Posted on 01/03/2007 6:19:54 PM PST by shrinkermd
Thank you. Well said.
That's interesting. Thanks.
Atheists have different beliefs. Some are heavily informed by Christianity and Christian principles. These believe in right and wrong though they misunderstand the source. Others believe from a more pragmatic view in which right and wrong are defined by either "the greatest good for the greatest number"* or just what's best for themselves. Others try to define morality down to some kind of mathematical game theory. Many adopt a relativistic view in which what's right or wrong differs for each individual, often based on how they "feel" about things.
* Of course the "the greatest good for the greatest number" is not logically derivable from atheism but usually stems from Christian or Buddhist philosophies.
Not likely. Though they be "caricature-types", ten million of them repeating the teachings of the bible, ... "The Word of God", as they would call it, has proven to be a Juggernaut that has steamrolled through all history with an unswerving resolution; borne at different times by different groups, and, in this age, myriad, but at all times persisting.
The real reason Richard Dawson will not have a lasting influence is not large numbers of people but that God is on the other side. "but at all times persisting" is not some coincidence.
Otherwise known as "Paschal's Wager"
If I die and there's no God, I'll never suffer the pain of regret anyhow.
Atheists have been challenging Christians in this country for some time (and in Europe much longer, where they seem to currently have the upper hand). This is hardly something that is new, although they could be getting more frenetic as Creationism becomes more popular.
Aquinas treated intellect as s prerequisite of voluntary action -- intellect and will. The intellect is incorporeal and that which separates man from beast. Angels are purely intellectual substances that subsist in the spiritual realm and have no physical attributes. Man possesses intellect and will like the angels, but was created with a composite of matter and substance - the human body. The Aquinist would believe that the synapses is responding to the intellect, which desires only goodness (skewed though the object of that "goodness" might be). And that desire for goodness comes from man's desire to be like unto his creator, which would be God. Problem is, sin has perverted our intellectual perception of goodness, and we no longer attain to the ultimate goodness, which is God, but to self-gratification in every form.
Now, that aside, can anything exist which has not been created? Nothing just existed for eternity but God. Movement requires a mover, even with regard to the Big Bang theory, which the Church does not dismiss, since it could not take place of its own accord.
It all goes back to his stint on "Match Game". No one can take him seriously.
So you are saying it is very series?
Thank you for that source.
YOU know that, and I know that, but in a discussion with people who do not accept that, whereas it is nonetheless true, to assert it as such is little better than saying "it is because it is." For one who does not accept the existence of God in the first place, asserting that "X is because of God" is not a truth-claim that has traction. You've got to be wiser; you've got to step back from assigning a cause for X to simply pointing out the fact of X. In the example of the centuries-long persistence of "The Word of God", that's a pretty impressive X; taken by itself. Standing alone, it provokes further investigation. You've got to dangle your toes over the implcation that God is behind X without directly asserting so; leave room for the Holy Spirit to do His work; He does a better job than we do, anyway.
To put all of this another way, if someone is already predisposed to rejecting a cause that YOU know is resulting in X, asserting that cause directly is only a shortcut to their flat rejection of your known cause as the casue. Far from pointing them right by making the direct assertion, you've instigated an out-of-hand rejection that tends to cut them off from a closer examination of X; an examination that might give them a reason for much further thought on the matter. In essence you poison your own well.
It really comes down to the difference between pushing someone into something, and leading them into it. Pushing fosters resistance, indignation, rebellion, and a sense of antagonism that diametrically opposes you. LEADING, by contrast, promotes a spirit of cooperation, respect, mutuality, and a sense that you are trying to be helpful that aids your cause.
If your desire is to open people's eyes to the truth, then it is not enough to be accurately informed; you must also employ artful methods, and do so in an attractive manner. In this way, even when people walk away with their eyes still tightly shut, you can sleep at night knowing that it was nothing you said or did that prevented them from seeing.
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.