I posted on my face book page a quote from Oswald Chambers on the subject of drudgery.
"Drudgery is one of the finest touchstones of character there is. Drudgery is work that is very far removed from anything to do with the ideal - utterly mean, grubby things; and when we come in contact with them we know instantly whether or not we are spiritually real."
I have to tell you this convicted me. You don't have to look very far through my house to see how "spiritual" I am. The minute I feel dissatisfied and above having to do the "grubby" things in my life my house starts to show it. I think all mothers can related to the fact that motherhood can at times be "mean" and "grubby".
Where do we get this feeling of being above it all? Why do we tend to feel dissatisfied with doing the less then glamorous?
I struggled with this especially when pregnant with our second child. I thought to myself that I'm 23, pregnant with my second child and haven't done anything I planned to do when out on my own. I'm a wife and mother now...crap!...well, there's goes all the hopes and dreams I had for my life...dashed to bits. I had always wanted to study archeology and ancient world history. Travel the world and see ancient civilizations, work and possible someday teach in this field...but that was gone now.
Since then I've come to a sense of peace about my lost dreams and where God has redirected me. Also knowing that He is capable of fulling all my dreams in my life time and even give me new and better ones to hold on to. Yet...there are still times of dissatisfaction with my role as a mother. Why?
Often times I think we over look the meaningfulness of what Jesus did when He washed His disciples feet or just the fact that He he gave up His heavenly position and came to live as one of us in all this drudgery.
I look at all the celebrities who get pats on the back, awards, and recognition for getting their hands dirty in some third world country. It's looked at that they are rich and famous and look how they still care and are willing to lower them selves to the needs of others. What did Christ get for it? I think we all know the answer to that one.
When being a stay at home mom there are no award ceremonies, recognition, and admiration for what we do. Every time we hear the words "I'm done" we don't hear a round of applause when we've taken care of it. Every time we've had a booger wiped on us, got someone else's poop on our hands, cleaned up vomit, and had something of great value to us destroyed by a thoughtless child...we don't get to put on a $30,000 custom made evening gown to be praised for it.
Being a mother is needless to say a less then glamorous job and one that most look down upon unless you have a career to go with it. The list of reasons for being dissatisfied with our position as mother's goes on and on, but ultimately I think that feeling comes when we are doing all of it for the wrong reasons. If we're waiting for a big hand clap...not going to happen. As good as our husbands are we feel over looked and under appreciated at times. We put to much pressure on our husbands to gives us that feeling of fulfillment over what we do. We want them to bow down to us and even baby us for all the meagerness we deal with. Husbands definitely need to praise,appreciate, and respect their wives, but that is also a two way street. We can't rely on them to give us what we can only receive from God.We're not going to receive a letter in the mail saying we've been selected as mother of the year for all we do and we act like we should.
If there is dissatisfaction in our role it is because we are not doing it out of love for the one who really didn't deserve to live a life of drudgery. We're doing it out of necessity and the desire for a good outward appearance in the hopes of receiving some form of praise and yes, even pity at times. I once heard it referred to as...Mommy Martyr Syndrome...and to be honest with you I have a bad case of it. We want to be treated by others as the martyrs we feel we are.
Oswald Chambers even referred to drudgery by basically saying it isn't difficulty that makes me think God will forsake me but drudgery. When there is no vision given, nothing wonderful or beautiful, just the common place day in and day out - can I hear God's voice in these things? My answer to that is no...not because it isn't there but simply because I have not been listening. I have not been doing what the world refers to as "lowly" things for Him. God is the only one who can give us true joy in the drudgery of life and help us overcome a martyr mentality. Remember, Christ gave up His seat at the right hand of the Father to come lives with us as one of us, be rejected by us, and then die for us. Not once did He ever wallow in self pity over the drudgery of it all. He did all of it for us but ultimately out of the love He had for the Father. He is our example of how to live in the drudgery of the day to day with victory and joy.
Rebekah wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhere do we get this feeling of being above it all?
Religion.
Rebekah wrote:
Why do we tend to feel dissatisfied with doing the less then glamorous?
There are, even in this century, people in countries foreign to the United States and New Zealand, who eke out their lives every day with hard labour in order to care for one another and grow enough food to feed themselves and their villages, all without the benefit of any (or very little) mechanical or technological means, and often without electricity. To them, the drudgery of our lives would be glamourous. It makes me incredibly happy everyday I realize that I don't have to live like they have to.
