Posted on 11/01/2006 1:14:53 PM PST by cornelis
Edited on 11/01/2006 1:21:05 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
DERB & GODI really admired the candor and clarity of Derb's analysis of his relation to God over the years, and now. Quietly, beautifully, delicately done. His account was perfectly convincing, and rang quite true. His capacity for understated self-analysis is quite remarkable. At some points, he prompted me to certain counter-observations. If I could state those as well as he states his views, it might be worth continuing the conversation. Can't get back to this for about a week though — a very busy time, and then the excitement of the election next week.
One line of thought is that the default position for a great many Christians, and not only in our own time, is a sort of Deism, just below the level of explicitness. In other words, Derb is onto something quite real, and widespread. In a book on atheism which I reviewed some years ago, the author claimed that something like seventy percent (or more) of Americans who call themselves atheists in fact believe in some sort of impersonal god — in a kind of deism.
This may not be the God of Newton or Leibniz — not the God of the scientists — but it does have some kinship with the God of Cicero and others of the Latin and Greek "ancients." In other words, in a pre-modern sense, "the God of the philosophers." Still with a sense of mystery and awe, and that sort of inner communication between conscience and the divine which Derb says he catches glimpse of from time to time: the two "poles" of consciousness." I liked his analysis here very much.
So. Who is this dude and why should I care about his blather about God?
FYI
--b--
Anybody who can write sensibly about a topic should deserve respect.
I disagree. It is impossible for Christianity, correctly understood and lived, to make you a worse person.
What a nonsensical ramble.
The article is well written and easy to understand but it is not sensible.
I'll summarize what he said for those who don't want to read the whole thing.
Me...Me....Me
I doesn't lack all sensibility. A sensible critique of his views--hard to do!--is most welcome.
NR all began with Buckley's Man and God at Yale; now Buckley's left his mouse house to the mice and play they will.
A. No. I'm a bit miffed about this.
Although honest, this seems like a very selfish and childish response.
While brevity may be the soul of wit, wordy is the corpse of sincerity.
Even apart from nominal Christians, Derb is correct in part. There are those who are truly Christian but still have a long way to go. Christians should not be beyond the pale of criticism.
It is conceivable possible that someone become a Christian but misunderstand something because of their humanity and that this misunderstanding make them the worse for it. Although I disagree with Derbyshire, I think we can take a sober view of it.
Love can cast out fear.. the man has a love problem..
Good read.. thanks..
Christians should not be beyond the pale of criticism.
The Church always has room for one more hypocrite.
It is conceivable possible that someone become a Christian but misunderstand something because of their humanity and that this misunderstanding make them the worse for it.
Your statement doesn't undermine my point.
Isn't the me what christ died for to redeem and evangelicals are sent to doctor?
Good insight. That fear you describe is probably called pride. We all suffer from this, the worst of sins.
Pride can be an accessory cause in all our misconceptions but I would think a reasonable faith would answer directly to the misconceptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.