Protestantism

» Migisi - Clarification (response to Pink)

In response to Clarification (response to Pink) posted by pink101:

.
I let my memberships lapse long ago.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Clarification (response to Pink)

In response to Clarification (response to Pink) posted by Migisi:

.
Me, too.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Group-think

I can only speak for myself, but there is a serious misconception that Pink especially keeps floating out there. I will grant that many Christians engage in group-think (and so do many adherents in ALL the world's religions), and I appreciate Migisi and Pink saluting the exploration of ideas.

HOWEVER...what's often missing here is an acknowledgment that many brilliant thinkers - people have engaged in exactly the kind of dynamic, deeply intellectual thought that is being heralded - have come to the conclusion that Christianity is TRUE! Or at least that Judeo-Christian monotheism is true.

Now, before Migisi jumps on that and says "What about those who come to the conclusion that it isn't true?" -- let me say that I'm NOT citing the above as proof for Christianity. I'm citing it as proof that believing Christians who hold to the Word of God need not turn their brains off and engage in "group-think."

I'm not saying I have a great mind, but - in bringing this back around and speaking for myself - I can say that I am a Christian today, because of where my spiritual AND intellectual journey has taken me. Not because I was told to believe in Christ or I've been pressured to believe in Christ.

It's time some of the folks here stop implying or outright saying that agnostics, skeptics, and liberal thinkers have the corner on or some kind of monopoly on rational, explorative thought. It's just not the case.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Wrong, Migisi

In response to Clarification (response to Pink) posted by Migisi:

Without the Book, you have no Jesus Christ

Okay, this is where YOU - not me - fall prey to a very superficial either/or paradigm. For all the talk you and Pink celebrate about open-minded, rational thinking, this does NOT reflect it.

A rational, intelligent person can choose to reject the Bible as being the "Revealed Word of God," but - follow me here - that does NOT mean you throw the Bible in the garbage can.

YOU, Migisi, seem to taking the position that the Bible is either the "Revealed Word of God" or it's worth nothing. Pink, you haven't gone that far - but you float back toward that position occasionally.

At the very least, an intelligent, rational person HAS TO ACCEPT the books of the Bible as being ancient historical documents of at least SOME value.

The Gospel of Luke, for example, names both Augustus and Tiberius as emperors of the Roman Empire. No ancient historian has taken exception to that.

All of the books of the Bible contain references to historical places, people, events, etc. -- and MANY of those references have been affirmed by other historical records or by archaeology.

Now, again, Migisi, do NOT GET AHEAD OF ME. I'm not arguing for biblical innerancy or perfection here. Don't come back with supposed biblical errors. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that there are - at the least - disputed 'facts' in the Bible which many regard as errors. Fine. This may (and if the errors are indeed errors, does) reflect against the Bible as the "Revealed Word of God," but it does NOT completely discredit the Bible (or the books of the Bible) as a historical record.

I say all that to say this --- the overwhelming majority of ancient historians accept the basic highlights of Jesus' life and many (though not all) of the historical events recorded in the New Testament.

So....a person CAN believe in Jesus Christ, and yet also believe there are some problems, errors, etc. with the Bible.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Evidence for Creation

Following up my last thread and bringing this back toward the topic of Creation....

Let's take the historical accounts of ALL the ancient civilizations as they pertain to the Creation. What do they all have in common - the ones preserved down through the ages, that is????

The answer is that they all claim a supernatural driving force behind the creation of the world.

This, therefore, proves that the ancient world almost universally attributed the creation of the world to a supernatural force of some kind.

Some of you may not regard that as strong evidence for a Creator, but I think it is. Follow me here....

Belief in a supernatural Creative Force (of some kind) goes back to the very dawn of human history!!!!

One of the biggest misconceptions about early human history is that the people were dumb and primitive. Well, one look at the wonders of the Pyramids (as but one example) should dispel that myth. Ancient peoples were not stupid, and they were CLOSER TO THE BEGINNING than we are.

They have some credibility to tell us how things began - that we don't have. Now, obviously, we can't just take what they say at face value. But you can look at ALL the ancient accounts - and then study them for commonalities.

What's that commonality? Answer: a supernatural, creative force of some kind brought about the world and all life.