Rebekah wrote:
God is the only one who can give us true joy in the drudgery of life and help us overcome a martyr mentality.
God doesn't give us anything at all, let alone provide the "true" joy of anything, let alone have sole possession of the ability to do so. I'm not happy to do hard, boring, or distasteful work, but like my fellow primates in third world countries and other places, I am usually happy with the results I get for doing it, which I can have and enjoy without the permission of a totalitarian creator. Speaking of which, no such entity ever been shown to exist, and no argument has ever been advanced for the existence of a divine dictatorship without convincing rebuttal.
Sounds like this commentator worships himself. I guess being your very own god would provide a certain lofty POV.
ReplyDeleteBlogger is a booger today...will not let me sign in and STAY signed in. Razza! So then...
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
1. Wow. You nailed it. I'm so unthankful for the blessings in my life. I complain like a squeaky wheel. Motherhood is HUGE and important and so difficult. In Genesis, God tells Eve she will have sorrow in childbearing. Pain, yes...also sorrow. Because, darn it if kids don't make ya just CRY sometimes! Wow. Great post.
2. Bryan, I can see from your post that you do not believe in God. That's fine. Your choice...of course. Just some thoughts, however: Truth is truth whether we believe it or not. God doesn't need us to believe in Him...He doesn't need us at all. Nothing I say or do can change my position as God's kid. Nothing. And (this is more uncomfortable to think about for some) God knows everything about us. Everything. Yep. That too. And that. And...He still loves us. Why? I have no idea.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDeleteSounds like this commentator worships himself.
Ignoring the rather clumsy and obvious ad hominem, the poster does raise an incredibly important question. But before I discuss that, I have to say that I'll leave it to the fair-mindedness of the readers here to decide if I in anyway advocated worship of any kind, let alone self worship. If so how? If it could be said that I did, I have to apologize and clarify that it was my intention not to imply, but to explicitly promote the worship of no thing whatsoever.
Whether our anonymous friend realizes it or not, what he or she wrote is better posed in the form of a question that is often asked by the religious when confronted by the tenuousness of their belief. "Without god, what then shall we worship?" Straight away, I'd like to immediately point out that the appropriate answer is nothing at all, but choice, especially that choice, is not something that the pious will usually grant. However, it is the only one we should make, and while I think that stands perfectly well on its own, I'm happy to respond to the hostile and searching questions of anyone who would care to challenge me on that point.
Hi Christina :) I'll take your points in reverse order.
ReplyDeleteHe still loves us. Why? I have no idea.
I can't say that god loves us, or loves anything at all for that matter, but I do agree with you that it is not possible for you to know why. I'm willing to take it another step, and say, that no matter how wise or intelligent I could possibly be, I will never be wise or intelligent enough to say that I know there is or is not a god, let alone that I could know what such a being thinks or feels or expects of us. While I can't be certain about the existence or non-existence of a god, I am certain as I possibly can be that you couldn't know, either.
(this is more uncomfortable to think about for some) God knows everything about us. Everything.
Its not only uncomforting, its pernicious and sinister. It is the essence of totalitarianism. The idea of a heavenly dictatorship, that can read your thoughts and convict you of thought crime, of things that occur to you in your sleep, is an inhuman and horrifying one. I do not understand why anyone would want this evil premise to be true, especially when there is no evidence for it and the only possible way to believe in it is faith.
Truth is truth whether we believe it or not. God doesn't need us to believe in Him...He doesn't need us at all. Nothing I say or do can change my position as God's kid. Nothing.
ReplyDeleteI'll take this part of your post as a statement. Nothing said here does anything to advance the idea that there is a god, and further, that all of these statements would be equally true in every way if there were, in fact, no god at all.
Bryan, I can see from your post that you do not believe in God. That's fine. Your choice...of course.
When you say That's fine., what do you mean? Do you mean you are granting me your permission or your tolerance to hold no belief in something there is no evidence for?
Bryan, I think I understand your position a little better now. You are certainly a deep philosopher.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "While I can't be certain about the existence or non-existence of a god, I am certain as I possibly can be that you couldn't know, either."
