opposition to the existing data or which is unsupported by data at all.

It is not rational, in my view, to adopt as a “truth” a proposition which is different from that implied by existing data. What is rational is to accept as a provisional fact whatever the data implies and also to be willing to change or adjust those beliefs as more data comes to light.

If a child who lived during Jesus’ time pronounced that they believed light sometimes behaved like a particles and at other times like waves…they obviously would have been correct, but since they decided to “believe” that at a time when there was no evidence to support that fact…their “beliefs” were still illogical and not rational…it was a lucky guess..no more. It doesn’t make their supposition rational or logical just because it luckily turned out to be correct.

Maybe there is life after death, but to believe that it is true without supporting evidence and when all the existing evidence points in the opposite direction is illogical and irrational, regardless of whether it turns out to right or wrong in the end. This is true of life after death, the existence of God, virgin birth, walking on water, etc.

“God’s Promises: Suitable For Our Able Support?”

HowDee YaAll,

We certainly concede that there truly is life after your bad breath, Fendrel. 

Certainty? 

You are looking for empirical evidence for the truth of the hereafter? 

In some fields, quantitative research may begin with a research question (e.g., “Does listening to your own voice Fendrel, heighten the effect upon your ego?”) which is then tested through experimentation in an unsuspecting TWW lab, when it is really quite simple…

What?

…tested with a suitable experimentation?

hmmm…

We here at Wartburg look no further that the Lord’s very promises. They are yea and amen. (2 Cor.1:20)

 In giving this answer in His person and life, Christ ( e.g. In Him is in His person: through Him, by His agency) puts the emphatic confirmation upon God’s promises, even as in the assembly the people when saying: Amen, Verily. 

(the “Amen” to be the Amen at the close of our grateful thanksgiving? huh?…your mileage may very) 

Would you prefer an adult beverage to a cock fight?

My Ark (Christ) is before your most pernicious and  impertinent reason & logic…

and ma glass is rais’d, 

(grin)

hahahahahahaha

S“㋡”py!
___
Notes:
 
For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us.

“For all the promises of God in him – All the promises which God has made through him. This is another reason why Paul felt himself bound to maintain a character of the strictest veracity. The reason was, that God always evinced that; and that since none of His promises failed, he felt himself sacredly bound to imitate Him, and to adhere to all His. 

The promises of God which are made through Christ, relate to the pardon of sin to the penitent; the sanctification of his people: support in temptation and trial; guidance in perplexity; peace in death, and eternal glory beyond the grave. All of these are made through a Redeemer, and none of these shall fail.

Yea, these shall all be certainly fulfilled. There shall be no vacillation on the part of God; no fickleness; no abandoning of his gracious intention. In Revelation 3:14, the Lord Jesus is called the “Amen.” The word means true, faithful, certain. And the expression here means that all the promises which are made to people through a Redeemer shall be certainly fulfilled. (They are promises which are confirmed and established, and which shall by no means fail.)” Barnes’ Notes

“…God has made many promises to his people: mention is here made of “promises”, and of “all” the promises; or, as the words may be rendered, “as many promises of God”. 

There are some which concern the temporal good of the saints; as that they shall not want any good thing; and though they shall be attended with afflictions, these shall work for their good, and they shall be supported under them. 

Others concern their spiritual good; some of which relate to God himself, that he will be their God, which includes his everlasting love, his gracious presence, and divine protection. 

Others relate to Christ as their surety and Saviour, by whom they are, and shall be justified and pardoned, in whom they are adopted, and by whom they shall be saved with an everlasting salvation: and others relate to the Spirit of God, as a spirit of illumination, faith, comfort, strength, and assistance, and to supplies of grace by him from Christ.

Others concern everlasting life and happiness, and are all of them very ancient, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; are exceeding great and precious, suited to the various cases of God’s people; are free and unconditional, immutable and irrevocable, and will all of them have their certain accomplishment. 

These promises are all “in” Christ; with and in whom could they be but in him, since he only existed when they were made, which was from everlasting? with and in whom should they be of right, but in him with whom the covenant, which contains these promises, were made, and who undertook the accomplishment of them? where could they be safe and secure but in him, in whose hands are the persons, grace, and glory of his people? not in Adam, nor in angels, nor in themselves, only in him. 

