Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yahzi · 08-05-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

(I knew he couldn't, but wanted him to come to this understanding, that he might realize his inability and look to me to help him where he could not do it himself.)

Do you still tie his shoes for him?

Then your analogy is pretty much crap, isn't it.

Not to mention sickening: using an example of child abuse to teach how God wants to abuse us. If you aren't groveling like a slave, then God isn't happy.

Agnostic Theist · 08-05-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I've come to the understanding that most people do not understand the purpose of God's law. For many years, I did not understand it, but an experience with my son sheds great light on the subject.

When my son was first learning to tie his shoe, he called to me and said "Daddy, will you tie my shoe?" But as I went to help him, he pulled back and said "I can tie it myself". Rather than arguing with him, I said to him 'Go ahead, tie your shoe." (I knew he couldn't, but wanted him to come to this understanding, that he might realize his inability and look to me to help him where he could not do it himself.) After about five minutes and nine tries, he finally gave up, admitted his own inability to do what was commanded, looked up to his father and said "Daddy, will you tie my shoe for me?"

This is a good picture of how God uses the law. Many come to the Ten Commandments as if God gave his standard of righteousness that we might fulfill them and show him how "righteous" we are. But the truth is, no matter how hard we try, we always fall short. God has given the Ten Commandments to show us that we cannot do them, that we might raise our heads and look to him ... that he might provide a righteousness for us, that we cannot accomplish or provide for ourselves. That's what Paul says in Galatians 3:24 "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."

Perhaps such an analogy would be fitting if you had left the boy to his own devices and not tied his shoes at all....

Paul misrepresented Jesus. He (Paul) was a sexist who forsaked the Christ and used this radical new doctrine to conglororise church and state, ergo granting him and the roman authorities immense power. Contrast the Bible with Nietche's Antichrist, just for a start.

Agnostic Theist · 08-05-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Do you still tie his shoes for him?

Then your analogy is pretty much crap, isn't it.

Not to mention sickening: using an example of child abuse to teach how God wants to abuse us. If you aren't groveling like a slave, then God isn't happy.

I don't think mockery is the best approach here. (or anywhere, for that matter).

You seem to have applied your own meaning to the analogy in the OP. Strawman echoes in my mind but I'm not going to accuse you of it (since you haven't actually begun to beat it yet). The man merely let his child have a go at something which he (the boy) claimed to be able to do and then, when asked, helped. Is that akin to forcing one to grovel? I think not.

Biff the unclean · 08-05-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Beast

I don't think mockery is the best approach here. (or anywhere, for that matter).

If logic worked on the guy I'd say give it a go. But it doesn't. The Rev just wants to proselytize and that's worth no more than a horse laugh.

Quote:

The man merely let his child have a go at something which he (the boy) claimed to be able to do and then, when asked, helped. Is that akin to forcing one to grovel? I think not.

It's pretty damn close.
Also it's got nothing to do with God.
Now if the Rev had a story where the kid tried his best to tie his own shoe but failed and when he turned to his father for help but saw nothing...now that would be an analogy.
Dad? Hello Dad?!! Dad where are you? I can't tie my shoe! I need help Dad! Dad you said I had to tie my shoe but you never told me how. Dad?

Nasreddin · 08-05-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnostic Beast

The man merely let his child have a go at something which he (the boy) claimed to be able to do and then, when asked, helped. Is that akin to forcing one to grovel? I think not.

Ayup. Try as I might, I'm not seeing the "child abuse" you mentioned in the OP, Yahzi.

Dean Anderson · 08-06-2004, 01:27 AM

Since the OP is simple proseletysing, and most of the replies are humour/sarcastic, I'm giving this thread its freedom and letting it make its own way home to ~E~

Fly free, little thread!

Agnostic Theist · 08-06-2004, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

If logic worked on the guy I'd say give it a go. But it doesn't. The Rev just wants to proselytize and that's worth no more than a horse laugh.

It's pretty damn close.
Also it's got nothing to do with God.
Now if the Rev had a story where the kid tried his best to tie his own shoe but failed and when he turned to his father for help but saw nothing...now that would be an analogy.
Dad? Hello Dad?!! Dad where are you? I can't tie my shoe! I need help Dad! Dad you said I had to tie my shoe but you never told me how. Dad?

No, the best analogy would be 'Lassie come home' excpet Lassie doesn't come home and, when the family thinks about it, they're not sure they've ever met the interfering bitch. (pardon the iroic use of 'interfering'

)

:angel: angels are free

:devil3: but devils are happier

Ojuice5001 · 08-06-2004, 04:59 AM

You know, having my shoelaces tied is only necessary for appearance's sake. There's no pragmatic danger. First of all, it's interesting to ask, what's the danger that everyone thinks there is? Answer: They think that I will trip over my own shoelaces. Now, that's illuminating, because it doesn't account for why it's necessary for shoelaces to exist. I don't mean merely that you could replace them with Velcro; you wouldn't even need a replacement. I mean, you'd think that if they were necessary, then leaving them untied would result in my shoes falling off. But not only does that not happen when you leave your shoelaces untied, no one seems to think it will. So while I can't generalize to all shoes, this means that loafers and sneakers, which I am familiar with, could surely be designed such that they could fit comfortably without shoelaces. It would take some effort to slip them on and off, but not as much as is involved in tying your shoes. So much for the original purpose of shoelaces.