Huh. Interesting. You qualified this statement well with the phrase "certain as I possibly can be." How certain can one be of another person's inner kowledge; another person's faith? Not certain at all. It seems arrogant, proud, presumptious, assumptive to think you are certain of what another person knows.
Your description of God's complete knowledge of us was "pernicious and sinister" (LOVE those words, BTW). I can understand that. It would be angering to have someone I do not trust know everything about me...invasive...intrusive. But, imagine if you believed in God, loved Him, trusted Him...how comforting it would be to know that He knows everything about you. It is a matter of perpective.
ReplyDeleteBryan, My "that's fine" comment was a little sarcastic. Sorry about that. I guess what I mean by it is: God is not injured by your unbelief. You are. Other people are not responsible for your unbelief. You are.
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Good discussion.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt would be angering to have someone I do not trust know everything about me...invasive...intrusive. But, imagine if you believed in God, loved Him, trusted Him...how comforting it would be to know that He knows everything about you. It is a matter of perpective.
I can imagine belief in god, but not without horror.
Numbers 31:17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
This is a god that not only condones but positively recommends genocide and murder, and the subjugation of women with rape and torture. He commands the Israelites to murder all the males, all the mothers, and then to debauch the daughters. There isn't any perspective I could imagine where the complete violation of my privacy would be an attractive prospect. But, even it there were, I still wouldn't want to share it with this bloodthirsty and pitiless sadist.
Christina Marie wrote:
ReplyDeleteHow certain can one be of another person's inner kowledge; another person's faith? Not certain at all. It seems arrogant, proud, presumptious, assumptive to think you are certain of what another person knows.
You cannot call something you only think or wish to be true knowledge if you have no evidence for it and your arguments for it cannot survive occam's razor. So long as you only claim that your support is an internal secret that only you can detect, you can say that you believe it, but you can't say that you know and expect anyone else to believe that you know either.
Furthermore, if you claim to know that there is a god, and further still, that you know what such a being demands of us, you need more then some recessed inner feelings of truth to claim you have knowledge. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. And faith is not evidence at all. The very definition of faith is the willingness to believe virtually anything you are offered without asking for proof of any kind.
So I don't think it is at all arrogant to say I'm as sure as I can be that you can't know there is a god. To the contrary, I must say it is incredibly arrogant and wicked to say not only that you know there is a god, but which of the many invented deities is real, and which of the many invented religions is true, and if I do not accept it and its corollary injuctions on behavior, diet, genital mutiliation and sex that I'll go to hell.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteBryan, My "that's fine" comment was a little sarcastic. Sorry about that. I guess what I mean by it is: God is not injured by your unbelief. You are. Other people are not responsible for your unbelief. You are.
I wanted clarification on that part of your response, because, I found it odd that you would need to write it at all if it were true. In fact, because you put it deliberately and sarcastically in your response, it occurred to be you might mean the opposite--that you are not actually fine with it.
It rather self-evident that belief or unbelief are the sole responsibility of the person who holds them, as is what one says, the claims one makes and the deeds one performs as a result of his or her belief or unbelief. So long as the government of the country I live in doesn't pass law that makes religion compulsory, and doesn't force it on my children in school, I am likewise uninjured by your belief and its fine by me for you to have it.
do you have a job, bryan? Like, a full time job that take you away from home for about 8-9 hours a day? oh wait, you live in NZ... why work when everyone is hacked down to the same level playing field (socialism)? Ok- I digress, you do in fact need to chop your sisters blog/beliefs/beliefs of others down to bits then... it kind of gives you purpose. Now I have compassion on you...
ReplyDeleteTara Newman
Hi Tara :D I'll take your points in reverse order, if I may.
ReplyDeleteTara wrote:
Now I have compassion on you...
Thank you. I have compassion for you, too :D
Tara wrote:
you do in fact need to chop your sisters blog/beliefs/beliefs of others down to bits then
As far as belief and the belief of others, it isn't a need where religion is concerned--its a pleasure. Especially where the claim isn't simply belief that there is a god, but that you have a source of occulted inner knowledge that is denied to everybody else about what such a god thinks, feels or expects of us. No one can know that at all, and deserves to be challenged if he or she says they do.
