Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scientific evidence for God. Now that I've posted this video in 7 places I think I can finally go to sleep
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.
JCG, I dislike stories like the OP story because they are simply "aren't we superior" stories for Christians to tell one another for no reason other than to fluff up our egos. Really it seems like most email forwards I receive are basically the same. Drivel. And I resent the popularity of these stories, as the end result is that this is what many non-Christians think about when they think about us. On behalf of all Christian wanna-be-writers, JCG, I apologize.
tal
"Why are we the enemies?"
Didn't OiAntz answer this question for you in your last thread?
"Why do Christians hate us so much that we are the perpetual villain in their literature?"
Didn't I answer this question for you in your last thread?
"Fear" may have been too strong a word, but it was the word that was fed to me. It seems to me this is the basic understanding that most people, including conservatives, have of conservatism.
What did you think conservatism was based on?
After writing out an answer there was a problem with the forum, and I lost it.
So, why is it that atheists, professors, those who believe in evolution, those with higher education...why are we always the antagonist in your stories? Why are we the enemies? Why do Christians hate us so much that we are the perpetual villain in their literature?
To me it's fairly comparable to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRYF3lD9U2w
Thank you for your honesty! I would like to know why this word "fear" was fed to you, even more than I would like to know why you swallowed it.
Either way, I am privy to "the other side of the aisle" re: you basic query and/or point with this thread, and I see the two as going hand in hand, so I thought you might be interested.
Many Protestant-type Christians will see academia as overly liberal, attacking the Faith, especially that of our youth, and wanting to replace it with secular humanism, which is demonized with an overly broad brush stroke.
My main point with this is to heighten your awareness of how you may (or may not) contribute to that "us vs them" mentality. I certainly am in no position to know what influence you may exert on your students, but I hope you are one of the great teachers who is conscientious about such things. Ultimately it is our own introspection that refines anything of this sort, so if you can stomach the turn of phrase, thank God we live in a free country.
I have never met a conservative who would characterize their own motivation as fear. Nor as resistance to change. Nor would I say that liberals in our Country are any more immune to the natural human tendency of resisting change. For example, why do Americans normally vote for grid-lock? That alone blows your hypothesis out of the water - even if the dictionary might happen to agree with it.
While any given word can have different meanings to different people, any word associated with the political spectrum which is becoming increasingly polarized will be even more susceptible to this.
There was a very recent time when the main concern of conservative voters was monetary policy, and at that time the main meaning (or basis of, if you prefer) would have been conservative spending as opposed to Gov't spending along the consumer model. While I would like to think our citizens are intelligent enough to recognize this is more important than ever due to facing unrecoverable economic collapse, you might be right in saying as a whole we are blissfully ignorant and that mindset peaked with the freshman House.
The closest thing I can think of to what you're claiming would be that branch of conservative that thinks our founding Fathers may have known a thing or two, and done something to contribute to this Country's former greatness. And that maybe we should exercise a little caution before dismissing all vestiges of their work.
Actually, the tea party movement started as the Constitution party, but much like Islam it got hijacked by extremists. Yet I trust you're aware that our FF made allowance to embrace change, so I still have to conclude that labeling the basis of conservatism as "fear of change" is unnecessarily promoting tribalism, and you should expect Christianity as a whole to be overly sensitive about that. (Yes, I do see the irony here, as a bulk of Christian influence itself promotes it's own brand of tribalism, which I'm no more in favor of than any other)
If you are expecting more from me, please make sure you don't let the sun go down on itI would say, apparently not sufficiently. I'm still bothered by what seems an unshakeable observation.
Still?
After an exhaustive explanation all your pride will allow you to see is where you have been wronged? Even after i showed you where the "believer's faith" shows a greater lack of knowledge than that of the professor?
I honestly believe that if you are indeed the professor you claim to be you should already have your answer before you, but as it is, petty pride will not allow you to acknowledge that both parties are being grossly misrepresented here, for the sake of a greater point.
In other words the student did not win this argument with a knowledge of God he is supposed to have. The student won the argument that supports faith. A faith that exists no matter what you believe.
That said, you have continually asked why "learned men" are being represented as blind guides? Just look at how many times you have tried to change this topic of conversation into the emotional brawl you have been prepared to fight. Look at your last post. despite all of the critical examination provided to you, on this subject you are still trying to invoke an emotional response.. (Per your youtube clip)
How are your actions here any different than the actions of the professor provided in the original story? Are you not trying to bully me and this conversation on to your terms, where you "feel" most comfortable? If this were a true conversation then why not follow where this conversation is going, why try and continually revisit your fail interpretation of this story?
