Pseudonymph

This is what I was saying earlier when I said this to schu:

As Helen and myself have said, it is imperative to provide evidence in ANY case of a mental disorder that it is somehow interfering with your everyday normal life. THAT is how a mental illness is defined(albeit a brief definition)

Still waiting on that evidence....

agapeo

emphryio:
I see you haven't followed up on my suggestion to take 2 aspirins for your headache. Oh, but I see your headache is me and I'm not ready to go away just yet, so I'll guess the best thing you can do is try to simply ignore me. To keep bringing me up won't facilitate that. In any case what I find dishonest is when someone has clearly been shown to be wrong and not to admit it. But to each his/her own opinion, right? Besides, in your opinion I'm mentally ill so what else would you expect from me. Where's the toleration?
Grossly misunderstands? The only one that I see doing that is you. For instance it seems you don't understand the difference between your opinion and that of a professional dealing with mental illness. You're free to express your opinion but unless you have expertise in the field of diagnosing mental illness, your opinion doesn't amount to much.
Well now, if you don't then perhaps it's prudent of you not to make "broad-brush" statements.
Probably? What happen to is? You're backtracking here in case you haven't noticed.
Evidently not! If that was true then you wouldn't have posted this.
What you do or what you don't do has no effect on me. I take my "aspirins" every day.
Which is the same as saying: "Where I will find someone who will agree with me."
Ya got that right!