Moreover, these promises are “in him yea”, and in him amen; they are like the Gospel which exhibits them, consistent, and all of a piece; like the covenant which contains them, and is ordered in all things, and sure; and like the author of them, whose faithfulness and lovingkindness to his in Christ shall never fail; and like Christ himself, in whom they are, who is “the amen, the true and faithful witness, the same today, yesterday, and for ever”; by whose blood, the covenant, and all the promises of it, are ratified and confirmed, and in whom, who is the truth of them, they are all fulfilled. 

And these are unto the glory of God by us; these serve to illustrate and advance the glory of God, when they are preached by us, and held forth by us in the Gospel, just as they are in Christ, free, absolute, and unconditional; and when they are received “by us” as believers in Christ; for the stronger we are in the faith of the promises, the more glory we give to God; faith by laying hold on, and embracing the promises, glorifies the veracity, faithfulness, power, and grace of God.”  Gill’s Exposition 

✿*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.. faith is the substance of things hoped for, the strong conviction of things yet unseen… 
>

hope, with me…  

;~)

Sopwith,

I don’t mean this to be rude, so please do not take it that way…but,
all you have done is present one large circular argument…”My belief is true because God said so, and God is real because the Bible says so, and the Bible is right because God wrote it”

While I acknowledge that seems perfectly sane from the viewpoint of having faith, it is virtually the definition of being irrational and illogical. I am not looking to prove that Christian theology is true by virtue of some objective scientific evidence…quite the opposite, I am trying to get some Christians to accept that faith is NOT a function of logic or rationality…it is, as quoted, “..the substance of things hoped for…”

The problem I have is that Christians, many of them, have deluded themselves into believing that their belief systems and objects of their faith are somehow the result of rational, logical thinking…and they are not. Once that is accepted…it is a relatively small step to atheism for most. Even the great reformer Martin Luther understood that saying that “Reason is the enemy of faith”

✿*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.. “Where is the way where light dwells?” Job 38:19… >((((º>

Dear Father, you promised to take me to da fair when you return…

“Wouldn’t it be lovely?”

I’ll b wait’in in da parlor…

(smile)

hum, hum, hum-hum…

…♪♫♪ “All I want is a room somewhere,
Far away from the cold night air!
With one enormous chair,
Oh, wouldn’t it be loverly?
Lots of chocolate for me to eat,
Lots of coal makin’ lots of heat,
Warm face, warm hands, warm feet!
Aow, wouldn’t it be loverly?
Loverly, loverly, loverly, loverly…”

Aow, wouldn’t it be loverly?

S“㋡”py!

Dee,

Actually that’s not accurate, variolation was known to work as early as the late 1600’s and by the 1700’s was practiced in Asia, Africa, India and the Ottoman Empire. African slaves introduced variolation into America. In Massachusetts, Cotton Mather learned about the practice from his slave, Onesimus. Mather publicized the technique and the procedure was first tried during a smallpox epidemic in Boston in 1721. Between 1% to 2% of those variolated died as compared to 30% who died when they contracted the disease naturally.

John Adams had traveled from Braintree to Boston—about 12 miles—for variolation following a smallpox epidemic in 1764. At the time and for years later Abigail’s mother, terrified of the risky treatment, would not allow her to get the treatment. By 1776, however, Abigail’s mother was dead, another epidemic had swept through Boston, and Abigail was determined to take advantage of it.

So on July 12, she and her four children were part of a party that traveled up to Boston from Braintree. In a letter to John, Abigail explained that she brought with them a cow, some hay, and wood, as well. Abigail, her sisters, and their broods were among 17 people, including two maids and a black man, who crowded into a Boston house for the treatment. Abigail noted that the town was crowded with people from the countryside undergoing the same treatment.

This was not an instance of someone making a discovery by running contrary to the data…sorry.

Regarding martyrdom, if you’ll forgive the expression, OMG!

History is replete with people who died as martyrs for something they either thought was true, but wasn’t…knew was untrue but believed that their death would serve a greater purpose, were simply mentally deranged or of course those who became martyrs quite unwillingly.

Muff,

But it should be 🙂

Muff,

I wish that happiness for you as well, and if I could make those ruby slippers for you myself I’d begin work immediately…I’m sure that very few could deserve them more my friend.

Sopy – Dude… Fendrel used to be a member of an SGM church.

I can *totally* get his current atheism; I have friends (not from SGM) who’ve gone the same route after being in highly abusive churches/religious systems.

numo,

Unfortunately SGM had no impact on my becoming an atheist which occurred maybe 15 or so years later after I had left, but it was a reasonable guess 🙂

It seems that Sop both gets my point and misses it at the same time … what shall I do 🙂

Dee,

Still owe me an example 🙂

Dee & Fendrel,

In my opinion, belief in the Almighty has little to do with smarts or lack of smarts. Throughout human history mental titans, dullards, and everything in between have chosen to believe or disbelieve based solely on their own overall uniqueness as human beings.