I don't know how much control blogspot gives the user over their blog. I run my own server which provides my blog, so I have absolute control over what anyone may post. I assumed that my sister has a similar level of control over her blog and has been allowing my comments. But then she could simply ask me not to post, which she hasn't yet done. I would respect that, but asking that would only prove that the proposition of christianity is so weak that it cannot survive a few comments laid out at the bottom of a blog.
What is the point of comments on a blog if only ingratiating and gratifying feedback is posted? How can you test your own assumptions where skepticism and criticism are not allowed?
Tara wrote:
ReplyDeleteyou live in NZ... why work when everyone is hacked down to the same level playing field (socialism)
You do not know what sort of society we have in New Zealand, but you do prove in colourful terms why some Americans might need to feel some emabarrassment when traveling outside the United States. When Canadians travel with an image of their flag pasted to their baggage in order to avoid being mistaken for Americans, it is ignorant piffle like this with which they are trying to avoid association. You do not seem to know what socialism is, let alone why anyone might want to indulge in or abstain from it. Although it is amusing to see that you seem to think socialism makes a fair playing field socially, and you might object to being told that you are made no better then anyone else.
Tara wrote:
do you have a job, bryan? Like, a full time job that take you away from home for about 8-9 hours a day?
It may seem to you that thinking about and writing two or three paragraphs of ideas is like a full time job, and I could assure you that it isn't, but it wouldn't matter if you believed me or not. I'm a system administrator for the public transport system in Auckland, New Zealand and Melbourne, Australia. All I do all day long is think about and write in various computer programming languages, and then document my work in english. I have a fifty minute train ride to and from work, during which most of my comments here are written.
Now, do you have a comment that is, in fact, not an ad hominem?
I am astounded that people would claim to have any knowledge of how things are in NZ unless they live here themselves. Where you get the notion we are all lazy socialists I don't know but I suggest you stop spouting ignorance just to get back at someone you don't even know!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo, no. by all means, carry on spouting nonsense :) Surely Tara could not have been attempting to "get back" at me since I haven't offered any attack on her. However, it has been my pleasure to point out the absurdity of her own attacks on my person. I certainly couldn't have predicted that she might slander the entire population of another country just to build a strawman to attack rhetorically. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteI should point out that I have voluntarily restrained myself from linking Tara's deeply interesting insights into New Zealand society to other New Zealanders. I would not want to have had my sister's blog flooded with reprisals by the citizenry of this country, however amusing that would have been. The possible responses that my Kiwi friends told me they might like to have made were...colourful. :D
Oh my gosh! BECKY!!! This blog is officially the best fun I've had in days! You have succeeded, girlfriend, in creating, what the French call, a "salon." Well done...well done. When bright young minds meet together and discuss their opinions and ideas and beliefs and values with mutual respect. A great idea (thank you, France...and Mars Hill...and all areas of the world where philosophers meet and argue).
ReplyDeleteNow then...
ReplyDeleteBryan, you said, "but that you have a source of occulted inner knowledge that is denied to everybody else about what such a god thinks, feels or expects of us."
I know you know where I'm gonna go with this. It's probably so obvious...you've likely heard it all before, right? But, you know I really want to tell you again anyway, because I really do think it is that important. Here it is, Bryan:
God has revealed Himself to everyone. Romans chapter 1 says that God has revealed Himself to the whole world through His creation. He has also revealed Himself to us through His Son, Jesus, the Living Word...and through the Bible...the written word..."so that men are without excuse."
Now...going in a completely different direction...I want to share a quote by John Dewey, one of the fathers of evolutionary humanism. He describes evolution in spiritual terms...check it out: "Here are all the elements for religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant." (John Dewey in "A Common Faith")
ReplyDeleteYowsa...he calls evolutionary humanism a faith...a religion...he calls for it to be made militant! Don't sit there and try to tell me that you don't believe in religion or faith...you most certainly do. Your faith is in science...in yourself...in evolution. You are throwing stones from your house of glass. I believe in something...in Someone. So do you. It simply remains for you to admit that you do have faith and religion in something.
Acts 17.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteYour faith is in science...in yourself...in evolution.
You would be right if you said I trust science. But faith is not simply trust, it is trust in something without the requirement of proof. Faith is not at all required in the scientific method. A theory is considered workable if fits the known facts. It is considered successful when it is found to fit the introduction of subsequently discovered facts. It is only considered an accepted theory after it has been proven to accurately predict unknown facts or events that have not yet been discovered or have not yet occurred. Nothing is assumed to be real without evidence and nothing is considered sacred enough not to be discarded for better theories when they are advanced.