agapeo

Hi Joel,
I totally agree with your insights herein on the nature of love. Love is both a noun and a verb. The noun is rather cheap if there is no verb form backing it up. Please note that when asked this question previously, I responded by stating that one of the ways my God demonstrates His love for me is by answering my prayers. If my prayers were all ignored then I would seriously question my belief in my God. I believe I also indicated that I'm not liable for the prayers of other Christians. Meaning for one thing, I haven't a clue as to why their prayers are not answered without the benefit of knowing the specifics.
I don't recall reading this. Perhaps you can refresh my memory. What I do recall reading is that God hears all our prayers. Sometimes no answer or a answer of no is an answer. But it should be considered that some things that people pray for if answered would go cross-purposes with His will. For instance: When JC was praying in the garden it was his prayer (regarding his impending death) "let this cup may pass from me nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39) It seems clear to me that even JC recognized that prayer must be in accordance with the will of God. I don't recall reading an answer to his prayer, but obviously it was not within God's will to answer it as JC would of wished. My qualifiers were intended to point out that not all that Christians pray for fall within the scope of God's will.
True, but both drew from the same source for their words and I see no fundamental contradiction between them. Can you provide such, related to the issue? So I fail to see the relevancy of this statement.
Always being answered when according to His will. But how can one dismiss this standard and expect to receive the desired answer? Perhaps you can show from the OT where this standard doesn't hold up if you have something against Paul. Btw – 1 John was not written by Paul but I'm sure you're aware of that.
Excuses? Let's not confuse excuses with reasons. If there is a valid reason for a prayer not being answered then it's not an excuse. I admit that knowing what God's will is is not always clear when you get down to specifics. I don't consider that to be a problem for me per se. Of course the various ways in which people interpret God's will sure tends to muddy the waters. Sorting out the junk is a challenge indeed, but one which for me personally is focused on finding that which makes sense to me. For it to make sense it will have to fit what I observe in life.
IMO -- No. Quite the reverse seems to be the case. For instance: When I am confronted with a prick my natural inclination is to kick the shit out of him, but God's standard is to love my enemies. That standard isn't always easy to live by.
I assume you are speaking in generalities and not to me personally. You should see my food bill. I have a very hard time not giving to those who have a need. But my resources are limited and on a practical level I would be neglectful of my own family if I failed to provide for them first. See 1 Timothy 5:8
Now this really surprises me that you would make such a comment. Obviously you are well read in the Bible and yet you imply here that as a Christian I am mandated to ignore the needy. It is my Christian duty to help those less fortunate than myself. But that is not to be my main focus. Ya know, it seems to me that instead of praying for those who are starving we should be feeding them as best we can. I do believe that the Christian community has various programs in place that are intended just for that purpose. The Salvation Army being one example. IMO they do an abundance of good in providing food for the hungry and shelter for the homeless. So maybe those millions of Christians you mentioned that are praying for the starving should stop praying and start providing for the hungry. Those that do nothing but pray IMO are the ones who have a multitude of excuses.
If He shows it through my life then He is showing it by proxy.
Ahh, I see where this might be leading. "How about those who have never heard the gospel?" I do believe that topic is being currently discussed somewhere on this Board so I'll forego going too much in this direction. But I think you're mistaken when you say He has no desire to save people's lives. In fact it is my opinion that the scope of the Bible is related to just that aim.
This verse is both literal and figurative. The promise of blessings is literally true and is emphasized by the use of a figure of speech. A figure of speech is a means whereby a fact is emphasized. The fact in these verses is the promise of God's blessings. The fact is emphasized with the figure of speech employed. I've never actually seen the "windows of heaven" open and things pouring down from it so that can't be a literal fact. But this verse can be understood in correspondence with Luke 6:38 "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom." This verse also expresses a fact/truth with a figure of speech – "pressed down, and shaken together, and running over". Note though that this verse indicates where or by what means the blessings will be given – through men. Or through a physical avenue. Since God is not a physical being He "works" through the physical. Or to put it another way – He works in the hearts of men to bring to pass His promise. But I'll also point out that the blessings are not always monetary. As far as this being the only verse where "God explicitly dares anyone" goes, I'm not sure if that is true. Unless you are referring to the phrase "prove me". In which case you may be correct in that there are no verses that explicitly state as much. But I think the principle is implied throughout the Bible. I'll have to do a search of this sometime, but for now I won't belabor the point. I'm curious as to where you're going with it though.
I'm not surprised. I actually had you in mind when I did.
See my comments above. I thought you were leading in this direction. J You're quite right about the difference between the two in so far as death is concerned. I merely used the verse as a means of comparison. I.e. both poor and starving people will be always here as the verse I quoted would seem to support. I don't think it would be efficient for Jesus to have listed all the various types of problems people have that will always be evident in this world we live in. After all he did come to make Paradise available meaning that it currently isn't.
No you haven't asked me about heaven and hell yet, but I knew the subject would eventually come up. Personally I don't buy the concept of a physical place of eternal torment.
Thanks for the link. Perhaps I will take the time to check it out when I have the time.
That's your opinion which doesn't coincide with the opinions of those millions of Christians who claim otherwise. Sorry if that is too abrasive. My observation of your claim is just the opposite so I couldn't let this one go.
Nah, not at all. What it shows IMO is his compassion. There are times when you must allow people to do that which may be considered "wasteful" to fulfill their individual need. It's called flexibility. Knowing the difference of when something is wasteful and when it is needful takes balance. Being too rigid is dangerous IMO. Judas didn't understand this, but that is not surprising considering that Judas had his own agenda. An agenda which was at cross-purposes to that of JC. One should consider the personal background history of Judas. He was after all a revolutionary and that JC didn't meet his expectations one can see how he may have a frustrated attitude with the things that JC did.
The real "hope" for the poor was JC. That was his message. Is it really necessary for me to do a lot of Bible quoting here?
I wouldn't dispute that that was what Judas thought, but isn't it odd that he also came to realize that he "betrayed the innocent blood." Judas' betrayal of JC was instigated to attempt to "force" JC's hand into bringing about a "revolution" freeing the Israelites from the bondage of the Roman rule. That was Judas' trip. But clearly that wasn't JC's agenda. Judas just never saw that because of the blinders he had on his eyes.
No I haven't read it. Sounds interesting. I'll have to put it on my "to read" list.
Another one! Are these ones that I can ignore therefore? I'm trying to cut down on my reputation of being evasive, so I guess I should answer this as well.

