Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Is Satan an important part of Christianity?
Rod -Phil means well, but he's into hyperbole. Every time he gets wound up on how all the lies will be exposed, and all the corrupt brought to justice I want to shout Hallelujah! and the heavens will erupt in a celestial fireworks display which will amaze the earthlings so much they will all fall to their knees and become instant beleivers.
Your assessment is correct - our task is much more mundane, just win a few souls.
Matthew 9:35-The Workers Are Few
Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. 36When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”
I used to think this last 2 verses was God begging us to find and wrangle more workers. I now think very differently.
I now think it is God's PLAN that the workers are few. "Like sheep without a shepherd..."
More workers is a wonderful thing to hope for. But God is not desperate. If he really was - he could just stick his head out of the clouds and get results.
AS much as MOST Christians claim they want to change the world for God - I don't think that is what God is up to.
#52, Rod, I find myself in complete agreement with you on this one. We are called to be faithful to our king with the understanding that more often than not it will bring suffering rather than fruit.As far as where I stand, I pretty much wear my theology on my sleeve. David has correctly pegged my Anabaptist sympathies, but I would temper that by saying that the moniker only applies if you are thinking of 16th-century Swiss brethren, rather than their modern descendents. Calvinists call me an Armenian, and Armenians call me a Calvinist. Most liberals call me conservative because of my views on Scripture, and most conservatives call me liberal, because of the way I choose to obey it.
Due to the lack of a moniker that seemed to fit, I finally coined one. I am a RadicalFish. My theology emulates the style, approach and most of the tenants of the 1st-3rd century Church. An example of its application can be found here: http://radicalfish.net/victory-in-spi...
Rod, with Phil (and I trust you) I also await the hyperbolic day when the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our Lord, and of His king.
While our task until then may be mundane--it is not to win a few souls. Our task is to be faithful to our king and bear witness to His Glory and provision for salvation. Noah preached 200 years and had not one convert in that time. He was no failure.
Rod and Phil, sorry, I got caught up in my previous post and neglected to point out that I believe the quote of Phil is an accurate representation of our task as expressed in the N.T. and practiced by the early church. Rod you are correct in noting that misunderstood, (and it often is) this can lead to fighting the wrong battles. I submit we can indeed win the LBGT battle if we recognize what it is. We will not win if we think the goal is to enlist the support of the State in stopping such behavior.
Again I refer you to the post I linked to above.
IMO, here is the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives: The latter keep peering up at the heavens hoping something will happen. Like maybe that God will get frustrated at how we can't grasp the age of His rule, and send another Jesus to drill it all into us again.
Christopher quote:" Our task is to be faithful to our king and bear witness to His Glory and provision for salvation."
Wow, how did I miss that part. Thanks. It's all about HIS glory.
Lee, I think you are essentially correct if we look at popular perception. Given the accusations against me, I try to consider the upper crust in both groups. I find myself much more comfortable with either group when they are consistent with their ideals. I think I would be quite comfortable with either you or Rod. It is my belief that the Accuser is quite content to let conservatives believe the Bible because they don't obey it. He is also quite content to let liberals obey the Bible because they don't believe it.
Hmm... that might make a good bumper sticker. A bit too long though. ;-)
Never get comfortable with me Christopher: Or i'll have to change my approach. I even make myself uncomfortable. :DChristopher quote:
" I submit we can indeed win the LBGT battle if we recognize what it is."
I'm curious what you mean here. Please enlighten me.
We are in a battle for the hearts and souls of humanity. We do not seek to change the kingdom of this world we seek to charge the gates of Hell and take prisoners for our king. "The gates of hell shall not prevail..." implies we are on the offensive. Gates don't hunt people down, their goal is to keep out invaders.In #55 I give a link to a blog article I wrote a while back. It will explain my position on this in more detail. Let me know what you think.
I'll try not to get too comfortable with you, if for no other reason than to avoid changing your cuddly disposition. ;-)
#60 Lee, It might be better for the front and back of a Tee-shirt to wear to a LGBT rally. :-)
Excellent Lee--thank you. I hate being wrong, so I love being shown when I am. It has been a while since I have been so difinitively shown the error of my thinking. I will need to process this a bit before completely capitulating, but it looks like I am headed that way. :-( ---> :-)
I agree that it is not a battle where we need to attack. :D
Well, in typical contrarian fashion, I disagree, we need to attack, but with the pen and not the sword. Because some of the contributors here are either in the enemies of the Bible's camp (Lee) or busy with books questioning the Bible (Chrisopher), or writing the 10000th "How I Came to Christ" testimonial (Phil), or maybe ultrapolite (let's not be dieagreeable(Peter), nobody seems to have the fortitude to actually take Satan on. Well, fear not little quivering flock, I'll do it for you. Stay tuned in about 3 months for a book that goes on the offensive against enemies of the Faith.
I would expect no less from you, Robert. ;)
You're so superior, Robert. I'm sure Jesus smiles whenever you correct all of us stupid youngsters.
Well, then David, quite engaging in trivial pursuit and join me in the offensive against evil.
Thank you, Lee, I hope to be a worthy adversary.
Should I start beating people with Bibles, Robert? How exactly do you think is the proper way to battle evil, since obviously none of us are doing it the right way?
Well, David, you wanted to start a blog. Why not something along the lines of "The Consequences of Sin From a Cop's Perspective". You get up close and personal with the fallout from drugs, domestic abuse, etc., why not provide the grisly details?
Hopefully any blog I make about my life will be about me having a boring life in the post office. I'm not going to be a cop much longer.
Robert wrote: "Well, in typical contrarian fashion, I disagree, we need to attack, but with the pen and not the sword... writing the 10000th "How I Came to Christ" testimonial (Phil)"Wow. I'm used to being dismissed as an anti-intellectual idiot by atheist skeptics, but I don't recall being dismissed so quickly, and so inaccurately, by another Christian. Nice to meet you, too, Robert.
Sheesh. Hope your approach to non-believers is more agreeable. And more careful.
Phil, I think he's probably the same with everyone. He dismisses everyone anyway, so don't take offense.
Yeah, if Robert goes after you, then you're probably a good Christian.
Phil - I'm sorry I came off as dismissive - maybe I can explain. As a scientist, I regard discussion on the arts side of the Arts & Sciences continuum as merely a qualitative free-for-all where EVERYONE contends their research is critical and game-changing, but it all ends up as so much trivial blather. Scientists have this bias, but with good reason. Ideas on the Arts side never go away, not even the worst of them. A philosophical concept will be proven unreasonable and unworkable 500 years ago, but some clown will revive it with new rhetoric and it's viable again. Good ideas don't get built upon because they're undercut by the everpresent skeptics. In short, the Arts is beset by endless tail-chasing and no progess. Science is problem-solving and dynamic, building on the incorrect assumptions of the past, not revisiting them.I haven't read your book, and, perhaps ill-advisedly, just lumped it with similar sounding efforts. My mindset at the time was that our whole cast of characters seemed to be promoting their research which appeared to be aimed at nothing less than uncercutting the supremacy of the Bible. Such hubris had me fuming and I probably just included your book with theirs inadvisably. I apologize, and if you want me to read it I will, and will relay an honest opinion. Yes, I read books on all facets of the Arts and enjoy them, but my directed research is in the Sciences.
Lee - I go after you and "good Christian" is hardly an appelation I think you should include in your resume.
Robert, you may read my book if you like, but I'm pretty sure the parts about the Bible would make you angry. OTOH, you seem so completely sold on the Evangelical bible culture that perhaps you need it. It's up to you.The book is an apologetic. It's my answer to five questions raised by a thoughtful, young Evangelical who was asking the right questions about the Evangelical view of the cosmos, which is largely incoherent. I used some of my personal testimony to introduce it in ch 1, which is what you saw courtesy of Christopher. But the book is not my personal testimony.
For the record:
Your view of philosophy and "the arts" is upside-down and backwards. The sciences depend on the soft, philosophical world that you despise. The sciences are the child of good theology and good philosophy, and would not exist without them. If good philosophers don't win the day in the next 50 years, there will be no sciences remaining.
If you had studied the history and philosophy of science, you would understand this. Just because you didn't, does not make it any less true.
Phil- wow, are you harkening back to the days of yore! I understand the history and philosophy of science just fine, but it's woefully outdated. In case you hadn't noticed, Phil, we're at the cellular level with it's smaller organelles and sub-atomic particles with their own laws. Leave poor Mendel and Darwin alone with their organism and tissue thoughts and read some current literature.
I'm reminded of that old Boston joke: "Do you go to MIT and can't read, or to Harvard and can't add?"
Phil - if you are referring to the disciplines of mathemaitics or statistics then, of course, we use them heavily, butin applied fashion so advance those disciplines, too. Most philosophers I've encountered draw with sticks on the ground to do sums when they've misplaced their calculator.
Robert wrote: "Phil- wow, are you harkening back to the days of yore! ...Leave poor Mendel and Darwin alone with their organism and tissue thoughts and read some current literature. "Robert, your capacity for unsound but insulting inferences is pretty impressive. Give me a minute to adjust my expectations.
I am quite familiar with the literature on microbiology and subatomic particles, thanks. It does not change a word of what I wrote: the sciences are based on philosophy and theology. To praise the sciences and dismiss philosophy is to praise the house but declare the foundation unnecessary. It's not a position a literate scientist would want to take.
If you're wondering what I mean, consider that the very act of drawing inferences, on which the sciences are based entirely, is an implementation of the principle of causation, and rests on a presupposition that the universe will behave in a consistent and lawful manner -- a presupposition that is not something the average observer will arrive at on his own. If you know anything about the history of the world, you know that the assertion that the universe is lawful did not arise without a theological construct affirming the rulership of a lawful and infinitely wise God.
In fact, the sciences and the mental disciplines are both nothing more or less than systems of observation and inference, with similar mechanisms for making sure the inferences are sound. So to say "Science is reliable" but "philosophy is unreliable" is inconsistent; their methods are actually pretty similar.
Phil - your capacity to ignore the paucity of ANY worthwhile contributions recently from the arts astounds me. There have been NO significant advances in philosophy since William James' pragmatism; NO notable musical achievemens since Gershwin; NO literary advances since Hemingway; and NO theological advances since, since, well, there is nothing new under the sun. Science on the other hand is advancing the frontiers of human knowledge daily. Get a grip, Phil, you reside in a dead zone.
I'm kinda with Phil on this one. Robert are you aware of all the chaotic areas of science? Probably. When we have data being directed by assumptions piled on top of biases.
It then becomes factual when given the literary stamp of approval by Peer Review (for a fee of course._)
I'm more interested in discussing Satan. Maybe this is all relative. :D
Robert wrote: "Phil - your capacity to ignore the paucity of ANY worthwhile contributions recently from the arts astounds me. There have been NO significant advances in philosophy since William James' pragmatism;..."Good Lord. Barth never existed. Neither did Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr or Kierkegaard. The Pentecostal movement never occurred. The Charismatic Renewal never occurred. There was no John Wimber. There's no Joshua Bell, no Yo-yo Ma, no Chris Thile, no Bela Fleck, no Beverly Sills. Alvin Plantinga has not revived the Ontological Argument, William Craig has not revived the Cosmological Argument...
Meanwhile, more and more scientists are assuring us that something really can come from nothing (so we really can spin straw into gold, I suppose,) scientists are getting other scientists fired for daring to point out how microbiology has made evolution untenable, scientists have put portable, biological weapons into the hands of Islamic radicals, a bunch of Progressives wearing lab coats are still trying literally to take over the world, Pinkey-and-the-Brain-style, because of junk science predicting that a trace gas in the atmosphere is going to bring the world to an end ...
The simple fact, Robert, is that the West is in serious decline in ALL arenas, including the sciences. But that does not mean that there are not positive achievements in all arenas. You're just laying your preconceptions over the facts, and seeing exactly what you expected to see.
But your manner of saying so...
I'm trying to reconcile myself to the fact that I'm going to encounter blithering, raging assholes everywhere I go. And I'm not saying that I'm not one of those on far too many occasions. But Robert, you're something new in the category. I seldom meet an asshole so completely vicious and obnoxious as you -- and you claim to be Christian. Well, I'm not saying that you're not, but like all the other assholes out here, you know about half as much as you think you do, you have nothing useful to say, and you don't seem capable of a pleasant word.
You probably should stop preaching the gospel, and go get help. I'm not kidding, and I'm not trying to be mean; I'm completely serious. I suspect you're doing a lot more harm than good. I'll believe otherwise when you manage a civil conversation. I haven't seen you come close yet.
Maybe it's time to read Peter's book about learning to disagree without being disagreeable. I just got my copy.
Oh, one more thing, Robert: Your latest avalanche of insults simply did not respond to anything in the conversation at all. I was talking about the INHERENT, LOGICALLY NECESSARY presence of philosophical assumptions in the sciences, regardless of which era. So you weren't just wrong, and you weren't just insulting; you were changing the subject for no reason.
{shakes head, wanders away muttering...}
Phil - are you always this much of a crybaby? I'm sorry debating a tough man brings you to tears, but you can always go to the soft Christian boards where the sympathetic women hang and bawl at them.
Rod - I know you're in the 6000 year young earth camp and distrust any science that might dispute that position. While some science is indeed "silly science", most is not and, given the overwhelming evidence, I contend the universe is 14.5 billion years old, and the earth 4.5 billion. Adam and Eve were at about 6 million years ago, Noah 4 billion. By 6000 years ago, 99% of the organisms now inevidence on earth were present.
And one more thing, Phil - all the people you pointed out are little leaguers with minimal influence except on the weak of mind. ALL notable progress in the last 75 years has been in science and technology. ALL other fields have stagnated or regressed.
I distrust alot of science on both sides Robert. I generally don't trust people. I barely trust myself. But when all the atheists in the world agree on something: I tend to support the opposite (after looking into it.)
