Tax Time
How do you think the average unbeliever in our nation would react if the Federal or Provincial government announced that they were seriously considering passing a law that would make it mandatory for everyone to financially support Christian education? Are you kidding! You and I both know that the response would be something akin to revolution in the streets. People would fight ferociously against the very idea of this law. Why should they have to pay for an education system that propagates a belief system that they do not hold to? They would view a law like this as a violation against their rights as Canadian citizens.
One woman who spoke against the government funding of religious education said this, “Is it fair to expect the taxpayer to subsidize a belief system in which they may or may not believe?” To this we must answer, no it is not fair to force people to support an education system that teaches a view of reality that differs from their own. But we must also teach that what is good for the goose is good for the gander! If the unbeliever’s hard earned tax dollars should not have to support my religious Christian education system then my hard earned tax dollars should not be required to support his religious humanistic education system. We as Christians have been deceived for too long. We have been told for so long that the public school system is neutral, that many have actually come to believe it.
Adolph Hitler, in speaking about propaganda said that if you say something loud enough and long enough you can have the masses believing that heaven is hell and hell is heaven. May we not fall for the constant stream of propaganda that is being fed to us about the public school system and its ‘supposed’ neutrality. Both Christian and Public education have clear teachings about the universe we live in. Neither of these teachings is neutral and both oppose one another. Christianity teaches that God is the Creator of all things and therefore is the highest authority in the universe. It teaches that all things must be understood in the light of God’s existence, as revealed through the Holy Scriptures.
The Humanistic teachings in the public school deny the existence of God by propagating the teaching of evolution. It teaches that man is the highest being in the universe and is therefore the final authority in all matters of life.
Christians need to wake up and smell the coffee. We can not view the Public education system as neutral just because it says it is. It is a system that is hostile towards the teachings of the Bible, from start [creation] to finish [second return of Christ and judgment day]. Humanist’s may deny being religious but in reality hold just as tenaciously or ‘religiously’ to their outlook on reality [atheistic] as Christian’s do theirs [theistic]. For this reason Christians should view Humanism as they would any other false religious system. Unfortunately it is easy to see that this is not the case with many Christians today. They would be horrified if someone were to suggest that they were to teach the false doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at one of their Bible camps for the summer because they could not in clear conscience teach doctrines that were against the Bible. They would be equally horrified if someone were to suggest that their children should go to these same camps to learn their anti-biblical teachings and way of life. But amazingly enough these same Christians will teach in a Public School system that requires its teachers to teach according to the guidelines of the approved curriculum which is foundationally humanistic and anti-biblical. They also send their children to learn in these God rejecting institutions, not for a couple weeks in the summer, but for 12 years of their lives. Why this inconsistency? Because they view the one rightly for what it is, a false belief system and the other they have been deceived into thinking is neutral in its outlook of reality. But the humanism of the Public school system is just as false as the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other organization that teaches contrary to the Word of God.
The church of Jesus Christ needs to be faithful to the Word of her Lord. She needs to flee from evil and cling to that which is good. She needs to remove her support from any institution that denies her Lord. This removal of support should entail removing her children from under its teaching influence. Also by removing her men and women as being propagators of its false doctrines. And finally removing it’s financial support from any such institution.
Remember that when you opened up your Tax bill this year you were reminded of the reality that you as a Christian are forced to support the ‘religious’ belief system of another. A large percentage of your property taxes go to either the support of the Roman Catholic school system or the Public [Humanistic] School system. Neither of these choices should be acceptable for any Christian because both choices go against the clear teachings of the Bible as interpreted for centuries by the Protestant church. In reality we have received the same choice that Henry Ford gave in regards to the color for his Model T. He said that you could have any color you wanted as long as it was black. Likewise, today we are given any choice we want as long as it denies our religious convictions as Protestant Christians.
The following quote is from one of the men who led the Protestant Reformation. His insights are very wise and discerning. His words are also very timely as he seems to know our day better than millions of Christians who are living in it.