I don't think that JC was saying that it wasn't something one should do – i.e. give to those in need. See the parable of the "good Samaritan". I think what was being expressed is one's priorities. "Seeking the kingdom of God first."
Hmm . . . exactly what it says. Let me give you a brief example:
Genesis 1:1 " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Ok. Do you understand what the word "beginning" means? I think it's pretty self-evident. The beginning is the beginning. Now we could speculate as to exactly when that was and say the beginning was 10, 20, 30, etc., etc., etc., billion years ago but it would still be "In the beginning". You understand what the word "God" means? That seems self-evident. Now the word "created" is where someone can get a little fuzzy in their understanding. What does it mean to create something. The context defines that. It means to bring into existence that which never existed before. Btw as an aside (since we're throwing out Btws) the word create is only used three times in the Genesis 1 record. IOW there were only 3 acts of creation in the whole of the Genesis story contrary to popular belief. As far as the word "earth" goes I think that is self-evident as to what that means. Shoot, you don't even need a dictionary to understand that. But heaven is another thing. What is heaven? Anyplace that isn't the earth.
I understand (I think) what you're saying here. Sentences need a mind for understanding what is stated but not in the sense that I'm using. Interpretations of the written or spoken word can be misunderstood. But when I speak I know exactly what I mean. If you understand the meaning of the words I use and keep them in the context of a discussion it becomes self-evident what I intended to say. You're not "interpretating" what I said. You're understanding what I said, because the interpretation is based on what I meant and not on what you understand. So if you don't understand what I mean with a spoken or written word you may discern it from the context of what I'm saying. For instance: If I say: "Tomorrow I'm going to the bank." you may not understand what I mean unless you are familiar with my personal background or if I add to the meaning. I could mean I'm going to a financial institution or to a river bank. If I don't know you I would say: "I'm going to the bank to fish." the addition of the word "fish" explains what I meant.

I hope that helps somewhat to clarify what I meant. Probably not, but I haven't got the time to go into much detail. Sorry. As a matter of fact I think I'll close at this point and try to get back to your other comments later.

My apologies to you Joel for the length of this post and for not answering each and every comment/question you posed. I'm doing the best I can with the time I have. If this is unacceptable to you then I'll bow out and hopefully someone else will have the time to engage you in this discussion.

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

Taking a personal approach is to become shielded from the harsh realities of life for the majority of the world's population. Have you noticed all the "Where was God?" threads that emerged? Would you consider an atheist's testimony of God failing to answer their prayers as a valid example?

All those verses I quoted... The qualifiers noted... This was a follow-up of the discussion we've had. We're going to start repeating ourselves if we're not careful. Here's the outline of the argument I have been trying to pursue (sorry if it hasn't been clear):

premise (by you): God is love
premise (by me): God of the Bible answers prayers according to his will (other qualifiers noted)
premise (accepted by both of us): Love is shown through action
observation (by me): Many Christians (who have faith) pray to end starvation, to allow unsaved to be reached, etc. (I know, my parents are missionaries)
observation (by me): Unsaved people suffer and die without a chance for salvation (suffer eternal hellfire, having lived hard lives)
conclusion (by me): Some of the premises must be unsound. Either God is not love (unjust punishment of unsaved, or does not act to show love as we know it), or God does not answer the prayers of many Christians.

And my question is, are there any other possibilities or anything wrong with the logic?

Paul never met Jesus. The quotes by Jesus had no qualifiers about God's will (having faith is assumed). Paul had to introduce these qualifiers. Why didn't Jesus make it clear from the outset? As per Jesus praying in the Garden, surely that is a specific context and we can't resort to a fallacy of the general rule?

<snip>

Two fallacies in one paragraph: Selective Observation to back up Circular Reasoning. That's clever (but easy to spot). You assume God makes sense, and you count evidence where God appears to make sense, while disregarding any evidence to the contrary. Thus you are able to conclude that God makes sense. That's why I used the term "excuses" - you are using more and more qualifiers and "I don't know" to explain away anything that doesn't fit your assumption-conclusion.

You did notice that I said that in the context of James 4:17? BTW (groan - you'll like this one), James 1:26 has something to say about use of words like "prick" and "kick the shit".