Rod - because I'm right in the belly of the atheistic beast, curiously, I'm able to completely ignore it. Scientists SHOULD start out thinking everything in the physical world has natural causes waiting to be discovered. That's a perfectly valid starting point. But when no law of physics covers their data set, nor is one likely to appear, then the wise look elsewhere.That is what I have done, and concluded there is an external force above natural law at work. Faith tells me that force is God, and more Faith brought me Jesus, and further Faith tells me the Bible is inerrant. What I'm able to do, perhaps because I'm much like you, a born skeptic who doesn't trust or even much like people, is separate the science from the scientists. That allows me to evaluate it for what its worth. Physics, chemistry, genetics,and microbiology as SCIENCES are trustworthy - but don't trust any atheistic writer about them! Parts of evolution can be maintained but not the whole. Ecology and environmental science are totally worthless and belong in the hopeless Arts arena.
Do you trust the account of Adam & Eve Robert? What age were they physically on day 1? Should we apply science to this (just for the wise) and add 25 years just for logic? Or should we trust God: that he made them and breathed life into them?!Now do the same thing with the planet and universe.
I realize that you stated Ecology and environmental sciences are worthless - yet you are not a young earth believer? I'm trying to figure out where you start and finish.
I'm just curious what your stand is: since i'm apparently the only Young Earth creationist here. Anyone else?
Yes, Rod as I've stated elsewhere I believe in Adam & Eve (inerrant Bible) and don't know what age they were when God created them, but young enough to have children (probably a lot more than Scripture mentions). That's one area where evolution is in error. What do ecology and environment science have to do with a Young Earth? That's in the astrophysics (good science with the usual caveat it's primarily Godless) domain. Yes, you may be the only Young Earth creationist here, but at least you're not w-a-y out there with the flat earthers!
lol. If Rod isn't w-a-y out there with the flat earthers, then he isn't w-a-y out there with the Bible. Its writers included a few flat earthers.
I have yet to meet a flat-earther. I have met internet jokesters who chose that for comic relief. (pretty funny actually.)I have believed in an old Earth and a young Earth over the last few decades. But the science i've read has caused me to defend a young earth. The more I learn about dating methods and assumed science the more I trust the Bible. And this is just going by numbers.
Lee - that's why the Bible doesn't make much of a science book. But contrary to your observation, it's still inerrant in all it's important dictates. The historical and scientific flubs you take great pains to point out are just trivial pursuit from a nonbeliever tasked with undermining the Word of God.
Rod - I have never for one moment questioned your Faith, which seems exceptionally strong. I don't think the earth's age is of critical concern for a non-scientist so I'm not going to lather up into "proof" mode. I have a book coming out which is at the confluence of science/religion therefore, it's vitally important for me to assimilate a wealth of facts from a multitude of sources. This all points to an old earth, but you must assume my inherent biases, even in my sourcebooks.
You should be smarter than that Lee. Haven't you learned to read the bible properly yet? Remember:The poetic parts are poetic
the historical parts are historical
the wisdom parts are for wisdom
the visions are indeed visions
Are you still trying to make the poetic parts historical and visionary? (or is it the other way around?) Remember: context...
The Bible is not here to teach us science. WE just need to read it carefully.
Robert quote:"Rod - I have never for one moment questioned your Faith..."
I'm always greatful that you're here and willing to converse about all sorts of nasty topics. I think your faith is on the right track. I just enjoy digging through people's beliefs because that does help me to carefully critique mine.
I agree: our universe does look and act old. But there's some pieces missing for that to be true. The same applies to the human race.
Back to the core of this discussion: If there's a Satan? Has he not been influencing science and scientists for thousands of years? We cannot have a logical discussion of a religious worldview with properly positioning Satan and demons throughout human existence. We sure know he's busy in the church and religious community - I bet he's busy in the lab as well.
But I don't claim it's a conspiracy - just very atheistic ambition that see's what it REALLY WANTS TO SEE>
I look for danger signs in people's posts. This usually only takes a few minutes. Although the problem with academics is you have to read through tons of crap to find out if they have a heart or not...often it's only a head. (an actual heart would put and end to some of that chatty nonsense. but not always)
Posts like this concern me.
Phil quote:
"We who follow Christ are tasked with bringing God's rule to this world. We're invaders, overthrowing the dominion of the devil and replacing it with the kingdom of God"
The Bible says this world is going to get nasty. We won't really be over-throwing anything until Jesus officially comes back. WE can't even deal with the G.L.B.T. issue - we are losing just about every battle.
But we will be winning a few souls.
So as a poetic statement Phil's comment was awesome. But Biblically it's a little dangerous and may cause us to fight the wrong war. (remember the crusades anyone?)
The only person replacing Satan's Kingdom is Jesus. According to the Bible Satan has alot more work to do.