socks

What? If I, socks, have said it, can it be wrong? Really? When did that start? Come on Roy. Okay, let's get this squared away: You have unbelief. I have unbelief. Everybody has unbelief. Face it. I did. Okay - everybody all at once - face....your....unbelief. And remember to remember that you have unbelief. Now what? Jesus made a pretty good career out of challenging the misguided and incorrect statements and actions of those religious people He encountered within the context of the Torah. (your article didn't deal with any biblical issues or topics, which is why I didn't use that as the counter to his points, however Loftus does address his topic from the standpoint of someone who was a Christian and who now does not maintain those beliefs any longer and he writes with Christians in mind, he says). Jesus actually dealt differently with Romans and non-Jews than He did with Jews. In the records where interactions with non-Jewish Romans are recorded he didn't rip on Roman citizens or laws that much - look at when asked if they should pay Roman taxes - he said sure, if you think you should, do it, render the taxes - He in fact paid taxes as stated in Matthew 17 "so as not to offend them". He spent a lot of time with his Jewish brethren however, including confronting those He felt were teaching error from the Torah, and imposing harsh and ungodly restrictions on God's people, and those who had turned the Temple, His "Father's House", into a den of thieves and very directly confronting them I might add. Those people were often offended by HIs words and actions. Duh. Romans weren't Jews, they didn't automatically care about any of it and what they did wasn't in response to what they would have thought God and the Torah taught. They were Romans and had other beliefs. Loftus speaks as a degreed former pastor and self credited insider authority. You described him as a man of God. If I had to follow the example of Jesus I would address his dissertations directly when I encounter them in the same way Jesus did with His Jewish counter parts. I did. I'm not going to hammer on you over this and that was never my intention although I've asserted my opinions and thoughts, clearly I hope. I'm done. It's been fun. Thanks for the space.We'll chat again, I'm sure, peace!

This all reminds me of that Great Question of Life, and my own personal favorite answer: Question: Why did the chicken cross the road? Answer: What chicken? Other screeds floating in the temporal lobe paste: If Lofton is a "man of God" I'm a hat pin in a pepper mill. I loathe the modern use of the term "man of God". There are men, there's a God. No need to get them mixed up. I only know one way - call 'em like you see 'em. There's never any lack of people to inform me of how wrong or right I am and with that kind of help, how can I lose?

I don't have any question as to why you posted this Roy. It's a Doctrinal forum for posting things. It's difficult to understand if you think otherwise but you shouldn't equate disagreement with disapproval. For the purposes of this board you can post and you do. Rather than play a guessing game, yes, it's easier when you clarify it but it doesn't matter to me that you do or don't. Since you did, I commented. I can live without reading anymore of this stuff, trust me. Yeah, illusion. That I don't agree with, not for me anyway. "diffusion" describes the phrase "see through a glass darkly". diffusion is not abstraction or distortion. Christianity is focused on a relationship - the nature of it is intangible compared to say, sitting next to a friend. The friend is there. The relationship is shared between us and is there too but not the same way. Physical, "spiritual", one might use those words. Christ is "in" me, not sitting next to me in the same way as the friend would be. The presence and the relationship is an internal one. That relationship is pure and true as is. As I would be a "son of God" the relationship is full and complete. The quality of the relationship can grow, become richer and clearer. In that the "see through a glass darkly" is not a distortion, nor an illusion. It's not even just a matter of development or a lack of development. It's simply an acceptance in it's purest state. I might describe this "diffusion" in the relationship as the light that comes from regular lamp in a room, with a regular tungsten bulb - warm, close, inviting, useful, soft. It's not as bright or illuminating as a full on mercury lamp, 10,000 watts. But no less real or useful, no less meaningful. This is how I see the bible's phrase "we see through a glass darkly". Outside of that it's not an illusion, either. That's what you seem to want to say, so fine. Go for it. Everyone has good days and bad days in a relationship but the relationship remains unless it's ended and destroyed. God is faithful and just, and always "here". It's pretty simple to me if I don't complicate it. I have the problems, that goes with the territory. But there's a consistency in the relationship I can have that isn't governed by those problems, that is strong and stable. I prefer to rely on that, weak or strong, good days bad days. When I do life is good for me. When I don't, it's not as good, sometimes not at all. More often than not though, it's good. .

