Very astute observation, but in the end the author took the direction represented in your opening post. and your question was based on what was written in the author's story recorded in your opening post, and my response was based on the story that was recorded in your OP, not any nor all of the possibile directions he could have taken the story, as you are now suggesting.
so what are you saying your mother pick out a Christian medallion for you because she thought it was pretty? or thought you looked cute wearing it? Obviously if you go back far enough that medallion meant something to someone. if not you then to the one who presented it to you, and all of the stuff assumed about your reasons for wearing that medallion can just as easily be transfered to the next person in that chain.
Again you assume too much. I simply stated the reason my guy was singled out in his class. He did not confront his professor like you suggested, the only thing that happened that even pointed to his faith, was that the professor saw a bible in his book bag. Once the professor confirmed this kids faith, like in the story he was subjected to much ridicule and questions that he could not answer. This is why He originally posted for help on this site.
You are wanting to paint my words using a broad brush, when in fact I used a very specific instance where one of your self righteous colleagues saw a bible and assumed all of the things you are pointing out.
Apparently we are not all the enigma you would make yourself out to be. Stereotypes are present in societies for a reason.
If we were speaking of stereotypes and I saw this list of books in any one person's possession all at once I would think that that person was a Jack of many literary trades so to speak, and the master of none. Someone who knows enough to pull and quote the surface principles of any given topic, but under heavy scrutiny would simply defer to another source of material (and continue to do so) as to regain supremacy in an argument rather than explore or extensively exhaust anyone complete avenue of thought to it's complete conclusion.
But again that to me, is the stereotypical reason one man would study some many different books, or rather have a need to have so many opposing views in his posesion at any given time. However i am willing to concede to the fact that you being the enigma that you have presented yourself to be, that none of these stereotypical reason for being "so well read" could apply to you.
In the story the professor's questions all derived from his knowledge of God. Which by any standard of study outside of a most basic Sunday school understanding was incomplete at best. This is the perspective in which the professor formulated his "God/Good" questions.
So rather than tell a proud educated man that he has a child's grasp of what he believes he has a complete understanding of, (By Directly answering his questions and providing proper context and correct his definitions) One should endeavor to show a contrast in perspective and work with and build upon what that person is willing to yield to.
Avoid arguments that are based in a persons pride, and address the ones he or she is willing to work with. (In the most ideal situation)
The goal was to point out the mechanics behind this particular conversation.
It sounds as if the author had an issue with a professor and this was his way of evening up the score a bit. Or perhaps it was based on a David and Goliath story line, where good triumphs over evil, or the story could be loosely based on true events. If you want to know the truth you will have to ask the person who originally wrote the story.
It truly depends on what the true intent of the story would be.
You are correct, we do indeed use those who appose our thoughts and beliefs as a modern day Goliath of sorts. We build you all up, just to tear you all down. But if you will turn your attention to the "believer in this story you will notice that he knows more of what the professor believes, than what it is he as a christian is supposed to believe. I personally see both parties as being misrepersented here, because both of these men are not in anyway what they should be. This fact in turn point to a bigger meaning to this story, in that both roles of the believer and the professor were overly simplified, so that a greater point could be learned.
I believe that the author is wanting us (Christians) to approach an opponent not so much on our own knowledge ability or merit but one terms that are more negotiable for him to accept.
-OR-
What you seem to fail to see, through all of your hurt by proxy pride is that this "Christian" had fewer answers about his faith than he did about what the professor believed in.
In truth both men being represented here are a shell of who they should be.
You do not hear or read any complaints on the shell game of faith this weak brother presents from me do you? Why because this story is not about a professor or a weak in the faith brother. If you can look beyond your own hurt pride you will begin to see a larger picture.
In that this story is not about neither the student or the professor, but about how a believer should address a non believer.
The first example is one that more closly follows the "moral" of the story you posted. The second more closely represents a view that simply states "facts" as I see them.
In the first example I am trying to work with your objection, and help you broaden your perspective to include all of the lacking characters in this story, not just to the one that shares your job title. Hopefully this will allow to Identify the simplfied parable nature of this story, and help you transition into searching for a deeper meaning. (Which i am currently illustrating)
In the second I am simply forcing facts as I see them.
Then by this logic all guilty men who are tried in a court of law that present facts arealways convicted, and in turn all innocent men who have been through their due process will receive an acquittal.
Not to mention the "fact" was Pluto was labeled a planet, we had a hole in the Ozone caused by our usage of CFC's, in the 70's we were all warned of a coming Ice age by 2000, due to our co2 emmissions in 2000 we were warned about Global warming,(Again cause by our Co2 output) now it is Global climate change because apparently we are no longer warming at the same rate.(but again somehow all due to Co2 output) All of these sky is falling cries were based on "facts." Do you still contend that all facts are true?
If all facts are true then would we not all come to the same conclusions when presented with these same facts? Then why so moany different theories if all facts are the unchanging truth?
(Truth is not relitive, it is foundational. Truth is, always was, and will be the same.)
Again I would say it heavily depends on the faith of the person reading it.
Faith is not a negative word. Those with mature faith will see the short comings of both parties. Those with immature faiths will simply see a retelling of David and Goliath. Depending on whether or not you fancy your self a Philistine or Jew will depend if the person of immature faith will take offense or pride in the story.
asked and answered (it was rhetorical)
The idea of a Christian faith based government
I disagree. If for some reason Obama and the majority of the senate and the Judaical branch all deemed it necessary and constitutional to shift our government to adopt biblically based rules and law, you would not fear that change? What if we stoned unbelievers?
People fear change when it does not align itself with their perceived values.
People fear change when it changes or will not allow them to live the lives they want to live.
But to any of the proposed changes conflict with established values of those seeking change? This is the change I speak of. You are defining changes as merely something different perhaps even agreeable. When I speak of change I am speaking of a complete paradigm shift. Change that has one completely reorganizing their lives. Not Obama Change, Mao Change, Kim Il Sung Change.
In short we are not the Christian government newt and those who think along those lines think we are.
We are already the government that He fears. Because the "Christians" in government are powerless to effect and real legislation that truly promotes Christian values. at best all we can offer is a stale mate, and in order to even do that "we" have to sell our votes on minor issues to stop the big ones, thus rendering those with Christian values impotent in government.
I am saying that perhaps that it would be better for us if the Godless and those who worship the Muslim God were in power, that way even the blind could see who and exactly what we have become, perhaps igniting a true revival of the church in America.