I am also willing change my belief to follow wherever the hitherto undiscovered evidence may lead irregardless if the conclusion is something I like or dislike. This is not faith. Not only is it something a religious person won't do, its expressly forbidden in the holy books, usually with the most dire consequences for apostasy. As for humanism, I do agree with the philosophy that the discussion of ethics and morals is a strictly human concern, and everyone who claims a divine warrant for the authority to tell everyone else what is or is not moral excludes themselves from that conversation.
I also will not offer false consolations of a mythical paradise, nor bully anyone with the threat of eternal torture if that offer is rightly refused. I won't tell others that I know god's will on what they may or may not eat, or the exact length they must shave from the end of their penis or clitoris, or with whom they may have sex, or with which gender, or in which position, or which people may kept as slaves, or which people may be exterminated, or which women may be raped and tortured.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteDon't sit there and try to tell me that you don't believe in religion or faith.
Do you mean if I believe that religion exists or that religion is true? I do believe that faith exists, because I have seen it in others, although I myself have none, and it does nothing to show that there is a god. Science doesn't require worship or belief in a supreme creationist deity, or the establishment of papacies and dioceses, or the appointment of cardinals, bishops, archbishops, and priests, or ceremonies, or holy books, and thus is not a religion in any sense of the word. It is not even like a religion, and I must say its incredibly intellectually dishonest to say that it is.
Christina wrote:
Yowsa...he [John Dewey] calls evolutionary humanism a faith...a religion...he calls for it to be made militant!
I'm not familiar with Mr. Dewey's writing, but in the quote you have provided he has not said that it should become explicit and militant, merely that it has yet to arrived at that status. Nor is it likely to, either. Maybe he makes it clear that this is his agenda later in his writing, I don't know. It seems to me that Mr. Dewey is providing vivid example why we should not want to import the barbaric traits of religion into other disciplines, whether that was his intention or not.
Besides which, evolution has already been accepted as the explanation for life on this planet. I'm not saying you didn't know that, but you haven't stated whether or not you accept the evidence for evolution or not. If you haven't, you might want to read the book, The Language of God, by Francis Collens, Director of the US National Institutes of Health, leader of the Human Genome Project, and self-avowed Christian, where he has written to other Christians that there's no point in denying evolution is real.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteGod has revealed Himself to everyone. Romans chapter 1 says that God has revealed Himself to the whole world through His creation.
Yes, I am familiar with the writing of Saul of Tarsus, later known as Saint Paul the Apostle. This is the same epileptic person who suffered a seizure on his way to Damascus and later wrote that proof god of was "in the invisible things"? Was it not? Surely it was.
Christina wrote:
He has also revealed Himself to us through His Son, Jesus, the Living Word...and through the Bible...the written word..."so that men are without excuse."
I can't resist asking, does that in fact mean that a woman could have an excuse?
We do not know if there ever was, or rather there is no credible historical evidence for, the galilean carpenter. He did not write anything down, nor did any of his illiterate disciples, and no chronicler at the time even mentions him in passing. Surely if the veil of the temple in fact was rent during an earthquake, or even more noticably, the graves opened and the dead in fact walked around, appearing to many [Matthew 27:51-53], that this would have been at least warrented a passing reference in the other, historically sound records kept at the time?
The books we call the gospel are heresay upon heresay. None of the actual authors of the gospel published anything until many decades after the supposed life of Jesus. And in spite of the dire warning in Revelation 22:18-19, all of the gospels have evidence of later tampering. Barton Ehrman, a very serious fundamentalist Christian, fluent in Greek and Hebrew, examined the gospel and after examining the story of the woman taken in adultery, writes;
The story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.
But all of that is still beside the point. Even if we were able to prove that there was a Jesus, you would still have all your work ahead of you to prove that he was a god.
Bryan, you have referred to the law several times. Do you think that I believe I am required to keep the law or that I believe I am saved through the law? I practice a lifestyle of grace. I believe that God's grace gives freedom where there was once bondage. I am confused about what you think I believe. I don't follow the Jewish law found in the Book of Moses and the Prophets. I follow Jesus new commandment...love. Jesus explains the whole law in His new commandment..."Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind...and love your neighbor as yourself."