Momentus is the bird droppings from a seagull that flew by Jesus once on his way to the sea. There's a lot of movement in churches to have an "open door" entry level kind of outreach and shoot for big numbers. Church for those who don't like church, that kind of thing. Some succeed, some don't. Success in numbers doesn't mean anything worthwhile is getting done. Driscoll shouts a mean sermon and is described as a "theology buff". Great. I think a high risk area for pastors is when the personal desire to reach and help others pushes them to redefine scripture, to enter into doctrine and theology, areas that they aren't equipped for. I should say, some are some arent. But I've met people that have gone through some churches ministerial programs where the areas of theology sound like they are mostly skim jobs with no depth of inquiry or real learning and the emphasis was on outreach and building a church congregation (sounds familiar). Later then in the midst of the challenges of dealing with real people, they grapple with deeper issues and aren't prepared. Rather than expand their resource base and direct their people to the right resources with other's expertise, they declare organizational autonomy and attempt to impose their new visions on the church. (sound familiar?) I read some of the church pastors say the same thing we did years ago - "Jesus didn't have to ask a committee if it was okay to teach!" Yeah, but he was Jesus. And He did ask the Father and do the Father's will always. I'm not going to bet my next paycheck on somebodys' word the mean well and know better. "I meant well" wouldn't cut it with brain surgery. It's tragic some of these guys push forward so aggressively yet so scatter box in the arena's of people's emotional and spiritual lives.

Agreed Roy, but I'm fuzzy on what you mean by "illusion"...we seem to differ on the definition of "illusion", which may be why I don't quite understand what you mean.........

Yeah, I be breaking that one. Sue me.

I wanted to add - file this with the fish wrap, it's not any big deal, I just wanted to get it out of my head and somewhere else. I've read some of Lofton's stuff and at the expense of sounding uh, prideful, it wasn't worth my time and although he seems to have kicked up a little dust ball in some Christian communities, I'm not sure why as he doesn't have a really grounded, clear or powerful voice of opinion. That opinion of mine has nothing to do with his "atheism". Richard Dawkins states his positions quite well and his feeling that post-Darwin an atheist has natural selection and evolution to explain through any "intelligent design" beliefs is worth noting. In fact for me it was Dawkins who put 2 and 2 together for me in regards to understanding natural selection as a nonrandom process and a means to account for diverse, complex life - but - in a universe of possibilities it's still fascinating to consider that that process of natural selection has remained so consistent and that it hasn't broken the boundaries out so far as to develop - over these billions of years involved in evolution - any truly diverse or divergent possibilities. Put another way, why then "natural selection" as a driving force? The known universe that the theory covers is known to be what it is, not what it isn't. There are basic laws, consistencies, strengths, inclinations but not others. Ultimately the explanation is "because that's the way it is", the way it has become. And I would still ask the question why that way and not others and why not others at the same time, co existing with each other in a universe of laws even broader than our own now? And the answer would still have to be "because that's the way it is" and perhaps even that it couldn't have been any other way once the ball got rolling...... Which is kinda kludgey. But I don't take Dawkins lightly. Lofton doesn't appear to be rooted in any specific foundation of ideas or thought pattern which is surprising. He's obviously educated, intelligent and has experience, but he does seem inclined to spin off into all sorts of postulations of his own creation. That's fine by me, he's got as much right as anyone. However I don't see a real depth of reasoning, he's all over the road like a pis sed off cow, shot gunning. He seems to be grappling with his own demons. Maybe this is his way of working them out, I don't know but I get the feeling there's more under the hood than what he states. Either way, since I don't get much from his stuff I don't pay much attention to it. This is way too much for me, to be honest but my brain got buzzing and it's a poor effort at best, easlily shot full of holes. (kaboom!)

Breaking it down, the Top 10 Reasons - another's view" 1) The lack of critical thinking. I cannot tell you how often believers respond to skeptical arguments with informal fallacies in favor of their faith, which includes special pleading, non-sequiturs, all or nothing thinking (i.e., the "either/or" and "black and white" fallacies), begging the question, the "you too" fallacy, and especially appeals to ignorance. They don't even know that's how they are responding. And this is what I see coming from some Christian scholars I have dealt with, even those who teach critical thinking in the colleges, which nearly stuns me. Their responses are bad, really bad, and they don't/can't see it. A quick and dirty run down on the meaning of critical thinking, compliments of the Wikipedia: Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true. Lofton's arguments are reactive, contingent on a premise he's arguing against - that where some say they believe in God he contends that there is no god to believe in. If Lofton (or for this discussion anyone) were to say "there is no god", disconnected from the assumption that there is, critical thinking would attempt to go through the process to question his assumption and determine if it be true, false or some incremental value. I would suggest for discussion that that statement would be difficult to prove 100% true without the benefit of reactive criticism to make the case. Lofton seems to indicate that he feels it's the baseline, and requires no proof. For the sake of discussion and let's say that's the case - does it indicate a lack of critical thinking on (anyone's) part to have come to that conclusion whether in whole or in part? Keep in mind that Lofton appears to be in violation of his own criticism of others, that of an "all or nothing" conclusion, that "there is no god", 100 % true. If he were to answer "because you can't prove that there IS a god", that would not suffice IMO. An inability to prove that something IS does not conclusively prove that something IS NOT. A thing can be said to exist without the dependency of recognition - in other words for say Lofton himself to be alive isn't dependent on me knowing he is. He either is or isn't. It's like the question If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?..........the first question to be answered might better be, does a tree falling make a sound? and if it does, what is that sound? Whether I hear it or not doesn't have an effect on that. 2) There is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. Christians can acknowledge this with others who believe differently in religions they consider bizarre. Why can't they see it in themselves? The reason is the same one for why the others can't see it in themselves. It's because they too are brainwashed. Only the brainwashed do not know it. Being brainwashed into thinking a certain way is a hot button topic. However he doesn't go into detail as to how this brainwashing occurs in a test group which would have to include billions of people over time, from completely different cultures, countries and eras in time. Christian religion for example has certain basic tenets, common beliefs, but they do in fact vary widely amongst all the various denominations, sects and flavors. This statement "sounds like it could be true" at first blush but is a kind of non sequitur in itself IMO. 3) A very large percentage of believers do not seek out disconfirming evidence for their faith, which can be decisive. They are sure of their faith so they only look for confirming evidence. This can only make them more entrenched in whatever they were raised to believe in their particular culture. But it's an utterly wrongheaded approach to their faith. Lofton makes a valid point however his attitude trips up his logic - he states "disconfirming evidence.....which can be decisive"............examples of that decisiveness would be helpful. 4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know. I already stated why this is so messy as to be useless - the more we know should not be reason to have more doubt - that's a ridiculous conclusion and not Socratic.I could counter that while I might doubt, I don't doubt that I'm doubting - Descartes. I can't, and therefore I must exist and be sure of that existance and if I must exist and know that surely - does that produce more doubt or more confirmation? (It's also insulting to imply the lack of education of someone who would not accept his statement - is that evidence of Lofton's own attempt to brainwash his reader by using shame, guilt, fear and peer pressure tactics???) The more we know, the more we know and can continue to know if we seek to. I believe most would agree that Socrates (and others) realized that knowledge alone isn't the end game, rather learning is and the more one learns, the more I will realize there is to learn. Yet even these statements would have context. I would say that Mozart knew the bulk of what he needed to know about music, in his day. However he didn't know what he didn't know, for instance he might never have envisioned say the harmonic and rhythmic development of modern hip hop - yet that would not have meant he knew less about music because he didn't know that nor would it have caused him to doubt what he did know. 5) This ignorance is due to the fact that believers fear to doubt. It's the very nature of faith in an omniscient mind-reading God that he is displeased when they doubt his promises. So in order not to displease him they do not seriously question their faith. Believers also fear to doubt because they reside in a Christian community of like-minded believers, their friends, who can be counted on when in need, and who would ostracize them if they walked away from the faith. Social pressure among one's main group of friends keeps them in the fold and blissfully ignorant of the need to test their faith. Fear of God and fear of the judgment of others - sure, people seek acceptance however as many of us find there are communities of thought that will support all and any beliefs and non beliefs. Lofton implies that serious, deep seated and heart felt faith is largely conditional on fear of loss and peer pressure. I don't think I can buy that whole cloth but it could certainly be a factor if accounting for why people believe what they do. 6) The biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith is because of where it could lead them, to hell. They cannot bring themselves to travel down a road that might eventually lead them to eternal torture (or however they conceive the final judgment). The thought never occurs to Christians that they don't have the slightest fear of Allah's hell, or the many sects within their own faith who claim all others are going to hell. The comparison to "Allah's hell" isn't sound - there's no reason why a Christian would factor in the blessings or consequences of a faith that's not their own because, well, it's not their own. He makes that point in that very statement - which is why I think he's such a blatherer, at least in this article. Many Christians do fear hell. I don't, so I'd be a good example of someone who doesn't fit that pattern. Yet he states it's "the biggest reason believers don't seriously question their faith"..........I think I know what he's talking about but as a blanket statement? Doesn't wash. And all of the Christians I know who do believe in a "hell" are more interested in Heaven than hell so it's not a continuous day to day motivator to stay out of hell rather it's a pursuit of being in Heaven (by whatever name) 7) Believers conversely have a hope they cannot bring themselves to do without, living eternally in heaven with their deceased loved ones. This hope is so intense they cannot entertain they might be wrong, otherwise they might have to admit they will never see their dead mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters again. That's simply too painful for them to even consider. Hmmmm....file this under "huh?".........to say that with such conviction is immature. People can certainly bring themselves to accept that. I don't think that over a lifetime of faith that's the big all time gotta have it or I'll go nuts kind of a motivator. Maybe it's just me. 8) The nature of faith itself. Faith is a parasite on the mysterious. Without mystery faith couldn't exist. Wherever there is mystery there will always be room for faith because as humans we seek an explanation for the mysterious, and for believers their particular God-concept fills in the gaps. This is one of the informal fallacies I mentioned earlier. Believers require nearly all mysteries to be solved before they will consider their faith unreasonable, and that's an unreasonable epistemic standard since there will probably always be mysteries. Faith is therefore an irrational leap over the probabilities, something no thinking person should ever do with the probabilities given the available evidence. One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case. There's too much in this to address in brief - but if I were to discuss "the nature of faith itself" I would not include that faith itself is primarily useful to explain "the mysterious" or to fill in gaps. I have faith and I still have gaps. I'm not going nuts over it or requiring that my faith be the blanket explanation or answer. Some things I just don't understand. That's fine, if other explanations or probabilities suffice, that's fine too. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that way either. 9) Then too, there is the concept of an omniscient God which is used to solve all problems. I call this the Omnscient God Escape Clause. Because theists believe in an omniscient God skeptics must prove their faith is nearly impossible before they will consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard of proof, making their faith pretty much unfalsifiable. It's not that unreasonable, for the reasons I stated earlier. If Lofton were to take away the foil of an argument made against "faith", what would be his proof conclusively that there is no "God"? And would it stand conclusively against all other possibilities? 10) Morality seems to be another issue, that if believers walked away from their faith they would ipso facto have no reason to be a good people who care for the common good of a society. But the overwhelming evidence is against this, best seen in the demographics. Morality isn't reliant on a specific religion, true. When Lofton references it to faith I think he actually kills his own point - if faith isn't based on any factual evidence which I think he's trying to make the case for - then where does the morality a person falsely credits to their faith come from then? If it's from the individual, the argument becomes a moot point - if the morality exists, it exists, regardless of where it comes from. What does Lofton care then, either way? Which does beg the question - why does he care anyway? If he feels we're all so lost and dumb, and beyond fixing - have a beer, smartie pants. You got it all figured out.