<snip response to my questions that must be understood in the context of James 4:17 which I quoted>

Anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I'm refering to what we see much more often than your own experience, as the rest of the sentence clearly explains:

See my discussion on the Great Commission and Unsaved, etc. that I previously linked.

We're finally beginning to see the rules for your idea of Biblical analysis. It's a pity I needed to throw so many verses at you before it came up... Do you notice that the more specific a verse is, the more you need to explain it away in the context of other verses, metaphors and suchlike? Do not confuse a figure of speech within a verse for meaning that the entire verse is metaphorical. (e.g. "It rains cats and dogs all the time in Wales" - Metaphorical interpretation: He says it is gloomy, but we shouldn't assume he says precipitation occurs frequently)

I dispute that Luke 6:38 has anything to do with understanding the context of the verse. The context is clearly to be found in Malachi 3 itself. It is an oracle against the greedy and oppressors, who fail in their civic duties and tithes. If they repent, and show it by giving tithes in return, they will be blessed physically, not metaphorically. Note that verse 12 (which I didn't quote) prophesies neighbouring nations observing their blessings and calling their land one "of delight". Quite hard to do if the Israelites were just really happy deep down inside. Note that the people were accusing God of not heeding them, the words "blessed" and "prosper" are applied to evildoers in verse 15. This is clearly material blessing, and God is clearly promising them material returns.

Anyway, you might as well make sure you get your tithes right, since the doors of heaven may just burst open on you. Oh yeah, and send me some if you get any since I pointed you to this promise hidden deep in Bible-verses-that-most-Christians-don't-read territory. If you don't send me anything, I'll assume Malachi was a false prophet, since I trust you completely to do the right thing about tithing.

<snip>
Very interesting. So basically you mean the countless verses about hell, lakes of fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. don't count? In Jesus' parables of the talents, the foolish servant is sent out to suffer (in Matthew 25:14-30) or is killed (in Luke 19:11-27). Why is that part of Jesus' parable (or the idea of punishment part of most of Jesus parables)? What do you think of the ending to Matthew 25? Surely the worst verse in the Bible is this:

"Fear me, because I'm the only one pointing an authentic, loaded gun at your head."

What do you think of Jesus' apocalyptic pronouncements in Matthew 11 on the towns he visited? (Most references to hell are in Matthew - do you have something against Matthew's interpretation? What do you think of Gehenna, the mythic (or possibly historical) place of eternal fire? Do you think the pronouncements in Revelations are completely metaphorical? What's a metaphorical pit of scorpions look like (Revelations 9)? Why are you so quick to throw out this central Christian tenet, while making sure you explain everything else? All I want is a consistent explanation. By disbelieving hell, you have created a contradiction between what is taught in the Bible and what you believe. Of course, the key may simply be interpretation. (It would appear that you don't think Genesis is literally 6 days either - don't you accept Josh McDowell's/the BaptistBoard's findings that the Hebrew text doesn't allow for anything other than 6, 24-hour days? )

<snip>
Please note that sentences are meant to be understood in the context of the paragraph. You really need to stop cutting out everything sentence by sentence and then exposing my argument for not flowing. I try to deal with your paragraphs in the context they are in, I expect the same courtesy (and it would also greatly cut down post-length).

<snip deconstruction of what Jesus meant by "the poor you will always have">

Oh. If you mean the individual words in the Bible are self-explanatory, you could have said that in 4 words ("the", "words", "are", and "self-explanatory") . Back to the original problem of interpretation. I say the Biblical concept of hell, eternal torment, etc. is self-explanatory. You say you don't believe it personally. Why? Interpretation is the key - show us how this interpretation works.

<snip clarification>

I eagerly await your attempt at tackling the list of problems I gave. Obviously very important in dealing with such things if we are to establish the Bible as truth. Also, it will gleam greater insights into just how you interpret the Bible. Anyway, don't apologise for not dealing with every issue I raise, just as long as you're able to see which ones are important and deal with them (which I hope I'm doing too).