ReplyDeleteBryan, first you said:
ReplyDelete"A theory is considered workable if fits the known facts. It is considered successful when it is found to fit the introduction of subsequently discovered facts. It is only considered an accepted theory after it has been proven to accurately predict unknown facts or events that have not yet been discovered or have not yet occurred."
Then you said:
"Besides which, evolution has already been accepted as the explanation for life on this planet. I'm not saying you didn't know that, but you haven't stated whether or not you accept the evidence for evolution or not."
I admit, I am a little confused. Since evolution has been accepted as THE theory that is true for our planet, where is the predicted, reoccuring evidence? Do we in fact have evidence that shows evolution occuring today? I am not being a smart ass here...I am seriously curious. I have not seen anything on the news about these kind of findings. Wouldn't something that empirically proves evolution be front page news? It could very well be that I am not as well read as I think I am. Links? Sites? News reports? Thanks.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteI follow Jesus new commandment...love. Jesus explains the whole law in His new commandment..."Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind...and love your neighbor as yourself."
I have three problems with this. The first, that love didn't appear with the myth of Christ, it preexisted the myth of Christ. The second and third, that there is something sinister about compulsory love, and that it is masochistic to be enjoined to love one that you are simultaneously commanded to fear.
Christina wrote:
I don't follow the Jewish law found in the Book of Moses and the Prophets.
I'm very happy to hear that. I think one would quickly find themselves a fugitive from the law if they did. But then I have to ask, does that mean you do not think that the god of Moses is the "trinity", of which Christ is part? Do you think that some or all of the books of the Old Testament are apocryphal?
I wouldn't call the depraved superstitious ramblings of a bronze age Mediterranean tribe the law. God is ready to annihilate the Israelites for apostasy in Exodus 32:10, but in verses 11-13 Moses talks him out of it. Then--
Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
God admits he was contemplating evil deeds, and only stayed his hand at the better judgment of a mortal person, ostensibly his own creation. What kind of god is this to rely on for love and grace? He does not even know the difference without first being told by someone else. Very shortly thereafter--
Exodus 32:26-28
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD'S side? [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
I thought we were to love our neighbor as ourselves? Apparently this is a concept someone taught god in the interim between Sinai and the nativity. This certainly isn't the law of a god who preaches love, it is the law of a cruel and stupid person.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteI practice a lifestyle of grace. I believe that God's grace gives freedom where there was once bondage.
I'll take this as a statement. A meaningless statement. The first sentence about lifestyle could be uttered by anyone whether they believed in a god or not. The second sentence begs the question, who was doing the binding from which human beings need liberation in the first place?
Christina wrote:
Bryan, you have referred to the law several times. Do you think that I believe I am required to keep the law or that I believe I am saved through the law? ... I am confused about what you think I believe.
I do get this a lot when discussing theology. If I said to a baptist, "So you believe in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, that the fate of a person's soul is determined in advance, before they are born?" The baptist might then reply, "I never said that. I don't believe in that."
No matter who you ask about religion, you will get a slightly different answer about what is doctrine and what is not. It is often said, a christ of faith, or a personal god, indeed, a personal savior. This indecisive shuffling makes piffle out of the claim that god has revealed himself at all, unless his revelation is supposed to be completely different for every single person who has ever believed in him, in which case god is a blunderer.
In any case, when debating theology with persons of faith I do try to limit the scope of my arguments to the doctrine of the faith to which the other person confesses. Since you have not revealed in which doctrine you believe, I have limited my arguments against your points as much as possible to the just that which can be found in the bible. Even then, I do not know which verses are underlined in your copy of the good book, and I don't think I should need to to have a meaningful debate with you.
You are the one who says you know there is a god--not me. If you want me or the readers of this blog to understand what it is you believe, you are going to have to tell us yourself. I can only trust that my views on the matter aren't that ambiguous to anyone by now. But, I'd be happy to take questions from anyone who thought they were.
My partner and I had our second son 9:15am yesterday NZST @ 3.65kg :D
ReplyDeleteThese were written in reverse order, but, blogspot cannot make up its mind whether to post submitted comments or not.
Christina wrote:
I have not seen anything on the news about these kind of findings. Wouldn't something that empirically proves evolution be front page news? It could very well be that I am not as well read as I think I am. Links? Sites? News reports? Thanks.