Why are you all (professors) represented so poorly? Because (in this case and others like it )your cliché actions warrant such a representation.
In response to your thread title: as long as you are afraid of believing Jesus, then you have created the enemy by choosing to trust him instead.
I think you're still missing my point. My problem is not in the critical analysis of the story, it is in the psychological groundings of it. There are at least a half-dozen stories/jokes I could use in this one's place (on the website that I took this from, where it was categorized under the heading "atheist jokes").
The point you seem to be missing is that what I see is that attitude that Christians who write this, and read this with joy have toward people like me. It shows me that I'm the enemy. It shows me that they hate me.
This is very personal for me, and because of that, yes, it's emotional. I looked for God for a long time. I still do in my way. So, when Christians express their disdain, and hatred for me (especially the unfair stereotype of me that this story presents, and that you seem to feel is justified), just because I don't believe what they believe, it does hurt. I didn't go looking to be an enemy of Christianity, I was cast in that role. But given the way Christianity sees me, that's the way it has to be.
If you feel bullied because I keep coming back to the same thing, then it is merely because I really don't think you understand where I'm coming from. However, this is my thread, my topic, my conversation, and my interpretation. My interpretation is just as valid as yours. Just because my interpretation is in the attitude the story represents, or the context of the story, rather than content within it, doesn't make me wrong. My interpretation is just as valid. Even if the content of the story is about the message of perspective, that doesn't change the context in which the story is presented. If the story is not supposed to be offensive to people like me, then it shouldn't have been written the way it was. There is no denying that the context was intentional.
That's why I presented the Palestinian Cartoon. Your equivalent interpretation would be that it's about a child and a soldier, and that neither is righteous in the cartoon. My interpretation would be that the characters are stereotypes, and that the cartoon exists so that the producers can express their hatred of Israelis. You're discussing content, I'm discussing context.
The story in the OP did not need to include a bumbling, self-righteous, abusive, and downright stupid, atheist professor, but it did. The writer chose to create a strawman atheist, and then take him down in front others. This shows me that the writer, and the readers believe that the atheist in this story is a fair assessment of atheists in general. It shows me how Christians view me.
But I also presented it to see if Christians would read this, and empathize with my point of view. It was also the intention of saying, "do you realize what this kind of story tells atheists about Christians?" It seems that Tal and Raze do empathize, that they understand my problems with it. No offense, but clearly you do not.
" 'We' can feel over whelmed and beaten down when placed in an atmosphere of un-like minded believers on a far from home campus. The 'professor' can be a Goliath of sorts."
You've felt like this before?
It doesn't make you an enemy and that is not what I said. I said in a less direct way that as long as someone chooses to glorify fear over love then they are giving their power to Satan instead of Jesus.I don't see how Christians making me their enemy benefits anyone.
Absolutely not, because as I have said this story grossly misrepresents both systems of belief. Both the pro/antagonist are shown to be fools here, and yet what I assume is pride will not let you see that both characters are getting equal billing.
The "professor" can be a Goliath of sorts. We are programed to slay Goliaths. This is what has been done here with this story. It is a moral booster for those only interested in winning arguments at any expense. Again this is not Christianity. A Christian response would have answered the questions or differed to source material. Rather this was an exercise in how to defeat an opponent. (The Gross misrepresentation of Christianity I spoke of, that you do not seem to be willing to acknowledge.)
You say you still seek God. Perhaps this experience and your expressed "feelings" are God's way of showing you what it is you need to change in your life, in order to find Him. What He is showing you is the measure of pride that you will not let go of.
You have been slapped across the face with this insult. Now it is time to turn the other cheek. If you do indeed seek God.
So why is it the Christians that forward it through emails, and post it under "atheist jokes," while atheists don't?
This was pointed out several posts ago. What has changed?Right, see now you're seeing things from my perspective. It's a victory over the enemy. A morale booster. Is it Christianity? I would hope not. But we agree that it represents a mentality of us vs. them that many Christians have toward "me." Defeat the enemy. I'm not a person, I'm a "Goliath" to be "slain."
If the oranges you are inspecting look and taste like apples then perhaps it is an apple tree you are looking at. Meaning look for Christ in an atheist joke section of a web site maynot always yield the best this system of belief has to offer.No. This isn't a change. This is a constant. You can judge a tree by the fruit it bears, right? This is me looking at the fruit of Christianity.
Christianity is about the forgiveness of your sins. The only condition for that forgiveness is that you forgive others that have wronged you.Yeah, that's a great way to win over converts, slap them across the face. I think the idea was to forgive being slapped across the face, not walk on down the road with your attacker.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?