But many people do think, of course, that I will trip over my shoelaces. That doesn't happen either! Here's what happens if my left shoelace is untied, and my right foot is resting on top of it, and I try to take a step with my left foot (or vice versa). My left foot is stymied for a split second, but my right foot is planted firmly on the ground. So I don't lose my balance in the slightest; I just have to put my left foot down and take a step with my right foot. While that took a little time to explain, it takes no significant time or thought to do. There's no risk of tripping over my own shoelaces (at least, not at normal walking speed).

So we can see that having my shoes tied is only a matter of personal appearance. Which I don't always care about. But everyone is under the impression that there's a risk of tripping.

I'm glad this thread was moved to Elsewhere; that way, I don't need to worry about whether that little rant was off-topic. :angel:

Agnostic Theist · 08-06-2004, 08:18 AM

Now this is in the E forum (idea for new music radio chat show...) I can ask the Rev, are you one of those Jack Chick followers? I'm just curious cos I went on a site full of the dastards and every one of them was a rev, brother or Creation Scientist PhD :rolling:

:wave: Hey ma! I'm on TV....um....a computer moniter. :Cheeky:

Ape31 · 08-06-2004, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I've come to the understanding that most people do not understand the purpose of God's law. For many years, I did not understand it, but an experience with my son sheds great light on the subject.

When my son was first learning to tie his shoe, he called to me and said "Daddy, will you tie my shoe?" But as I went to help him, he pulled back and said "I can tie it myself". Rather than arguing with him, I said to him 'Go ahead, tie your shoe." (I knew he couldn't, but wanted him to come to this understanding, that he might realize his inability and look to me to help him where he could not do it himself.) After about five minutes and nine tries, he finally gave up, admitted his own inability to do what was commanded, looked up to his father and said "Daddy, will you tie my shoe for me?"

This is a good picture of how God uses the law. Many come to the Ten Commandments as if God gave his standard of righteousness that we might fulfill them and show him how "righteous" we are. But the truth is, no matter how hard we try, we always fall short. God has given the Ten Commandments to show us that we cannot do them, that we might raise our heads and look to him ... that he might provide a righteousness for us, that we cannot accomplish or provide for ourselves. That's what Paul says in Galatians 3:24 "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."

So what you are saying is that you are Godlike in the way you deal with your son? Was that the message you were trying to get across, that you are like God and we should be more like you?

Ape31

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-06-2004, 01:27 AM	#26
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	Since the OP is simple proseletysing, and most of the replies are humour/sarcastic, I'm giving this thread its freedom and letting it make its own way home to ~E~ Fly free, little thread!

08-06-2004, 04:59 AM	#28
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	You know, having my shoelaces tied is only necessary for appearance's sake. There's no pragmatic danger. First of all, it's interesting to ask, what's the danger that everyone thinks there is? Answer: They think that I will trip over my own shoelaces. Now, that's illuminating, because it doesn't account for why it's necessary for shoelaces to exist. I don't mean merely that you could replace them with Velcro; you wouldn't even need a replacement. I mean, you'd think that if they were necessary, then leaving them untied would result in my shoes falling off. But not only does that not happen when you leave your shoelaces untied, no one seems to think it will. So while I can't generalize to all shoes, this means that loafers and sneakers, which I am familiar with, could surely be designed such that they could fit comfortably without shoelaces. It would take some effort to slip them on and off, but not as much as is involved in tying your shoes. So much for the original purpose of shoelaces. But many people do think, of course, that I will trip over my shoelaces. That doesn't happen either! Here's what happens if my left shoelace is untied, and my right foot is resting on top of it, and I try to take a step with my left foot (or vice versa). My left foot is stymied for a split second, but my right foot is planted firmly on the ground. So I don't lose my balance in the slightest; I just have to put my left foot down and take a step with my right foot. While that took a little time to explain, it takes no significant time or thought to do. There's no risk of tripping over my own shoelaces (at least, not at normal walking speed). So we can see that having my shoes tied is only a matter of personal appearance. Which I don't always care about. But everyone is under the impression that there's a risk of tripping. I'm glad this thread was moved to Elsewhere; that way, I don't need to worry about whether that little rant was off-topic. :angel:

08-06-2004, 08:18 AM	#29
Agnostic Theist Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: UK Posts: 4,822	Now this is in the E forum (idea for new music radio chat show...) I can ask the Rev, are you one of those Jack Chick followers? I'm just curious cos I went on a site full of the dastards and every one of them was a rev, brother or Creation Scientist PhD :rolling: :wave: Hey ma! I'm on TV....um....a computer moniter. :Cheeky:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.