While such evidence might be surprising to you, it is so banal in public discourse I cannot see the editor of any newspaper thinking that putting scientific stories on the cover would move papers. However, a great deal of chatter might be intercepted over the channels of scientific journals whose circulation is not merely dependent on appealing to a middlebrow appetite for gossip.
I couldn't say that I'm a scientist per se, except in a very small way in computer science. But, I can think of an example right off the top of my head. This example shows two things, the first, that distinct animal life changes over time, and that human understanding is advanced by questioning and changing its precepts rather then making them canonical and unchangeable.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3269-stick-insect-forces-evolutionary-rethink.html
Which is a reoccurrance of the following evidence:
http://www.galapagos-islands-tourguide.com/galapagos-islands-finches.html
I resent a little bit that you asked of me that which I had already offered to you in my last set of comments. I even selected the source of evidence against self-interest. Francis Collens is a practicing, self-avowed Christian who didn't merely write a blurb in a newspaper or on website. He wrote an entire book on the subject! What was wrong with that source? Because you knew I had already given a reference before you made demands for one, I think you are a liar for saying you weren't trying to be a smart ass. I think you were.
Bryan, be nice. I really was not trying to be a smart ass...I missed the connection to the source you quoted, likely because your writing style requires me to study it (that can be a good thing). You know more about the apologetics of evolutionary humanism than I do...I'm a sprout. So...again...be nice. I will go back and re-read it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you said, "middlebrow appetite for gossip."
Hmmm...tsk...tsk. If you really want us to have an enlightening conversation about truth, then I will need you to again...BE NICE!
In addition, congratulations on your new little guy! Busy day yesterday for you all. Please, tell your partner I said congratulations. I'm sure she's tired and glad to be on the other side of it. Exhaustion and euphoria in one moment is amazing. I've experienced it four times...it always takes my breath away. Enjoy your new son. Parenthood is a wild ride.
ReplyDeleteChristina wrote:
ReplyDeletePlease, tell your partner I said congratulations.
I will do. She also reads this blog and will surely appreciate the sentiments. I'm putting up photographs I've taken of our son at--
http://smartcowtheory.me/?p=258
I have been adding photos to the same post as I go. So new photos may appear there.
Christina wrote:
Bryan, be nice.
Christina, be nice enough to read and understand my comments before replying. If you aren't sure what I mean by anything, please ask. I'm happier to take questions then to be mislead to think that my critics are attacking me with casuistry.
Christina wrote:
Also, you said, "middlebrow appetite for gossip." Hmmm...tsk...tsk.
Middlebrow is not a pejorative word. It is a person between complete disinterest and complete dedication to intellectual pursuits. I think the idea that newspapers and magazines exist nearly exclusively to distribute gossip stands on its own merit. I'm open to other thoughts if you think it doesn't.
Christina wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou know more about the apologetics of evolutionary humanism than I do.
I'm sure you are wrong about that. I didn't know anything about evolutionary humanism before you mentioned it. In fact, the first time you used the term I assumed you meant some sort of sloppy concatenation of evolution and humanism. I brushed up on the subject, but could only find two references to the term. The first circulates around some demented cultist christian websites as a reference to anyone who opposes the teaching of superstitious creationist nonsense to children in public school. The second is part of an essay by Juilan Huxley, that is also and more appropriately called "Transhumanism". He recommends the invention of yet another religion to replace the faulty and contradictory Abrahamic monotheisms, only to make one that is congruent with science. I disclaim being part of any such thing. I suspect the wholly unimaginative christian theists merely stole the term to make their own propaganda sound a bit more authentic then it would by itself.
I should point out right away that there is no way to enjoin any religion with science. Science cannot function without the freedom to inquiry and to edit and question its own findings. Religion cannot function without leader worship of some kind, usually a heavenly dictator, and holy scriptures whose contents may not be questioned, changed, or updated. The two will never mix without the latter oppressing the former.
There is no such thing as scientific apologetics. Science is not a branch of theology.
Bryan, I am currently looking up information on the two authors you mentioned, Frances Collins and Barton Erhman. Very interesting life stories. I'll let you know what I learn. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHi Christina,
ReplyDeleteA third book you may like to look at is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
authored by Israeli Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.