When you take that and then combine it with some of the philosophical arguments that have been made for Creation or Intelligent Design at this site, you have the makings for a powerful argument for Creation - and against wholly naturalistic (meaning atheistic) evolution.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Evidence For Creation of The Self

In response to Group-think posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You called it Group-Think.
.
Well, I guess we could approach this subject in a scientific sense. That is, Brian, if you will allow it.
.
But, without going into a lot of scientific jargon, we can say that human beings exist in groups. We are who we are because of our relationship to the various groups to which we belong.
.
The process begins when we are yet infants when we are introduced to such primitive things as baby talk and cooing and cuddling. And, through the process, we learn that we have a self that is growing inside of us.
.
Then we begin the child's play when we are all alone by ourself when we take on the role of a parent and child--maybe we have pet or a teddy bear that we give some life to in our childhood imagination. We carry on conversations with them and learn the art of talking to our self--an art we continue with throughout our entire lifetime.
.
But, the groups to which we belong help us identify who it is that we are in a very real sense. We learn the rules just like we learned the rules of playground baseball. We knew the role we played and we knew the roles the rest of the kids played; catcher, pitcher, first, second, third base, short stop, fielders, and batters. We had to know all the roles so we could carry ours out. Some of us were better at it than others. Baseball was a good game to learn as it taught us about the bigger games we would be playing as we went out into life.
.
If we dedicate ourself to the group, then we allow the group's rules to be applied to the role we're playing if it's first base or if its choir director. If the group to which we have dedicated our life is that of Evangelical Christianity, then we play the role that is assigned to us. To know all the rules and we play by them. It isn't childhood play anymore--it's real adult living.
.
The group to which we belong has a scientific name--the Generalized Other.
.
Have you heard of it?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Wrong, Migisi

In response to Wrong, Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:

.
So....a person CAN believe in Jesus Christ, and yet also believe there are some problems, errors, etc. with the Bible.
.
Dear Brian, you can believe in whomever and whatever you like, and hold fast to ideas taken from any flawed and problematic book you choose.

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Generalized Other

In response to Evidence For Creation of The Self posted by pink101:

Pink, I'm familiar with the points you're making, thought I'm only vaguely aware of the specific term "Generalized Other." Feel free to continue.

My initial reaction to this, though, is that you're taking a valid point and extending it beyond what is necessary. An individual is still an individual - and has the capacity to step outside of his/her social fabric and/or dynamic and examine his/her perspective at least semi-objectively.

I grew up in the fundamentalist sub-culture that I've heard you talk about. One of the reasons I feel we 'click' is that you and I share a similar childhood heritage. And even though you're older than me, the Independent Fundamentalist Landmark Baptist sub-culture hasn't changed all that much is the last 30-40 years. So, I know it well - as do you. And through my teen years, I had to spread my wings and grow out of it. (I was helped by my dad who, though he and my mom raised me in it, he taught me to NOT just accept everything I heard at face-value).

In my 20s, I went through some deep soul-searching that took me out of that sub-culture. And then in my early 30s, I went through another period of deep doubt and questioning that caused me to question the whole enchilada - evangelical Christianity itself.

So, I am a Christian today - NOT because of some group dynamic where I've been assigned a part to play, but because of an INDIVIDUAL choice that I've made.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - True, Migisi

In response to Wrong, Migisi posted by Migisi:

Yes, Migisi. But what I'm getting at is more significant than the credit you're giving it.

There's a Christian apologist who I think even you would respect. His name is Gary Habermas, and he has written extensively on this subject. He takes a respectful attitude toward skeptics of Christianity and the Bible, and yet lays out a very evidence-based, logical, and methodical case for Christianity -taking it step by step.

I encourage you to read more of Habermas.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Generalized Other

In response to Generalized Other posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I am a Christian today - NOT because of some group dynamic where I've been assigned a part to play, but because of an INDIVIDUAL choice that I've made.
.
Certainly--and I am the person I am because of the individual choices I have made. That's as concise a way of defining existential thought by example as can be. We are the sum total of our choices.
.
That is a big part of my approach to life. God, when he tells Abraham he is that which he is becoming makes the same point.
.
In another thread, you used the term, group-think, in response to something I had written. The generalized other really isn't group-think; but, it is similar. The idea comes out of the writings of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). It deals with how we get and build our self and conscience in relation to the society in which we exist and interact. We play to each other--it's where we find our morality and the rules we use in our day to day experiences. Sort of a "birds of a feather that flock together" in the biblical sense. The people we identify with--they are our generalized other. You can put it in your search engine and will get more information than you can read in a single sitting.
.
We still are responsible to make our own decisions even though we judge what we do based on the generalized other--an unspoken consensus? Maybe; but, not quite.
.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/mead.h...

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds