tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post2069830784709758360..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Inbox: Qman Asks the $64,000 QuestionDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-1453049421604115302014-09-01T09:45:52.253-04:002014-09-01T09:45:52.253-04:00Thanks, Micah.
I agree that the Neo-Calvinism t...Thanks, Micah. <br /><br />I agree that the Neo-Calvinism that seems to be breaking out in the evangelical community today is a problem on a whole bunch of levels. I don't think you're wrong to be concerned. But feel encouraged: we know that good doctrine has behind it the authority of the Lord Himself. We shall not be defeated. <br /><br />"The game ain't over yet."Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-22877099979190462342014-08-31T22:48:20.889-04:002014-08-31T22:48:20.889-04:00Micah, I can totally relate to the disobedient/hum...Micah, I can totally relate to the disobedient/humbled thing. No apology required. Nice to hear from you and thanks much for the encouragement.<br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-12885940692402598382014-08-31T12:23:58.242-04:002014-08-31T12:23:58.242-04:00I also appreciate this blog and get much spiritual...I also appreciate this blog and get much spiritual food from the posts by the two hosts, Tom and IC. I was somewhat aggressive with my initial comments on the subject of Calvinism and I apologize if I was taken as disrespectful or overtly argumentative.<br /><br />I've spent most of my 52 years being disobedient to God's call for my life. He's mainly asked me to be obedient to His Word and share His Son's saving grace with others. I've failed at that in the past, but intend to be obedient to His will in my life in the future.<br /><br />I get excited and agitated simultaneously when the Word of God is used, for example like Calvin uses it, to try and prove an idea instead of letting the Word speak truth spiritually and logically. This "doomed from womb" and "totally depraved" theology is directly from the enemy. There isn't even a doubt in my mind it's Satan's attempt to obstruct understanding of what Jesus came as a God/Man to accomplish. The "whosoever" may believe that is spoken about in John 3:16 cannot be twisted to mean a predetermined percentage of the population and still be considered Godly teaching. Likewise, suggesting that we are conceived into depravity and doomed before we ever reach the age of knowing what sin and having the ability to commit it is ludicrous. Depraved (evil, perverted) people are supposed to be the creative, loving and possibly Christian population? Really?<br /><br />Sorry I went off there, what I wanted to say is thanks for this blog and keep up the good work. God bless you.Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-44009690533116499982014-08-29T09:58:59.141-04:002014-08-29T09:58:59.141-04:00Very astute.
The call, of course, is always there...Very astute.<br /><br />The call, of course, is always there...we have been fully informed of what God expects of us, and the door is open wide for us to do it. But sometimes no one's answering. There can be many reasons. Hard-heartedness is one, but you list several others that I think are just as probable in individual cases. But so long as we are not orienting our lives to the truth, namely that God does actually exist and is actually calling us to receive His Son and enter into relationship with him, our lives do remain in confusion. And what else should we expect, if a person is in denial of the fundamental fact in the whole universe? Frankly, it would be less problematic for their thinking and living if they chose instead to deny the Law of Gravity. Unrealism always has its punishments.<br /><br />I have found that many, many so-called "atheists" today are atheists-by-default. That is, they have some vague notion that "smart people" or "scientists," or even "everybody with sense" is a thing called an "atheist," and that this marvellous ideology delivers one forever from the difficult business of having to think about God (along with the other preliminaries like fear, guilt, uncertainty, sorrow, admission of guilt...). So they buy in at a completely unintelligent level. They declare themselves "atheists," meaning only "I've chosen not to think about all that." I would say that described 80% of the atheists I meet.