Fendrel @ 11.43 am “Maybe there is life after death, but to believe that it is true without supporting evidence and when all the existing evidence points in the opposite direction is illogical and irrational, regardless of whether it turns out to right or wrong in the end”.

Fendrel – what is the existing evidence that points out that there is not life after death?

(note: I have read above posts but only very quickly and still trying to get my head around some of the philosophical arguments, so apologies if I’ve asked a question twice)

Fendrel, here’s my thoughts on it at the moment. I see it the other way. That there’s not enough evidence to prove that there’s not an afterlife. Similarly, there’s not enough evidence to prove that afterlife does not exist. I would be foolish to be emphatic and labour the point because – no one knows. So the jury is out with me.

One guy in the bible escaped death – Elijah. No one else seems to. I’m not sure in comparative religions if there are similar stories. Aside from that, it seems pretty convincing to me that we’re all going to die one day, I’ll take that as a fact. As to the ‘what next’ – that’s intriguing. I held someone when they died and took their last breath. The rational part of me asked, ‘well I don’t know if that is it – is it final or not?’ It certainly is for the body (note my last wishes – I wish to have a Zoastrian-Australian-Haitch style burial where I get placed on a really remote outback road and the Wedge Tailed Eagles can have a feed).

But as to the spirit, or soul, or essence of a person or whatever you want to call it? Logically and rationally, I cannot call it either way. I don’t know if that life essence dies with the person or not. So I don’t believe there is any evidence that determines what happens after the point of death.

Haitch,

Getting late ..or is it early..in any case I’ll try to be brief

If saying that there isn’t enough evidence to disprove an afterlife, therefore you find believing in it to be a rational decision would imply that believing in almost anything would be equally rational…for example…maybe we all go to mars after we die, or possibly we all turn into flying unicorns or garden gnomes…the list of things for which there is no evidence is almost limitless…shall we believe in all of them?

Is there any difference, from an empirical evidence standpoint between believing in an afterlife in heaven and believing that we turn into pink geese or maybe that we come back to life in a parallel universe as sand fleas, after all each of those options seems to be supported by the same amount of evidence…how can we call them logical or rational beliefs?

.
✿*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•`  ¤ “Illusionary Comport Perhaps?”*´¨)

HowDee YaAll,

…Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary, over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, while I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, as of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. “‘Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door, only this, and nothing more.”

tap, tap, tap…

Hey, “Numo”, I gotz dis here spiritual tyre pump….

Huh?

Fendrel’s convinced that the proper order of his wheels turning about are a flat one! Wump, Wump, Wump! Try as anyone might, however sincere, convincing him (or others like him) otherwise is a ‘net zero proposition’. He has disregarded a position of supernatural import convinced to an assurity of his present conviction. Deterring him from his fisurable and fractured position will be of no avail. He is thorouly convinced his cause is just. He is a true un-believer seeking others exhorably to his ‘ennobled’ cause.

He is not like the fallen angels, however, nor their prince, for he has convinced himself of their ‘reasonable’ impossibility? He is in ‘hell’ , yet knows it not. (Wartburg post- ‘Hell House Madness’ pun intended.)

Like many of the readers here at Wartbug, I have managed to keep my faith ‘reasonably’ intact. Men, of yet, have not succeeded in damaging the scripture to the point of unreconition, or impinged upon their usefulness in presenting a supreme and elastic hope and an enviably comforting provisioning for a creature that has met with misfortune, becoming far removed from his original nobel stature. It would appear that modern man is ‘hell-bent” upon marring the remaining civility between this condition and the promise generously offered him presently, by Christ, Jesus, himself.

What?

“…least they stretch forth their hand…a sword to guard the way?”

know your scriptures…

woosh, woos, woosh!  woosh, woos, woosh! woosh, woos, woosh! woosh, woos, woosh! woosh, woos, woosh! woosh, woos, woosh! woosh, woos, woosh!

(I’ze a using ma tyre pump…)    -snicker-

“I came that they might have life”, “…all those who come to me, I shall not turn away” , “…come unto me all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest!” Jesus

 “pump up the volume?”  (sure thing!)