I guess I misunderstood when you wrote: Put on the perfect will of God doing God will from your heart do not get caught in religion pride which does you no good. Be willing to debate anything letting nothing mold you with false religion, which is not right. I am going to end now but thank you all with love of God and a holy kiss from Roy. It sure seemed like you expected something. Everybody struggles for Kristssake Roy. I prefer not to focus on it and wear it like a hat. Life is a struggle period. All men are sinners, all fall short, everybody struggles. God made a way where the was no way - a way to transcend and redeem. With Christ all can be redeemed, everybody gets paid, it's Christmas for all. Loftus is putting coal in everybody's stocking when he tries to make Christians out to be basically deluded losers - and that's the tone of what he wrote, when I read it as well as others. I shared that article with another - they felt similar to me, very much the same way. But the human capacity for faith is universal and the case can be made that without it we wouldn't be able to function at all. ( and I tried with two examples I gave earlier ) Everyone has faith and everyone - and I think this can be proven fairly easily - imagines and relies on outcomes and events that they can not physically and personally guarantee - that requires a trust and faith on their parts. Loftus (and of course many others) simply don't choose (and faith is a choice) to have towards God. I don't care. And most of the time nobody cares how or what my beliefs are. However when an authority figure such as he puts forth so strongly on such a vital topic - it warrants at least a nod. See ya!

"I don't want to get too involved here, because I know some Greasespotters love and adore the Reverend Mr. Driscoll as a great man of God." Really? He reads like an a-hole. Actually, he reads like he picked up the Momentus handbook and used it - which would make him the same thing I guess. " I just mentioned it because I think the whole group of elders shows a voyeuristic interest in everyone's sexual experiences." Church porno? That's what it sounds like to me, cheap kicks. He may have such personal condemnation over something that he feels guilty about......doing this kind of thing through his "church" provides a means to have the uber thrills that denial produces. Weird. Here we are, in the middle of America where freedom chimes like a ring in a bell. And people sign "contracts" like that? I want those names for a mailing list. I have some land under the Golden Gate Bridge I want to sell them."Water front property".

Hmmm, yeah. Speaking of related doctrinal discussions, Socrates and philosophical attributions to that sweet ol' owl Soc's, Soren Kierkegaard's "Philosophical Fragments" comes to mind, specifically on the area of projecting one's own reality on others and also reality based thinking as compared to abstract thinking. (one feels doubt, they see more doubt, one feels faith, sees more...hmm, not sure what Loftus would say to that one) Some of SK's views resonate with me (and I see some strains of thought with the later Henri Bergson, who I enjoy immensely) and his idea that objectivity may not be the correct or only way to evaluate matters of "faith", and the essential components of the spiritual. As in the scientific method of examination, testing, peeling layer after layer to see the internal workings of a thing, that which is "spiritual" may not best reveal itself that way but require a subjective experience and internal view of that which is not specifically rendered externally. SK's way of working is valid IMO, and need not altogether deny either side's approach. I'm sure Loftus knows all that being the expert he is so I find it interesting that he eliminates that line of thinking. SK was a proponent of the Socratic method, but then Loftus loves to twist Socrates and appears to have it all mixed up into his own " I'mRight " stew. (love not too strong an adjective given that he misquotes Socrates and then says of it that "every educated person" would know what he's misquoted.....uhhh - that's got some love in it alright, some care and feeding, he's been petting that thought for awhile and you can tell just reading it that he likes it. A lot. )...... Back to the topic at hand, supporting a writer who notes that the faith of others probably indicates unfixable needs to have social approval and aren't as intelligent as their atheist counterparts, a nefarious and dastardly position as any I'd daresay except to those who think it's okay.......Yeah, that's cool, so cool. How's that - better? Any time you'd actually like to "debate" anything Roy, such as the items you posted earlier, please do. If what you want is to post something and get "0" responses or a lot of one-hand clapping, that's fine too. Otherwise continue to make general sweeping statements about what everyone else thinks and should do and whine about everyone else's pride.