Joel

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Stephen T-B

As usual I find myself making a not-very-useful contribution, so please skip to the one below.
(Talking to myself.)
Religious belief is a state of mind.
It brings unquantifiable, indescribable benefits to those who have it.
They are required, when venturing into secular company, to justify it, rationalise it, explain it, account for it on the grounds that nothing is valid there unless it can be justified, rationalised, explained, accounted for.
They try to; they try their very best to, but they can�t.
And they can�t because it is impossible.

I am an atheist and natural-born skeptic and don�t take seriously anything which isn�t supported by pretty good evidence (except my attraction to women) and for me, religious belief is a closed book. The Believer picks it up, opens it and says �Hey, if you read this, then you will understand,� but all I see is an empty page.
That�s the way it is.
So this is my conclusion: there is no �standard� human being, but there may be �traited� human beings - some with the trait of being able to enjoy watching sports on tv and some who can�t stand it; some who like soppy plays and films and some who can�t stand them; some who like garlic and some who can�t stand it; some who Believe and some who don�t.

If I am right, this is as important for non-believers to understand as it is for Believers.
(OK, back to the discussion...)

agapeo

Stephen T-B:
That's a matter of opinion, don't ya think? IMO I found it useful.
Nothing wrong with that per se, as long as you don't find yourself arguing with yourself.
I don't think you'll find too many theists disagreeing with you on that one. After all isn't all beliefs a matter of the mind?
Yep.
Fair enuff. Although seeing as how it's a "state of mind" wouldn't it be required for those we are to "justify, etc., etc., to have the same "state of mind" in order to understand it? Just curious. In any case I personally don't feel compelled to meet that criteria unless my agenda is to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong. A discussion is just that to me. Discussing my beliefs and not expecting you to accept them. You otoh, are discussing what you don't believe and by the same token I should not be expected to accept you views. I can, however, consider them and come to conclusion as to rather your views are more valid than mine.
I'm tempted to say: "When at first you don't succeed . . ." but in some situations that's silly IMO.
Is there a difference between "good evidence" and "rock-solid evidence"?
No argument from me on this one. I agree that this line of presentation is silly.
I consider that a reasonable conclusion.

Edited to correct some spelling.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Stephen T-B

Agapeo: tolerance is required on both sides of the belief / non-belief fence.
Some threads engender it, as, indeed, I think this one was was intended to.
Some posts do, and reading them has given me insights which I did not previously have, despite a long and close acquaintance with deeply religious folk.
I used to think I was superior to Believers because of their �need� to believe - �need� in this context being a psychological deficiency.
I now think that is absurd; as absurd as thinking that I am superior to someone on the basis of the colour of my eyes.

agapeo

Well said, Stephen T-B. Some may think that I, being a Christian, have an agenda to persuade those who find this Board a safe-haven that they are wrong in their viewpoints. In actuality, I have only one agenda -- to understand. The more I can understand where people are "coming from" the more tolerant I can be of their position. That doesn't equate with adopting the position. I see no reason why two people cannot have a discussion without it deteriating into insults and personal attacks.

So as I previously stated I personally thought your comments were useful to that end.

BTW -- Blue eyes are better than others. But what else can you expect from someone who has blue eyes and happens to be stuck with them.

Sabine Grant

Stephen and Agapeo : I am sincerely thankful today for your exchanges.
Happy Thanksgiving! Veronique.

Living Dead Chipmunk

emphyrio: Cute. That's ok, you can continue deluding yourself and ignoring everything I say if that makes you feel smarter. I doubt anyone who's still reading this thread is willing to take you as an authority on mental illness, however.

You've demonstrated an extreme, illogical, prejudicial ignorance on the subject, refused to even begin to learn anything about it, and finally resorted to an appeal to ridicule as an excuse to ignore me. How wonderfully skeptical.

You may as well have just posted the following:
All religious people have gout. I'm not a doctor, I don't even know what uric acid is, but people who are religious obviously have gout. It's just obvious. I can't even spell "doctor", but you should take my word for it. And if anyone says I should have to take med school before I can diagnose people, I'll just brush them off, because they're probably gout-ridden too.