Jesus offers you, dear reader, ‘faith’ in his precious promises, and his gracious salvation. Let us ‘reason’ together, says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as wool. A separation in times past, can become a wonderful fellowship moving forward, as I said, hope deferred…makes one’s heart sick, yet Jesus came to seek and save the lost. Alas, hope can ‘b’ renewed…

That being said, I am inclined to be empathic, simpethic, and quite understanding to Fendrel’s  blight’d condition partly due to the nefarious disheveled conditions  of SGM or some other blighted vineyard perhaps? Fendrel our ‘Madness’ director, offers a fascination with what death has to offer (or not!) , however,  Jesus came to offer the words of  “eternal life”. 

It’s not a hard choice, it only looks like it. 🙂

Careful, don’t let the “goblins” get you!

(grin)

hahahahahahaha

S“㋡”py!

Dee,

I was being nice…and as you know I spent many years on the other side of the fence…so I have some idea of what’s involved and, even though you don’t seem to agree with me, I believe that I am contributing.

Since you say that I am assuming what I am trying to prove…let me put the question to you as directly as possible…

Question #1

Do you think that someone who holds a position and insists on the correctness of their position in the absence of any objective evidence is being rational?

Question #2

Do you think that the exercise of faith must be rational in order to be useful?

Question #3

If faith is indeed based on evidence and is also rational and logical why do suppose it is so difficult to get an atheist, who supposedly values those traits, to change their mind and embrace faith in the supernatural?

On the rational vs. the irrational:

I will agree that faith and hope are irrational. In an arithmetic sense, they don’t stop with neat and finite ratios of known quantities that terminate with zeros or repeat over and over with the same decimal sequence.

At present and as far as I can see into the future I will remain incurably irrational with regard to my belief in the Almighty.

Since an awful lot of things that we do in life – good things, I might add – aren’t necessarily based on the most rational or logical choices, I wonder if we can drop “logical” and “rational” for a while?

None of us are Mr. Spock, and even he had an “irrational” side!

numo,

I actually had the same thought…it seems those words, unfortunately, are becoming a bit inflammatory…although I have tried to explain what I mean by them.

How does the word “reasonable” work?

So, to rephrase my basic question with our new word it would be…

Is it reasonable to accept an axiom as true, without demanding verifiable, objective evidence of a scientific nature of sufficient quality and in sufficient quantity, to be determined by how different the axiom is, from our daily experiences and what we can experimentally verify as true.

maybe that’s a bit verbose … but if we want to have any discussions of faith versus science, then we need to come up with a definition of terms, otherwise it will be hopeless.

anyone else who’s following this thread care to jump in?

Dee,

I’ll check it out…but even if it was 20 years, it’s still a long time, and it’s still I said that he said, etc. still not close to “eyewitness” anything.

I glanced at the article briefly while writing this (I will read it in full later), but I’d like to comment on what I saw…

The author may be absolutely correct, and each of the atheists listed may in fact be guilty of using rhetoric and emotionally charged language, and have made irrational or illogical arguments….

So what? The fact they they too are human and not perfect in no way diminished the basic message which is that reason and logic are the best methods we have of understanding our world and that accepting things as true without requiring any supporting scientific evidence is not reasonable.

It is the same argument that atheists use against religion when they accuse religion of being evil simply because some practitioners misused or twisted biblical text to support their own purpose. The fact that someone misquotes or twists a good message into a bad one, doesn’t nullify the message.

Because Harris or Dennet or Hitchens sometimes falter and are guilty of being irrational or illogical doesn’t alter the fact the reason and logic should be used to the best of our abilities in our search for truth. The author of the Acts of the Apostles would no doubt concur (Acts 17:11).

I watched Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” by candlelight with a glass of wine to recover with my inner introvert after all the halloween engingeering (costume, candy, and social) that comes with the mom hat (at least my mom hat).

An annual post trick=or=treating solitary indulgence.

Re. believing "eyewitness testimony," may I submit an exhibit?

It's the very 1st photograph of a human being – really, it's a daguerreotype, taken by none other than Louis-Jacques Daguerre himself, back in 1838. It depicts one of the busiest streets in Paris, and yet… the exposure was so long (early daguerreotype exposures took 10+ minutes in the very best lighting conditions), so… none of the traffic – human and horse-drawn – is visible. We see an empty boulevard. What we see is not what Daguerre saw while he was sitting with the camera pointed out his window.

I 1st saw this image in the early 1970s, while taking a course on the history of photography. It's so still and almost ghostly (Paris appears to be completely uninhabited) that it made a huge impression on me – one that I've never been able to alter in my mind's eye.