Roy, we may disagree but we're alike in one thing - we're persistent. I'm glad we could share this space. Loftus is an interesting character. Having had no apparent reality driven basis for his choice of religions, he appears to have chosen the reality he does know. In that way he's a reasonable man in my opinion. What he then does is not reasonable in my opinion and it's why I take exception to his pseudo philosophical stance - he insists that all other possibilities are possible except for the one he's eliminated. In that he has eliminated it for himself is reasonable, that he denies all possibility of it for others is not. Again, IMO. If we are dealing with an area that is personal to the individual, he has the freedom to do that of course - for himself. As do you and I.

Count me in baby! I might even eat up there at the head table with the good silver and all, just to know what it feels like to be clean and sweet.

Hmmmm.... I read that original post again Roy and I would have to say the same thing again - that guy's got a crappy attitude. When they state "I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all" to me, that's a crappy funky sucky frame of mind, to say, some people and their faith are just so far gone they can't be helped, that they have low self esteem compared to others like the writer and require an inordinate amount of social approval from others . Apparently because I won't bow down to these lofty pearls of wisdom you posted I'm prideful. If feeling that way is prideful, fine. Pump me up and put a string on me. The pride accusation is a derail - why are we discussing my pride or the lack of it? You also misquoted me with geisha's post but that's okay because I agree with it. Just copy paste from me directly, please. Sometimes people do have really lousy attitudes, ideas and feelings. I don't pat people on the head and dance with them just so I can appear "balanced" or "open" when I think their ideas are wrong. I'll consider many perspectives and opinions, always have and always will. That won't mean I adopt them or consider them reasonable. You put it up - what was your intent? This is a "Doctrinal Forum". Where's the Doctrinal discussion? You spend a lot of time making note on GS that others have problems, pride, unbelief, sexual challenges and any number of other things you seem to think they don't want to admit. And now you point the finger of Pride at me. Really? What's going on Roy? I have no unbelief? I in fact said the exact opposite - that I accept things by faith in every aspect of life and don't require constant reinforcement of "belief" to accept that certain things are what they are. If I wasn't that clear, I hope that is. Far as I'm concerned that writer's making points beyond addressing a specific group of people like Way members and beyond advising them to give their beliefs and ideas an honest second look. In fact outside of using the word "believers" there's no reference in context that indicates it might deal with Way members at all. He says that the matters of a persons faith in God are misguided and wrong. But frankly, the entire platform that writer used to challenge "faith" is weak when he writes: 4) Ignorance is another reason, sometimes willful ignorance. The more we know the more we should doubt. Any educated person will tell you this. Socrates even said he was wise because he knew one thing others didn't, that he didn't know. The more we know the less we claim to know. Those are two different things and since he's so dammed educated I'd think he'd realize it but maybe he's really just got a personal hair up his butt about something he isn't stating - he wrote - The more you know the more you should doubt Is not the same as The more you know the more you realize you don't know It's cutesy to make the statement they did but it's not correct on face value. That isn't what the quote they ascribe to Socrates said - he (supposedly) said that he knew how much he didn't know. Which is incredibly ironic to me - quoting a man who lived over 2400 years ago who is known largely by those he (supposedly) taught and lived with and now quoting what he is said to have said....in a piece that challenges the faith of others................................ Your guy there reads like just another version of what he claims to argue against - he's so sure that he doesn't know that he's sure others can't know either and if they say they do there's something wrong with them, something that may not be fixable. If his Socrates statement was recognized for what it reads as, he'd also have to accept that a lack of knowledge doesn't mean the knowledge doesn't exist. Lastly another example comes to mind - I wouldn't change my mind or doubt that I post here as "socks" - someone else might use that name but when I post, it's me. I don't doubt that, I know that, I'm doing it right now. It's not an academic conclusion, it's a reality. So can be the foundations upon which one has faith. Hey Roy - if disagreeing makes one prideful, pour it on. That's one of the hallmarks of the Way's "enculturation" - accusing someone else of being prideful because they dare to question the almighty wisdom of those who say they know better. I do it all the time. Tattoo a big ? on my head. I love ya Roy. Don't stop keepin' on. :B) Keep the faith.

