Spirituality
25 Feb 14
25 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry to disappoint, twhitehead. Does this comment meet with your approval?
This is actually not true. A fairly large percent of the things I believe are believed because I have been told them (or otherwise learned them) from someone I thought trustworthy on that particular item of information. Thats not quite the same thing as saying I thought that person was trustworthy.
If you think about all you have learn't from politicians ...[text shortened]... writing, clearly didn't think it through - or more likely, he deliberately set up this strawman.
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." C.S. Lewis
or
"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X." Calvin Freiburger
26 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNope. Once again, C.S. Lewis is not making sense. He incorrectly assumes that the only way a universal concept of justice can exist or be sensible is with the existence of God. There is simply no justification for such a claim.
Sorry to disappoint, twhitehead. Does this comment meet with your approval?
And secondly, his initial argument - that the world is cruel and unjust and therefore God does not exist, still stood at the end of the quote, he made no valid argument against it. His failed argument against it required as a presupposition that God does not exist, so if he re-instantiates God into the equation, the argument that God cannot exist is likewise re-instantiated - and not addressed.
26 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis is simply false. Its as stupid as claiming that "Absent an absolute mathematical authority, independent of fallible humans, 2+2=4 could not have a truth value."
"Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X." Calvin Freiburger
26 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadFor now, I'll cease and desist attempting to contribute to this thread. [did you notice 4 of 4 is posted in the Muslim thread?]
This is simply false. Its as stupid as claiming that "Absent an absolute mathematical authority, independent of fallible humans, 2+2=4 could not have a truth value."
26 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadC.S. Lewis did not assume it, he concluded it by using reason and logic, which you seem to lack.
Nope. Once again, C.S. Lewis is not making sense. He incorrectly assumes that the only way a universal concept of justice can exist or be sensible is with the existence of God. There is simply no justification for such a claim.
And secondly, his initial argument - that the world is cruel and unjust and therefore God does not exist, still stood at the end ...[text shortened]... he equation, the argument that God cannot exist is likewise re-instantiated - and not addressed.
26 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyCS Lewis may have been a prolific author, but I am not impressed by his apologetics writing so far.
"Don't be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you've been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I haven't seen it myself. I couldn't prove by abstract reasoning that there ...[text shortened]... n would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” -C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity
Yes, I believe there is a place called New York. But I don't have to take people's word that it exists. I can go there and see it for myself. I can do my own science experiments to test simple facts I am taught about, say, chemistry.
Anyone can perform these tests, and they will all get the same result if they do them the same way.
The same cannot be said for matters of theism. Everyone gets different results. We can't even agree on the question of god's existence.
27 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority -because the scientists say so.
Thanks so much for this quote, GB!
If scientists can be trusted on their description of the circulation of blood, etc, then why not believe their conclusion on evolution?
😛
27 Feb 14
Originally posted by CalJustEvolution is still controversial because some wish to include unproven theories of origin.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority -because the scientists say so.
Thanks so much for this quote, GB!
If scientists can be trusted on their description of the circulation of blood, etc, then why not believe their conclusion on evolution?
😛[/b]
27 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't see any controversial about evolution. The unproven details of evolution is not very important anyway.
Evolution is still controversial because some wish to include unproven theories of origin.
...if you don't feel insulted by me saying so.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Feb 14
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI realize this thread is on Authority and not the Trinity.
My attitude toward authority is a paraphrase of Thomas Paine.
Authority, at best, is but a necessary evil; at worst, an intolerable one.
I recognize the need for some authority. Children need a parent or guardian to guide them to maturity. Society needs a government that will handle the many details of maintaining infrastructure, defense, na ...[text shortened]... s carrying out grievous moral wrongs, with each link of the chain blaming it on the other links.
In the New Testament you have the Father in the Triune God as the emblem of perfect authority. But you have equally vital the Son of God, Jesus, as the emblem of perfect submission.
You have perfect authority and perfect submission. It does not get any more perfect in all the universe - the Father and the Son.
You also have mutual total vindication of both - the Father is glorified in the Son and the Son in the Father.
Perfect Authority is seen in the Father.
Perfect Submission is witnessed in the Son.
But this is not all. Then you have transmission of this harmony INTO man in the Holy Spirit.
Your thread has prompted me to point this out about the Trinity. In a universe that has gone somewhat haywire and collapsed into rebellion, chaos, and a heap of abuses and distortions of authority finally God manifests Himself.
The Father is unquestionably the ultimate authority of all being.
The Son is the manifestation of complete obedience to the Father.
The resurrection vindicates both Father and Son.
The exaltation and enthronement establishes the Son as man's Savior and Lord.
And the Holy Spirit imparts, transmits, flows out of God into man to bring this divine harmony and reality to humanity.
I know this thread is not on the Trinity. But the issue here is nicely revealed in what the Trinity manifests of God and God's eternal purpose. Perfect authority with perfect submission with the salvation of transmission of this harmony into man saving from rebellion, chaos, vanity, judgment, kidnapping (from the rebel Satan), and death into eternal life and divine glory.
27 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuoted him hoping you would read the quote. That's all.
Why? Are you not willing to defend C.S. Lewis? If not, why quote him in the first place?
[b][did you notice 4 of 4 is posted in the Muslim thread?]
Which is the 'Muslim thread'?[/b]
Thread 158085
27 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo why quote someone whose words you do not think make sense? Or is pasting walls of text the point as suggested in another thread?
Quoted him hoping you would read the quote. That's all.
I read the quote as you hoped. My respect for both C.S. Lewis and you went down. I responded to the quote. You refused to discuss it. My respect for you went down some more. Is this what you hoped? Or did you have some other aim in mind?