Even though I know – intellectually – that the street was incredibly crowded, I cannot convince myself that it looked – or was – anything other than what we can see in this daguerreotype. (i.e., devoid of people, except for the shoeshine man and his customer, down in the lower left.)

numo,

well, you can’t beat “It’s The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown”, can you. I forgot to watch that this year. Snoopy pretending to be the Great Pumpkin, rising out of the pumpkins making this ascending “woooooooooooooo” sound with his dog tone of voice. So funny!

elastigirl – you don’t think The Birds is scary?! o.O

Blade Runner is fascinating, and very dark.

but… a few nights ago I watched (wait for it) The Fifth Element… definitely on my list of all-time worst movies, and not in an enjoyable way. (I had never seen it before, though a couple of years ago I watched the 1st 15+ minutes and promptly shut it off, because it was just too stupid for words. I should have stood firm this time around!)

Hi,numo.

No, I don’t think The Birds is scary. But evocative! And nostalgic.

Never heard of The Fifth Element — but i’m very out of touch with a number of things. I’ll avoid it. Was it meant to be scary? I think making a truly scary film is a job few can do.

Driving Tippi around the bend? As in rolling in the sheets with? Yeah, very disturbing!

Trivia — i found Jimmy Stewart’s apartment in San Francisco from Vertigo by deductive reasoning looking at a street map. I’m sort of proud of that. I love to drive by it.

very weird! the dark side of genious?

Dee,

So, if I understand you correctly…you believe that the writings which took place in the first century, claiming that other people had witnessed the coming back to life of a Jewish carpenter, which were selectively compiled from what was available, in an age when resurrection stories were rather common place in stories that both of us would classify as myths, in a world where there are roughly 56 million deaths occurring per year and not a single instance of someone coming back from the dead has ever been verified in all the years that you or I have been living (not counting medical resuscitation…talking about absolutely brain dead…or whatever qualifications you would say were requisite for Jesus’ resurrection) is, for you, sufficient evidence that miracles can occur.

If that’s an accurate description then you are correct, we are about as far apart on a definition of “reasonable” as we can probably get. I don’t say any of these things to be mean spirited, I think you know me better than that, I am just in shock and find it difficult to believe that something so flimsy…in comparison to our real time observations of how death works (repeated millions and millions of times over) could convince anyone.

Regarding early manuscripts, could you please provide some references for your early dates, I was unable to find anything for the time period you offered (<70 years). Most of what I found was similar to the snippet below.

The manuscripts dating from 100 to 300 AD are almost entirely papyrus fragments. These fragments are named with a “P” followed by a number. The vast majority of them were found in Egypt in the twentieth century, and are now kept in various museums and libraries throughout the world, including at Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna.

The earliest manuscript of the New Testament was discovered about 50 years ago. P52 is a small papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33 on the front; 18:37-38 on the back), and it has been dated to about 125 AD. This makes it a very important little manuscript, because John has been almost unanimously held by scholars to be the latest of the four gospels. So if copies of John were in circulation by 125, the others must have been written considerably earlier. Moreover, the Gospel of John’s greater theological development when compared with the other three gospels has led some scholars to conclude it was written as late as 120 or even 150 AD. The P52 fragment seems to make such late dates impossible. {4}

In addition to the early papyrus fragments, a large number of parchment manuscripts have been found that date from 300 AD onward. These are usually named for the place in which they were discovered and are abbreviated by a letter or sometimes a number. The manuscripts A/02 (Codex Alexandrinus), B/03 (Codex Vaticanus), and Sin./01 (Codex Sinaiticus) contain nearly complete sets of the New Testament. By comparing these to the earlier papyrus fragments, they have been shown to be quite reliable.

Codex Vaticanus (B), the earliest of the great parchment manuscripts at about 300 AD, has resided in the Vatican since the middle ages and remains there today. It is one of the most important manuscripts for textual criticism.

Codex Sinaiticus (Sin.) dates to about 350 AD. It was discovered in 1844 in a monastery on Mount Sinai by a Russian. After some resistance, he persuaded the resident monks to allow him to take it to St. Petersburg. On Christmas Eve, 1933, the Soviet government sold it to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds. It was put on permanent display in the British Library, where it still resides, along with other early biblical manuscripts. {5}

Codex Alexandrinus (A), dating to circa 450 AD, was transferred from the Christian library in Alexandria to the British Library in the seventeenth century, where it still resides today. The Catholic Encyclopedia details its history:

Frank Morrison: “Who Really Moved The Stone?”