? I don't see how we got from Ten Reasons Why Most Believers Don't Seriously Question Their Faith to figuring out that I have unbelief, or how any of that really relates to one's "faith" which that guy you quoted seemed to deny.... Of course I have unbelief, does it feel better to state that? I don't deny it nor fear it. I'm not lying to myself, speak for yourself. Of course I have faith, and I don't question it - the gap is filled by that which I trust in, Jesus Christ. However now that I know that 1. there is a God and 2. there is a Jesus Christ, I don't question that. Others may, fine. Others may say I should question it, I don't. Others may say I need to, they're wrong. I've had a belly full of anyone telling me I need to question my faith in the things which I have found to be true, simply because it makes them feel better to say I should as if that makes me or them feel better or any smarter. Bull shi t. I don't buy that. I don't worry about it either - they don't have to live in my skin nor I in theirs. Or as I've said for many years I can't give another my faith nor they give theirs to me. Each has to have their own. Or not. Whichever way it goes is fine with me. :)

Well, yeah. It reads like a call to Atheism. Which is fine but how does that help a person other than to say a faith in God is completely wrong and a lack of faith in God is completely right? Check this statement out: One should only conclude what the probabilities show and never assert more than what the evidence leads us to think is probably the case. What if the probabilities indicate a faith in God is the soundest conclusion? Before anyone checks that off as BS - consider these two faith based scenarios: 1. Everyday I leave my house to drive to work. At the end of the work day I drive back home, assuming that it will be there despite the fact I haven't seen it all day. I don't call a neighbor 10 times a day to make sure it's still there and get satellite photos of it to make sure it is. I know that it should be unless something has caused it to not be there. The basic forces of nature and reality that are at work in everything else tell me that it will be there with enough surety that I can drive home confident it will be there. 2. I am married and have a wife who has said she loves me. She acts like it and has done things we generally know and agree on that define that love, to indicate to me that she, in fact loves me. I don't ask her 10 times a day "do you still love me?" I don't insist that she do things all day long to clearly indicate that she still loves me and that the level of love she has for me at any point in time is the same as it was the last time I checked. I live assuming that she loves me and that if that changes, I'll find out. In #1, I accept the house is here (it was) for reasons that are both within and beyond my control - I don't control gravity or any of the other forces that would cause the house to remain in one state and in one place. I do control certain factors that govern the condition of it's existence. Between the two, the house is and will be until other forces cause it not to be. In # 2, I accept that the relationship is two way and that we both have responsibilities for it to continue. I expect it to exist until other forces cause it not to, and those are forces that are both knowable and unknowable, I don't directly control their existence. . In both scenarios, "faith" is a factor based on data that indicates that faith is predictable and reliable and doesn't require continuous affirmation or proof to exist. They both exist, in a sense, outside my own control or grasp, but affected by my relationship with them. The house is a tangible "thing" that I relate to physically - the Love is an intangible "thing", a quality that produces activity and tangibles. In both scenarios I have faith that they exist when I'm not in contact with them and when there is no immediate proof of their existence. Yet I rely on my knowledge of them that they do in fact exist My "faith" in God is similar to both - it's tangible and rooted in reality, and intangible, rooted in a relationship. Both are constant and continuous but neither require or present constant affirmation. They are simply what they are, at this time. I assume and have found that this is the case with others too and how they describe their "faith" in God and certainly in Jesus Christ as the son of God and redeemer to mankind. The past is verifiable but a past event no longer exists as an instance of reality in and of itself - in that way the past can never be reconstructed but reality being what it is a past event can be known by the artifacts it produces. The present is a known piece of data as it occurs. Perception and understanding may vary but not to the extent that I can't know what is at that moment - the house is here, my wife loves me, etc. It's the Future that gives people hiccups. Will my house be there? Will my wife love me tomorrow? Will God....be there as I have known Him to be there? The answer to all three questions can be "yes". If the question were "will I go to Heaven someday?"..........as people often ask, that's a good question. I don't have a "heaven" in my past and while this is pretty cool now I don't call it "heaven" if that's the future with God and Jesus Christ and some form of future spiritual life after death. This current life isn't over yet and other events that would change this current existence haven't happened. Yet. I can believe that based on the fact that my life construct thus far includes that iit is a sound projection - and to that extent I can invest a "faith" in it - but it hasn't happened yet and I would have to say, I'll find out in the future. In that scenario anyone who would say "no, that's all BS and isn't going to happen" I would say buy me a lottery ticket homes, if you can see the future. I can't that clearly to say with out any doubt that it won't. If it's a future that has never occurred yet there are no artifacts of it's existence that remain - there can't be. That's the nature of existence as we perceive it with the human mind - I can imagine a future, "see it", expect it to be there but there can not be any physical proof that it exists beyond any doubt because it hasn't happened yet. This is true of all things in life. I think people tend to separate "spiritual" from "physical" arbitrarily. From my perspective they're very much the same and it really depends on how we choose to view them. That's my position at this time regarding "faith". Everyone else's mileage may vary.

