Sorry about that and thanks for the heads up concerning my last post. Argh. I’m still not sure what happened.

Anyway, I wanted to make a correction to what I wrote. I said there are two major tenants of the Christian faith, which is true in the fact that they are held unanimously throughout time by the Orthodox Catholic Christian Church, with few exceptions, and are built on quite strong Christian grounds. There is, however, at least a semi-unanimously agreed upon point that is a major tenant that must also be acknowledged, and that is that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived and died in our place on a cross in real time as a historical event, and finally, that he BODILY resurrected on the third day (which includes the Friday execution), which also must be regarded as a historical event. The area that there is a difference of opinion is the consequence of this series of HISTORICAL events to belivers and non-believers, and what (if anything) believers must do (or not do) to receive the benefits of this sacrifice (whatever those benefits may be). Thus the long-standing argument since the end of the Early Church era over what has been termed “the article of faith concerning Justification.” There is in this matter some wiggle room, with exception to saying his death did not cover our sins in some way as an atoning sacrifice.

I also wanted to finish what I was writing concerning Carrie being persuaded. In order for her to be persuaded, she would have to acknowledge that Naturalism is a system built on the logical fallacy of circular logic:

A) My experience of the world is that God does not exist and that everything happens through natural mechanisms.
B) Because this is true, any claim that there is a God and his interaction in history is to be seen as a myth,
C) Therefore we can see that it is clear that no God exists and everything happens through natural mechanisms;

and in order to do this she would have to begin trying to demonstrate Naturalism without (A) being in place (which is, should I note, an impossibility).

It is just as much the case that a Christian fundamentalist who begins with the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God (a bad presumption to build one’s faith on unless it is first proven to be as much) can never be persuaded to another ideaology until they conclude that the Bible is not the Word of God. Likewise, it is impossible to persuade a Muslim that Jihad and Allah are facades of the truth until their presumption concerning the Koran and the Hadith being the revelation of God is proven erroneous in their minds.

What concerns me about Carrie, however, is that the key event that seemed to dissuade her from believing the Bible is the Word of God was nothing short of the fact that she didn’t like the appearent sexism in the text. All she has said in this is that she finally decided her opinions of what God through was more important than God’s opinion of what she thought (or put more simply, she exalted herself to be the god of her own life as Adam and Eve did and as we all are tempted to do). The truth of the matter is, if she wants to always be able to judge God and not to be forced into the position (which is by nature the proper position if he is the Creator and she is the creature) of being judged by Him and genuinely repenting of her opinions, ideas, and thoughts knowing that His justice and ways are right, then she probably is not persuadable.

In truth, if God is the God of a person’s life, then the opinons of that person are only something that are either in agreeance with the Divine Will or counter to it and worthy of damnation because of the rebellion. It is likewise true with anything or anyone that is elevated to that position of being their god, whether they be idealogies or persons, including Naturalism. Naturalism is as much a god of hers as anything else, and so she bows her mind and will to its tenants just as an authentic Christian to Christ and God’s Word. We see this in history how one who bows to another ideaology can do so much destruction, as Hitler bowed to the Darwinian ideaology concerning races in Darwin’s “The Descent of Man,” in his efforts to move Evolution forward and so bring about the birth of the fittest race of all and so create the super-race.

Oh, one more final thought. My point concerning Baptism has everything to do with upon whom a Christian first relies to know they are saved. A person who relies on their own decision for Jesus, or some spiritual experience, or on their growth in good deeds to know they are saved is forced to first rely upon himself or herself. In other words, they must justify their decision for Jesus as being authentic and real, their spiritual experience as not something they created from within themselves, or that their deeds were actually sufficiently pure and right to be considered a truly good deed in the first place. And so, if one doubts oneself, one cannot then know that he/she is saved, but must logically despair or build up within oneself an arrogance to have confidence in such things. And, since one is moving from sinner to saint, the individual must presume that these things are at least in part tainted by the sinner, knowing that the sinner always likes to think himself a saint (e.g., the pharisees in Jesus’ day). In contrast, Baptism is something that happens from outside and has a promise attached to it, and it is an act of God working through his people and outside of one’s own self upon which it is not unwholly unreasonable to trust, because of the promise.

Okay, that’s all my babbling for now. I think I covered everything I intended to, though maybe not. Anyway, if I missed something, I’m sure someone will catch it soon – by accident or not.

In the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

Drew

Sorry about that and thanks for the heads up concerning my last post. Argh. I’m still not sure what happened.

Anyway, I wanted to make a correction to what I wrote. I said there are two major tenants of the Christian faith, which is true in the fact that they are held unanimously throughout time by the Orthodox Catholic Christian Church, with few exceptions, and are built on quite strong Christian grounds. There is, however, at least a semi-unanimously agreed upon point that is a major tenant that must also be acknowledged, and that is that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, lived and died in our place on a cross in real time as a historical event, and finally, that he BODILY resurrected on the third day (which includes the Friday execution), which also must be regarded as a historical event. The area that there is a difference of opinion is the consequence of this series of HISTORICAL events to belivers and non-believers, and what (if anything) believers must do (or not do) to receive the benefits of this sacrifice (whatever those benefits may be). Thus the long-standing argument since the end of the Early Church era over what has been termed “the article of faith concerning Justification.” There is in this matter some wiggle room, with exception to saying his death did not cover our sins in some way as an atoning sacrifice.

I also wanted to finish what I was writing concerning Carrie being persuaded. In order for her to be persuaded, she would have to acknowledge that Naturalism is a system built on the logical fallacy of circular logic:

A) My experience of the world is that God does not exist and that everything happens through natural mechanisms.
B) Because this is true, any claim that there is a God and his interaction in history is to be seen as a myth,
C) Therefore we can see that it is clear that no God exists and everything happens through natural mechanisms;

and in order to do this she would have to begin trying to demonstrate Naturalism without (A) being in place (which is, should I note, an impossibility).

It is just as much the case that a Christian fundamentalist who begins with the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God (a bad presumption to build one’s faith on unless it is first proven to be as much) can never be persuaded to another ideaology until they conclude that the Bible is not the Word of God. Likewise, it is impossible to persuade a Muslim that Jihad and Allah are facades of the truth until their presumption concerning the Koran and the Hadith being the revelation of God is proven erroneous in their minds.

What concerns me about Carrie, however, is that the key event that seemed to dissuade her from believing the Bible is the Word of God was nothing short of the fact that she didn’t like the appearent sexism in the text. All she has said in this is that she finally decided her opinions of what God through was more important than God’s opinion of what she thought (or put more simply, she exalted herself to be the god of her own life as Adam and Eve did and as we all are tempted to do). The truth of the matter is, if she wants to always be able to judge God and not to be forced into the position (which is by nature the proper position if he is the Creator and she is the creature) of being judged by Him and genuinely repenting of her opinions, ideas, and thoughts knowing that His justice and ways are right, then she probably is not persuadable.

In truth, if God is the God of a person’s life, then the opinons of that person are only something that are either in agreeance with the Divine Will or counter to it and worthy of damnation because of the rebellion. It is likewise true with anything or anyone that is elevated to that position of being their god, whether they be idealogies or persons, including Naturalism. Naturalism is as much a god of hers as anything else, and so she bows her mind and will to its tenants just as an authentic Christian to Christ and God’s Word. We see this in history how one who bows to another ideaology can do so much destruction, as Hitler bowed to the Darwinian ideaology concerning races in Darwin’s “The Descent of Man,” in his efforts to move Evolution forward and so bring about the birth of the fittest race of all and so create the super-race.

Oh, one more final thought. My point concerning Baptism has everything to do with upon whom a Christian first relies to know they are saved. A person who relies on their own decision for Jesus, or some spiritual experience, or on their growth in good deeds to know they are saved is forced to first rely upon himself or herself. In other words, they must justify their decision for Jesus as being authentic and real, their spiritual experience as not something they created from within themselves, or that their deeds were actually sufficiently pure and right to be considered a truly good deed in the first place. And so, if one doubts oneself, one cannot then know that he/she is saved, but must logically despair or build up within oneself an arrogance to have confidence in such things. And, since one is moving from sinner to saint, the individual must presume that these things are at least in part tainted by the sinner, knowing that the sinner always likes to think himself a saint (e.g., the pharisees in Jesus’ day). In contrast, Baptism is something that happens from outside and has a promise attached to it, and it is an act of God working through his people and outside of one’s own self upon which it is not unwholly unreasonable to trust, because of the promise.

Okay, that’s all my babbling for now. I think I covered everything I intended to, though maybe not. Anyway, if I missed something, I’m sure someone will catch it soon – by accident or not.

In the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

Drew

First, when I said that in order to believe naturalism you had to presume it, I was simply noting a reality which is equally true of defending Christianity with the Bible. However, there is a slight difference. While the Naturalist is presuming there is no god and then goes about looking at the world in this way and then from that concludes there is no god (patently circular logic), the Christian can confirm or disconfirm the Bible based on History. And also, to compare a system of thought with logic, the fundamental definition of thought, is an egotistical statement in itself. I could say that saying that defending Christianity with the Bible is like saying you are defending Christianity with basic logic, but then where would that get us?

Logic is itself the inherent rules of thought that are built on the definition of a contradiction (from either Aristotle of Plato): “a cannot be b and not b at the same time in the exact same relationship/way [the Greek is a bit difficult to translate here],” I’m sure carrie knows this, or her philosophy degree isn’t worth much.