    Hello,

       Many owe Frank Morison a great debt of gratitude. 

How So?

Well, his book: “Who Moved the Stone?”, really makes a solid connection. It’s use has afforded many an important early link in a long chain of evidence that God used to bring them into Christ’s kingdom. This may very well be an excellent starting point for anyone’s spiritual investigation.

Let’s take a closer look:

Well, for Frank, apparently the strangeness of the Resurrection story captured his attention, and being influenced by more than a few skeptic thinkers at the turn of the century, he simply set out to prove that the story of Christ’s Resurrection was bogus, a hoax, aka only a myth. His probings, however, led him an unanticipated path, -that of discovering the validity of the biblical record, for himself, in a very moving and personal way!  

Worth a look? You bet!

“This is a well-researched book that is as fascinating in its appeal to reason as it is accurate to the truthfulness of the Resurrection.”

Consider Carefully?

You Decide.

Blessings!

IronClad

—
“Who Moved the Stone?”
ISBN-10: 0310295610
ISBN-13: 978-0310295617

IronClad,

Here is a link of a good review of that book…and I have included one of my favorite comments..

“Despite Morison’s repeated claims that anybody can tell that the Gospels are true just by reading them, he acknowledges that there are some things which don’t seem so true. For example, in Chapter 9, he points out that there was a seven week gap between the resurrection of Jesus and the disciples proclamation in Jerusalem that Jesus had risen.

Morison writes that this is ‘…. an anachronism of the first order. It does not help the credibility of the apostles’ story. It embarrasses it. It provides an unnecessary and even incomprehensible stumbling-block to faith. It leaves the door wide open for the entry of the greatest suspicion.'”

and even better…

“Morison, despite being a ‘sceptic’, thinks nothing of inventing far-out explanations to cover up contradictions in the Gospels. For example, Mark says the women set out ‘when the sun was risen’, while John says it was ‘early, while it was yet dark.’ Morison writes that there is no problem because ‘women are specially prone to unforeseen delays when engaged in joint expeditions….’ ‘In any case’, Morison writes, ‘the unanimous witness of the first documents is that it was early…’ . So they only contradict themselves a bit, and if the Gospels say that women set off early, then the women set off early. After all, it’s in the Bible, so it must be true. ”

Not to mention the is more than sufficient reason to believe that he was not a skeptic at all but believed a priori in the inerrency of the gospels.

It’s never been about me bright and you dumb, although you’ve accused me of that at least twice now.

If I say something about a piece of evidence that you feel is incorrect or illogical, please correct me, I do not believe that I have a corner on logical reasoning and certainly not on knowledge.

The basic premise for almost all of our discussions is:

“Does sufficient evidence exist to justify belief in the supernatural?”

What constitutes “sufficient” is open to debate as is whether belief in the absence of whatever we define as sufficient should be considered “rational” or not.

If you wish to pursue the question, and limit it to that initial question is up to you, as I am willing if you are…maybe even a separate blog entry just dedicated to that single question might be fun, that way those who are interested can join in.

Heaven: making a connection?

Fendrel,

    Hello, 

       Draw a circle (circle A), place the word ‘Man’ within the circle you have drawn, add the words ‘reason,’ and ‘logic’. Then draw another circle (circle B), place the word ‘God’ in it.

(For our present purposes, there is presently no direct connection between the two circles (spheres) A & B.)

Circle A represents all of universal matter. For are present purposes, Circle B represents God and the place in which he himself dwells, all of heaven.

Since no direct connection exist between sphere A, Matter, and sphere B, Heaven, what is required to make such a connection?

In your dialog here at Wartburg, Heaven does not exist, albeit nothing exists outside of Matter. Therein lies the rub. Since the tools do not exist in the sphere A, to connect to sphere B, to the observer within sphere A, nothing else exists apart from what the tools at his present disposal (Reason & Logic) can discover.

This is where ‘revelation’ serves as a connection sought for between the two spheres.

This connection: “revelation” is outside of sphere A.

Unless this outside connection “revelation” is made, no other tool exists from within Sphere A that would enable the occupant of said sphere to make such a connection if so desired. (Remember our example: nothing appears to exist outside sphere A.)

Revelation is that very connection that links the two spheres.

But since this connection exists outside sphere A, something or someone ‘outside’ sphere A must make the connection. ‘Revelation’ is such a connection.’Revelation’ is what the Bible is all about. It is a ‘recored’ of God making a connection with man.

Just because one does not believe in the connection (revelation) doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It is just that one simply can not perceive it as such.

So (for our present purposes) we now have a connection ‘revelation’ made between the two spheres A & B. But we have no apparent inclination of that connection, hence no idea of what may lie in sphere B, or that there is even a sphere B.

For us today, the Bible makes that connection, and what is more, the bible examines the significance of that very connection, and our relationship to it, although we may presently be unknowingly ignorant of it’s existence.

Remember, a fish does not know it lives in water. To it, that is it’s world. A frog, however learns that the little pond it was born in is not all there is to it. The frog is free by it’s nature to explore the world outside the pond from which it came.

In the same token, the Bible gives a link outside our little pond, to a much bigger world “outside”. Unless you are willing to jump out of the pond, as it were, you have what could be considered, a limited existence. Only you don’t know it. (perceive it)

That is how it is with us, the mortician removes the blood from our veins and sticks our remains in a refrigerated holding tray awaiting disposition. And that’s it.

Or is it?

That is where the Bible comes in. It tells us of the ‘world’ beyond this one. Is there such a place? Yes, the mortician’s tray does not have to be end, it only seems that way.

Consider Carefully?

You Decide.

Blessings!

IronClad

Headless,

you make some good points, yes the intensity is still there, I think that’s just my nature, regardless of the topic, but I do think that overall religion is harmful to society and individuals, so don’t I have a responsibility to speak out, especially to those I consider friends?

Regarding the 180 degree turn…it is not quite that, although I think Saul/Paul is a better example. I have no hatred of God or those who believe in the supernatural, and it certainly wasn’t an overnight or road to Damascus experience…it was a slow process over a long period of time and at any given point I was probably a bit on both sides at the same time.

Wendy,

I agree both as a Christian (former) and as an atheist (now) .. Halloween rocks! It’s right up there with “Talk Like a Pirate Day!”

Fendrel, The 1978 Nobel Physics Prize (Penzias & Wilson) was for experimental evidence, the 3 degree Kelvin background cosmic microwave radiation, confirming the Big Bang, the birth of our universe. The 2011 Nobel Physics (Perlmutter, Schmidt & Riess) was for astronomical observations indicating the expansion of universe is accelerating, not decelerating. Our universe had a moment of creation but does not appear to have a built-in end. There is no support of an infinite repeating cycle of universe creations and deaths. The universe is a unique event. This suggests there may be something “outside” of the observable universe. Rationally what might it be?

Faith is in the Air: What is the means by which differences can be resolved?

Headless Unicorn Guy,

    Hello,

       The following questions have merit:

What is the relationship between “the exercise of faith”, and “rationality”? and: What is one’s faith based on?

Also, the following are a great body of ‘witnesses’. Is Fendrel implying that they might have been mistaken?

The uncials: א and B of the fourth century, A, C, D of the fifth, E, L, V of the eighth, F, H, K, M, Γ, Δ, Λ, Π, Χ of the ninth, and G, S, U of the tenth, or twenty in all, besides fragments I, N, Q, T of the 5th, I, N, P, R, T, Z, Θ of the 6th, T, Θ of the 7th and O, W, Y of the 8th century. 

The versions:  a.d. 150, Peschito and Old Latin; a.d. ; a.d. 200, Curetonian-Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic ; a.d. 350, Gothic, 400 Vulgate ; a.d. 450, Armenian, Jerusalem Syriac; a.d. 500, Philox. Syriac; 550 Aethiopic.

The Fathers: a.d. 100. Clemens, Ignatius; 150. Justin ; 175. Irenæus, Theophilus, Athenagoras; 200. Tertullian; 225. Clemens, Hippolytus, Africanus; 250. Cyprian; Origen, Dionysius; 300. Arnobius, Lactantius; 325. Eusebius, Juvencus; 350. Athanasius, Ephrem, Hilary; 375. Basil, Cyril-Jer., the Gregories, Caesarius, Optatus; 400. Ambrose, August., Chrysostom, Jerome, Gaudentius, Epiphanius, Victor of Antioch, Isidore, Prudentius; 425. Prosper, Cyril Alex; 450. Leo, Salvian, Theodoret; 500. Fulgentius, Gelasius, Caesarius of Arles; 600. Gregory of Rome.

Just had this in my head this morning:

“So, let us not be blind to our differences – – but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

Gleaning much of what has been said here, Sopy appears to cherish Jesus very much, and in this endeavor, this writer wholly concurs.

 Lord, how love I your word, it is my meditation all day long, and because of it I have refrained my feet from every evil way!

Cheers!

IronClad

Fendrel,

Oh, we love Talk Like a Pirate Day too! I was asked to sub at my son’s preschool that day. I scrambled around that morning looking for my pirate attire and enjoyed talking like a pirate all day. 🙂

Fendrel
I think the most you can say is that you don’t accept that the resurrection happened, not that it didn’t happen. A miracle after all is something that is out of the ordinary, supernatural. What we have is the testimony and record of ordinary people who saw something extraordinary happen and who recorded it. To the law and to the testimony.
Regards
Gavin

Dee- I am on a low carb diet as well. But cheated when I saw the tea time snacks at The Fearrington. I have to go back there. It was the best place I ever stayed at. I’m trying to convince my traveling companion to take me back soon. You can meet us there for tea time. Plus we need to see the goats!

I hope Tulip did not create too much of a ruckus in her time outs. I don’t think she likes to be alone. Where do they sleep at night?

Whoa! I didn’t think my comment on the rational vs. the irrational would generate so much debate on the terms. I meant it strictly in the context of rational vs. irrational numbers, and how the irrationals never terminate or repeat with their decimal expansions. And so it goes with my faith, which will remain irrational in this limited context and meaning.

Dear Fendren
Basically yes because God is not a man that he should lie and I have no reason to doubt Him. On the other hand I have every reason to believe Him. I know pots like to look in the mirror and admire their own handiwork but the truth is the potter made them.
Best wishes Gavin

Muff – you know, the mere fact that Jesus didn’t run around doing Amazing Feats (like a comic-book superbeing) after his resurrection is, for me, one of the most compelling reasons to believe that he is who he said he is – that, and, of course, what he taught and how he lived.

he was humble in the true sense of the word, which is a whole universe and then some away from the way MD views humility.

Also, while I lean toward your view 9the body is good), I don’t think belief in a soul of some kind has to be the kind of matter = bad, spiritual = good view that many people believe in.

Dee- count me in for tea at The Umstead. And my traveling companion too. She’s always up for an adventure.

Our dog always slept in our beds and under the covers. Each bed in the house had its own carpeted doggie stairs. Our dog broke her leg clean in half at our house in Greensboro and so she had a metal plate and screws that the vet said had to stay in for the rest of her life. Her legs were very fragile and jumping off beds was not a good idea. Plus she was extremely spoiled and pampered.

Have a good time on your family vacation. I’m sure the pugs will be fine. We all need a break from each other once in a while, even if we are a dog.

elastigirl – yes, very refreshing!

Gavin,

Thanks…appreciate your answer. Whether God was there in the beginning doesn’t make the argument non-circular though 🙂

Elastigirl –

You might like this article (excerpt from a book) very interesting even if you’ve “overdosed” on Paul…

http://mainereason.blogspot.com/2011/02/problem-of-paul-excerpt-from-mythmaker.html

“NOGOD: Doubt Induced Structural Failure?”

What?

What do you do when “reason” and “logic” fail?

hmmm…

What color is your parachute?

there is a way that seems right to a man, but that way leeds unto death…

yet…

on the third day Jesus rose from the dead according to the scriptures!

yet…

In the last days perilous times shall come?

for 
     men 
               shall 
                           be 
lovers of themselves, and not God?

are we there yet?

(sadface)

Come unto me all who are heavy burdened, and I shall give you comfort.    Jesus 

Sopy

___
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come…

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away…

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth!

Watch! for them… 🙂

they are not selling vacuums or delivering milk… 

“Blind Faith: Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence?”

Fendrel,

Justifying the means to an end, have you found the ultimate excuse: you’ve painted your own?

Sorry fella, you must excuse us but Jesus has painted his own too!

We like his bedder!

“Send in da Clowns?”

-snicker-

My heart is fixed! I have inclined mine heart Lord Jesus, to perform thy statutes…

“Kick the Tires, Light the Fires!”

Yeeeeehaaaaaaaaa!

Sopy

Muff Potter,

Thank you! I always appreciate your wisdom and perspective.

Muff Potter,

I also loved your comment at 7:24 PM. I really must start copying and pasting comments I like on here to my journal – the ones that pull me back in from my doubts and make me want to worship a good God.

Fendrel,
That vid was hilarious! Somebody ought to send it to Voddie Baucham and ask him how 1 Peter 3:7 can also be true.

Fendrel, that video was hysterical! Don’t tell me women are too emotional! lol