"I guess some people just cannot be helped, that's all." Wow, that's a crappy attitude. Frankly, some of this reads like nonsense - like this statement - "The more we know the more we should doubt"... Or this: here is an explanation for why believers reason so badly: They have been enculturated, or indoctrinated to believe, a phenomenon that can best be described as being brainwashed. As soon as I figure out what enculturated means, I'll digest this better but on the surface it's a standard screed. (yeh, I know it's a word, just don't see it a lot and it sounds wrong when you say it, at least to me but that's okay) Why don't "Most" Believers Seriously Question Their Faith? It would depend on several things I suppose - one would be how a person comes to hold a specific thing that they define as a point of "faith". As far as I'm concerned the entire "question your faith" posit is highly over rated and not nearly as effective OR useful as it sounds. It's always trendy to say we should all question the things we "believe in" but it's only useful when approached methodically and with purpose. NO ONE I know that I respect questions what they believe haphazardly or at the recommendation of someone else simply because someone else suggests they do it. EVERYONE I know, whether I respect them or not, relies heavily on "faith" perceptions to live, at all or do even the simplest of things like go to the store and buy a box of cough drops. I also differ from the popularly held definition that says "faith" is by nature reliant on the unknown - I would contend that faith must in fact have a core essence grounded and rooted in a reality in order to exist, at all - and it is that essence from which the perception of a faith based belief proceeds. I don't really care about the article Roy, I just figured I'd chime in. Why is this important to you? Having a 'crises of faith"?

Eagle, I would agree. Our borders are borders. Crossing in and out for a day or a lifetime, there's process. That process can change over time, restrictions imposed, steps to accomplish improved and whatever it is it should be observed and enforced. Right now we do have a problem with it and there is a human component to it. The political component needs to be fixed IMO, before the human part can be dealt with effectively. Mexico is a case in point - the government isn't a bystander. Our agreements with them as neighbors has to include their enforcement of it from their side. We deal with keeping out and sending back - it's easy to make the U.S. the bad guy but we're not in relation to wanting to control the borders of our country (not that you're stating that he U.S. is the bad guy, I know you're not) but the control from the other side appears to be as important an issue. Given our own history with Native Americans and Mexico itself I think we can generate better solutions than the ones we have today. Engaging Mexico directly and pushing harder for action on their part would be one thing to do. A large part of the U.S. land was "Mexico" at one time. There are a lot of issues, challenges, opportunities and benefits from working together towards a shared good, for both sides, less so if the effort is one sided or leans too far towards us enforcing our laws to fill a gap that the Mexican government won't or can't fill.

Well, flew again this last week. Went fairly smooth going out - security check in etc. went quickly and without incident. Packed normally, no differences, all carry on - one bag for the bin and a backpack and a jacket. There's a 3.4 ounce limit on aerosol and bottles with liquid - I have a 5.3 ounce aerosol spray can of a generic brand Tinactin I always take to spray in my shoes for that fresh factor. I always take it and it always goes through. Even one incident where a too large bottle of shampoo was pulled, it stayed, for whatever reasons that the Higher Intelligence Powers deemed appropriate....evrything went through on the outbound security check A OK. I didn' even think about it at this point, it was all a pretty light pack anyway. Coming back, packed up almost identically, it got flagged and I was pulled over. The very nice Security person identified it immediately, noted the size differential and suggested I could either put the bag through baggage check on - or dump it there. I chose to dump it, it was only half full and although I had the time to go back didn't want to hassle with it. (My flight had been delayed an 1 1/2 hrs already so I wanted to get in and get on something before the night was over). So no big deal and it was handled the way I'd expect - I wasn't treated like a criminal for just being there or peppered with salty questions about why I would bring such a thing on a trip - took about 5 minutes and we were done, the bag scanned fine and I was on my way with a wave and a smile. So - that security check through sucks if I'm looking for a pattern, for consistency. A can size that's gone through at least 5 -6 times in the last year, didn't that time.

Could be, with awareness can come clarity - from death unto life, from no hope to hopeful, from cursed to blessed, from lost to found, ensnared to delivered....these kinds of contrasts are powerful. One passing from death to life would be both acutely aware of where they came from and where they've come to - thankful, humbled, elevated, inspired to reverence. God makes the rules, not me. He is over all. That kind of authority warrants respect. If I assume that "God's hands are tied" by previous committments that He won't go back on, I have to remember that those are Big Hands. Once a person gets down the road with the Bible they should - should - learn to realize that with exTREME humility. Whether I abide by that knowledge or not, once I have come to that knowledge, at the end of the day when I close my eyes I still know what's up and what's down and where I stand in it all. I was thinking too - hyperbole in the Bible....The bottom line with God is "no other gods before me", love Him with all our heart, as no other. In the history of man we can see how cultures elevate their icons - gods of war, of love, of prosperity. Communities have their deities, those faces they place on the powers that be. Nations that have their gods that "go before them" and if properly treated will bring them victory. I also picture men and women throughout time looking up and seeing the stars, the moon, the sun, the seasons, the passing of time, and wondering... When Israel followed Jehovah they were in the midst of a world that had their own gods and that declared their greatness and power over the affairs of life and who in some scenarios could be manipulated. I can see people of Israel taking the stance they did, that Jehovah was greater than the sun, the moon, the stars, the forces of nature and any who would dare to ascend to that role of creator and provider. That it's Jehovah who creates, destroys, brings to pass, does as He pleases, as He sees fit....The God of Israel is to be feared as one who is above all others, and where dead idols reign He will bring them all to nothing. Given the Commandments and the way God revealed Himself, the people would have not only have seen Him that way - greater than all - but also declared Him that way because He would in fact be "the real Deal". As we look at those writings today we can attempt to dissect them as if they were science projects - "if God causes the sun to rise and fall, then He must be working in the realm of physics and etc. etc.".....when in fact it's not meant at all that Elohim or Jehovah is presiding over the solar system and all the stars and doing all this...stuff. Rather, He is the Creator, that One from whom all creation has come and to whom all the recognition for that creation ultmately goes to. It's just a thought and not a new one The reality on the ground would have been then as now - that God is above all and His glory comes first.