Naturalism is a world-view (as Christianity is). The only problem is, not all world-views follow logic, and in fact, in order to be maintained, but be built on pseudo-logic that is inherently circular. A circular position is one that presumes the conclusion before it begins. For example, to say

A) that since I do not see miracles in the world, therefore miracles do not happen, therefore
B) your claim that a miracle has occurred is not true, since miracles do not happen, and therefore
C) this is just more proof that miracles do not happen and never have.

(I will also note that I have in the past demonstrated that EVERY form of Christianity except for Lutheranism has for sure at least one fundamental position built upon circular logic. That is part of the reason I am a Lutheran, after all. But that is for another time.)

Moving on, the chief problem of Naturalism is that it is in itself a patently negative statement that says essentially,

“there is no god or higher intelligence.” In order to prove such a thesis, one would have to show that every claim in the past and in the future of any god interfering in the world was a facade, from prehistoric man to man 100x billion years from now. It is actually an impossible thesis to even work with, because any single event in history being true (like any miracle of any kind) would prove the existance of a god or god-like person.

As to my “ego,” I don’t know what she is stating. Anyone can claim to be anything they want, and anyone can label someone else anything they want, but it doesn’t thereby make the label applicable. A word is correctly used if and only if the definition matches the term being used. In the case of the term Christian, there are two concepts that have to be believed normally to be classified as such: the teaching of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ is the only-begotten, eternal Son of the Father in the flesh) and the Holy Trinity (Three persons in the essence of God and God in the essence of those Three persons from all eternity). The label is thereby misused when it is applied to a person who has rejected one of these two fundamental teachings. In fact, if Carrie here had been part of a larger group, that group would have by definition been what a cult is to my understanding:
“any group who identifies themselves with a particular major religion yet rejects one of its fundamental tenants.”

Also, to note, in order for Carrie to be able to be persuaded, she would have to acknowledge that

First, when I said that in order to believe naturalism you had to presume it, I was simply noting a reality which is equally true of defending Christianity with the Bible. However, there is a slight difference. While the Naturalist is presuming there is no god and then goes about looking at the world in this way and then from that concludes there is no god (patently circular logic), the Christian can confirm or disconfirm the Bible based on History. And also, to compare a system of thought with logic, the fundamental definition of thought, is an egotistical statement in itself. I could say that saying that defending Christianity with the Bible is like saying you are defending Christianity with basic logic, but then where would that get us?

Logic is itself the inherent rules of thought that are built on the definition of a contradiction (from either Aristotle of Plato): “a cannot be b and not b at the same time in the exact same relationship/way [the Greek is a bit difficult to translate here],” I’m sure carrie knows this, or her philosophy degree isn’t worth much.

Naturalism is a world-view (as Christianity is). The only problem is, not all world-views follow logic, and in fact, in order to be maintained, but be built on pseudo-logic that is inherently circular. A circular position is one that presumes the conclusion before it begins. For example, to say

A) that since I do not see miracles in the world, therefore miracles do not happen, therefore
B) your claim that a miracle has occurred is not true, since miracles do not happen, and therefore
C) this is just more proof that miracles do not happen and never have.

(I will also note that I have in the past demonstrated that EVERY form of Christianity except for Lutheranism has for sure at least one fundamental position built upon circular logic. That is part of the reason I am a Lutheran, after all. But that is for another time.)

Moving on, the chief problem of Naturalism is that it is in itself a patently negative statement that says essentially,

“there is no god or higher intelligence.” In order to prove such a thesis, one would have to show that every claim in the past and in the future of any god interfering in the world was a facade, from prehistoric man to man 100x billion years from now. It is actually an impossible thesis to even work with, because any single event in history being true (like any miracle of any kind) would prove the existance of a god or god-like person.

As to my “ego,” I don’t know what she is stating. Anyone can claim to be anything they want, and anyone can label someone else anything they want, but it doesn’t thereby make the label applicable. A word is correctly used if and only if the definition matches the term being used. In the case of the term Christian, there are two concepts that have to be believed normally to be classified as such: the teaching of the Incarnation (Jesus Christ is the only-begotten, eternal Son of the Father in the flesh) and the Holy Trinity (Three persons in the essence of God and God in the essence of those Three persons from all eternity). The label is thereby misused when it is applied to a person who has rejected one of these two fundamental teachings. In fact, if Carrie here had been part of a larger group, that group would have by definition been what a cult is to my understanding:
“any group who identifies themselves with a particular major religion yet rejects one of its fundamental tenants.”

Also, to note, in order for Carrie to be able to be persuaded, she would have to acknowledge that