<br /><br />A much smaller number does that at first, but then doesn't leave it there. They bolster their confidence afterward by reading the old atheists (Hume, Nietzsche, Russell...) or more likely the more trivial new ones (Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson...), or more likely still, a few websites. They may stock up a small arsenal of cliche critiques of Theism (the Euthyphro Problem, the Marxist angle...) and they feel set for life. But like the first group. what they really want is never, never, never to have to think about it again, to feel any anxiety about their spiritual state. <br /><br />The fear and resentment that drives their atheism makes them very poor partners in a rational discussion, but particularly when they're in a self-reinfocing mass. The things they offer are usually not "conversation openers" at all, but rather "question closers" designed to allow them to shut off thought with a triumphant "So there!" But they're secretly just avoiding; and that is precisely why, when their little quiver of arrows is all shot they immediately resort to rudeness, name-calling, posing, vile suggestions and blasphemy -- because the real point is to *shut down* discussion and *end* the questioning, so any tactic at all that succeeds in doing that will do.<br /><br />Actually, I sympathize with the terror that is driving them. I suspect they all know at some level that atheism is deeply irrational. (That's not hard to show, of course). I would like very much to have a sincere conversation with them. But to talk to a bunch of them, all at once, in any open forum never seems to be a recipe for good conversation, since they are all so determined *not* to pursue the subject with any sincerity.<br /><br />I think of Paul here: he was fearless and completely open to debate anyone at the Areopagus: but when his opponents just began to blaspheme (Acts 13:45) he simply refused to go further with them -- not because he was defeated, but because they were insulting the holy -- and to provide anyone a forum for that is wrong.<br /><br />Any solution to that dilemma is welcome.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-31334849223022127362014-08-29T00:01:56.054-04:002014-08-29T00:01:56.054-04:00Thanks for the explanations. I know firsthand what...Thanks for the explanations. I know firsthand what you are referring to with regard to the trolls, having gone through that myself. My interest in participating in these venues came after watching some video debates between John Lennox, the religious British Oxford mathematician and Philosopher, and some popular atheists. I was impressed by his tremendous skill in defending Christianity and laying bare the shortcomings in the arguments of his opponents. I therefore got interested in the philosophical argument as a tool of logic to expound the argument for the existence of, and the belief in, God and the consequent reality of the supernatural. When pursuing this interest via debates in a philosophy forum, the trolls indeed came out of the woodwork and it eventually became clear that one might as well talk to a brick wall since no argument, logical or otherwise, would ever be able to change their mindset. They, as mentioned above, were simply there to obfuscate, distract, mislead, misdirect regarding topics critical of atheism and agnosticism. Since they themselves could not offer logically convincing arguments the discussion was usually futile, often became shrill and needed to be abandoned.<br /><br />I learned from this however, that it seems to be part of the human condition that one can get so set in ones way by habit, convenience, indifference, ill will, laziness, disinterest, priorities, flawed logic, etc., so that the idea of the supernatural, religious themes and teaching, simply cannot penetrate. At least it cannot unless there is a divine call and consequent intervention by a life event that forces the person's hand. <br /><br />In my opinion, it is one of those mysteries that divides humanity into seemingly irreconcilable camps dividing along lines that are necessary, like different talents, for the survival of humanity and camps that are indifferently or willfully tending towards the dissolution of religious and humane values. One can, of course, postulate that this is simply a consequence of The Fall, or, as the atheist would say, that it is really a non-issue.<br />Looking at the contemporary national and world scene suggests of course that the latter point is in error.<br /><br />So some topics here might be, what are the limitations of logic (and I do not mean the mathematical and scientific branches) in bringing about the desirable biblical qualities that society should possess, or is logic simply barren and powerless by itself to do that without being guided and accompanied by religious faith. Simply put, who are we, and why are we who we are, and why are we not able to change in who we should be, and whose definition of who we should be is valid in the first place? It's not that I am confused about these things {because I for one have a firm compass in Christ) but I see this confusion all around me for those without compass or using a nonworking instrument.Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-14866898744493628362014-08-28T00:18:20.003-04:002014-08-28T00:18:20.003-04:00I suppose I should speak for myself.
Yes, I am ...I suppose I should speak for myself. <br /><br />Yes, I am familiar with the rapid exchange format, and occasionally even weigh in when I see either a) an opportunity to be helpful, or b) an error so egregious and of such spiritual consequence that it quite simply cannot go unchallenged. But I try to be selective, since an immense amount of energy can be expended on a discussion that goes nowhere.<br /><br />As Tom points out, trolls are the problem. Far too many people (and atheism appears to generate many such) get thrills out of gleefully provoking sincere and respectful folks (Christians in particular) with excessive exhibitions of foulness and sacrilege. We have no need or desire to provide our audience as fodder for their hobby. We would wish for good conversation, not the sort of debased nonsense that so often passes for debate in many open forums.<br /><br />At the same time, I share Qman's interest in seeing *good* conversations advanced -- those that are fruitful and respectful -- I wouldn't much care if they were from supporters or from those opposed, nor would I be anxious about how difficult or perplexing the challenges put to us in such a forum could be. We would welcome them.<br /><br />I have no conclusion as to how to proceed. But I am thankful for the kindness of those who have been commenting both publicly and privately to us. If we can continue to be of service, we trust that by the Lord's grace we can continue to be here for you.<br /><br />And we'll keep working on how to increase your input and how to respond better to any special concerns, interests or needs you may have.<br /><br />Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-20182355597812043452014-08-27T23:53:08.600-04:002014-08-27T23:53:08.600-04:00For anyone unfamiliar with the forum concept, Qman...For anyone unfamiliar with the forum concept, Qman is referring to online discussion sites where people hold conversations in the form of posted messages. Immanuel Can still participates in forums, I think; I don't generally, though I used to way back in the '80s. Maybe I was in the wrong forums but I found they generated more heat than light. Like I say, could be just me.<br /><br />We haven't really thought about doing the forum thing here. For one thing, all three of our regulars work full time. You may have noticed that the amount of time it takes for your own comments to get posted has varied wildly. Sorry. We try to get right on it, but work, family and travel schedules limit our ability to do so. And that's with a comparatively small readership and a limited number of comments.<br /><br />A second source of reluctance I have with opening things up more is that considering the (occasionally) controversial nature of some of the topics we've discussed, the thought of moderating trolls and excessively vibrant commentary is something I find a bit daunting. And leaving things wide open in order to moderate 'after the fact', as some sites do, is more than I would expect some of our older and more gracious readers to put up with.<br /><br />For locating older posts via the writer's name, I've found the "Search this blog" box in the right column useful, though I must confess that when I have experimented with it I have noticed that (1) it is not always exhaustive (no idea why that would be); and (2) it doesn't show the relevant posts in date order. And as with most search tools, putting quotes around a search phrase is more accurate than simply typing in two or three words. But it doesn't sound like it's as effective a tool as what you describe.<br /><br />Too Hot to Handle on Fridays, as you say, is not a true forum concept either, but we are definitely always interested in suggestions for it, so fire away. And frankly, IC and I might well be interested in doing individual posts or even series if we know there are topics of interest to readers that happen to be in our wheelhouse(s).<br /><br />Thanks again for all the constructive feedback, Qman.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-62642789174034338232014-08-27T22:43:43.455-04:002014-08-27T22:43:43.455-04:00Thanks, that is definitely a $63920.- answer. Tell...Thanks, that is definitely a $63920.- answer. Tell you what, I'll add $202.35 for a total assessment of $64122.35 if you also answer these questions (if you think I should up that number, let me know :-). You explained the idea behind this site and the way it should operate, which I actually like, however, how does the format work? I am fairly new participating on the web in this fashion and was previously on a philosophy forum site. A forum format seems different then in that anyone could start a major topic or thread on which others then commented evolving the thread into a discussion of the topic at hand. A blog, as here, then lets you only comment on major threads started by the main blogger(s), founders, of the blogging site? I did see that you solicited suggestions from readers concerning material for a Friday lightning round to deal with a variety of topics, but that format would not be the same then as in a forum. Also, the forum I was on had the nice technical feature of allowing search for commenters' (participants') names, even using wildcard searches.<br /><br /><br />This may not be within the planned scope of this site and I would just like to get a better understanding concerning this.Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-56589417080321315712014-08-27T18:08:34.531-04:002014-08-27T18:08:34.531-04:00I'm right there (here?) with AJ "they are...I'm right there (here?) with AJ "they are so thought provoking and enlightening I rarely feel I can add any comments of value" and aside from saying "yes, that's a very good article" (mostly in my head but sometimes out loud - embarrassing in a coffee shop but I stand by my verbal outpourings) - I am more taking in then typing out. I will add when I think of something worthwhile, However, usually the topics I read are very well covered and answer my own questions already.<br />WiCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-10640921236489189482014-08-27T04:13:39.528-04:002014-08-27T04:13:39.528-04:00South African reader reporting in.
Thank you for ...South African reader reporting in. <br />Thank you for this blog, I really enjoy the posts, they are so thought provoking and enlightening I rarely feel I can add any comments of value. <br />The regular schedule makes it sometimes challenging to catch up if I've been offline for a couple of days, but once I'm up to date I eagerly await the next post.<br />May God bless you for the all the Wisdom and insight you share!AJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251131770744040682noreply@blogger.com