This kinda says it all. <br><br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jmgcjRu1s-8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Steve u made this statement that makes a great point - The language of Proverbs 3 speaks of trust and fear in dynamic terms. When we trust the LORD, He directs our paths. When we stray off the paths the LORD sets before us, then the fear of the LORD moves us to depart from evil, that is, to get back on the right path. God is therefore not someone to be feared, I should want to hear from Him to help me stay on the path. Psalm 111:10 says exactly that - all those who obey HIs commandments will have wisdom, "the fear of the Lord". The fear of the Lord therefore is present in those who do His commandments, not those who don't. Those who don't, don't care, as you say Steve. The "fear of the Lord" moves me to depart from evil - how? By knowing that God doesn't want that, doesn't like it. Evil will hurt me. Also - many of the "phobos" verses deal with not comprehending what's going on - think this was mentioned earlier - storms, angels, etc. Without knowing whether I'm at risk or not - sure, I'm going to be afraid....will something hurt or kill me or what? If wisdom comes from doing God's commandments and that gives wisdom and the beginning of wisdom is the "fear of the Lord".......... That fear-it-might-hurt-me kind of fear isn't sustainable. Initial reaction, response, yes there could be fear but not down the long haul. Why would I fear something I understand and where I have wisdom? If I'm doing God's commandments and relying on Him and avoiding evil, my "fear" that God will not love me, not care for me, and might hurt me should decrease. My respect, awe, reverence, and concern for God - should increase. The low-level fear that God will hurt me if I do evil reduces over time and I accept that God's will is going to stand either way, whether I comply or not. O.T. or N.T., good times or bad - in all situations I "call upon the name of the Lord". Mercy and grace are needed - not to be taken advantage of. Soooo.....those who don't ever get down the path of obeying God's commandments to begin with and put no effort or counter productive effort against doing them - won't care, they may not know, won't care or will decide not to care.

If it made mo' money, I'm sure they'd file to be a Coven. They're a case study for proposing that churches not be considered tax exempt unless they are really a non-profit organization. My own non-legal, non-binding opinion has been that the Way Nash was a standard issue business ( and may still be today ) In 1969 VPW was saying the tax exempt status was based on the Way being an educational organization - "biblical research & teaching". This changed over the years, i don't know all the evolutions. Check this out too, at Articles of Organization and following. http://www.irs.gov/p...blink1000200054

Hey Penly Works. I'd put it as "early on the lack of supervision and imposed ritual allowed for the participants to make their own event".... and..... "your mileage may have varied"....meaning it wasn't the same Approved Product everywhere, there were variances and differences across the country. (In 1970 I went from California, to Wichita KS, to Indiana, to the Way Nash to New York and the fellowships across country were very different from each other, each in good ways). I went to our local fellowship because I wanted to - wanted to see friends, meet new people, have a good time, hear the Bible, be a part of it. Cool things happened. Good stuff. Sometimes incredible stuff. Sometimes not much at all. Having presided over some snooze parties myself later on (Central Florida in the summer..................no one should be inside a house listening to a tape of someone in Ohio quacking about anything).......... yeah.

About 80/20 for me exsolesia, favoring good matches. I've been with Kaiser for years and had the same Dr. for a number of years there. He was a great guy, direct, not especially warm but interested and responsive, a good balance for me. He left and the Dr. I've selected now is much the same. Dentists - mine now is the perfect match for me, in the past I've had a couple that were harsh and disinterested, which didn't work out well with any kind of extended treatment. My Mother had a lot of medical care over the years and I saw (only a tiny bit compared with my Sister who was involved day to day) what you're talking about and the first time I encountered it with her and her Dr. I had to leave the room, actually walk out and take a deep breath and come back in, it was so thick. They'd dealt with what you're describing a lot though from what they told me. I had to learn to measure my response, my problem is I go from 0 to 90 in high risk situations and don't like messing around - medical providers live that every day though, and can become unresponsive to immediate needs. It can be tough. If you can it's worth it to fine someone you feel comfortable with and that you feel you can talk to.