“I am much afraid that the schools and universities will prove to be the great gates to hell unless they diligently labour to explain the Holy Scriptures and engrave them upon the hearts of youth. I advise no one to send their child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution that does not unceasingly occupy its students with the Word of God must become corrupt.” Martin Luther
posted by Dale Callahan at 8:36 PM
23 Comments:
"Humanistic teachings in the public school deny the existence of God by propagating the teaching of evolution."
This is simply bad theology. The existence of God does not depend on the account of creation in Genesis. Does not God have the capability to use a complex process over millions of years to create the life forms we have today? Is God limited to the concepts available to men 3,000 years ago?
Public education does not address the issue of spirituality or the end times, or sin and redemption. The schools teach science, history, math, literature, and hopefully music and art. If your concept of God is so limited that it cannot coexist with modern science or with a rational study of history or literature, then there is a theological problem with the church not a humanist problem with the schools.
Can't the church and the home provide sufficient teaching about the Bible and Christian ethics and morality? Such teaching belongs in that realm not in the public schools.
I will never be defending the existence of a "general" deity Democracy Love.
Genesis doesn't teach evolution it teaches that God created all things in 6 days.
Evolution denies the gospel and is therefore in error.
The problem with parts of the church is they tried to "look" wise in the scientific communities [unbelievers] eyes and thus became fools. They made science the ultimate authority...but this place is reserved for God alone.
If a person reads the Bible alone they will not come to the "fairy tale" of macro evolution. It is only when men come to the Bible with this preconceived idea that they have to begin to try and shape and mold the Scriptures to fit their theories. The second commandment tells us that God doesn't want us making Him in our image...it is He who made us in His image and He doesn't want us trying to return the favor.
I have heard atheists curse God [if He exists they said] because they lost a loved one.
But why are they upset? According to their outlook on life death is just a natural happening.
But alas they show their true colors...they know death is an enemy...because of sin and man's rebellion.
"If your concept of God is so limited that it cannot coexist with modern science or with a rational study of history or literature, then there is a theological problem with the church not a humanist problem with the schools."
A broader study of what the Bible teaches about God will clearly show that the question is not one of the Almightys co-existence with rebellious man, but that He grants common grace to all. In His grace, by following the rules and laws he has set out in the universe, you are able to study anything, even secular humanism. Yet you sin by not giving Him thanks for this grace, and not acknowleding Him in all your thinking. That is why your system is unable to account for how it may call "good" any citizen it produces. Your philosophical forefather, Satan, has granted you an empty pragmatism through doughheaded prophets like Dewey who said fine, we can't explain the foundations of the universe or how to decide whether what we are doing is ultimately "good" or "evil", so we'll ignore that. Whatever we call good will be good and bad will be bad and what my net don't catch ain't fish.
The bankrupt pragmatic atheism of the public system that is intolerant because its only option is anarchy. When its philosophy reduces to one persons say-so against anothers (what makes you think you're so right?), then all we can say is nobody knows for sure. And if nobody knows for sure, we can't know anything for sure so we're either going to dissolve into utter futility, or grab hold randomly on some principle or other, declare it in the net and call it good.
That what the Nazis did and that's what all totalitarian regimes do and that is what public education does. Out of its own philosophical chaos comes random dogmatism with no philosophical justification that can cohere with rationality whatsoever.
The problem is not theological, its not even your beef with the Bible, its your man-centeredness and refusal to acknowledge the Living God as your God.
"Can't the church and the home provide sufficient teaching about the Bible and Christian ethics and morality? " It does. It says any system of belief that does not acknowledge the Living God of the Bible is evil and will be overthrown. Where will you be when Christ returns?
Dale,
Jesus never said one had to believe every word of the Old Testament was literally true in order to enter the kingdom of God. That was an error introduced by men. Evolution is irrelevant to the Gospel of Jesus. Read the synoptic gospels again and see what Jesus has to say on the subject - nothing whatever.
Barry, what the Nazis did was to ally with the churches to convince people that their security depended on following Hitler. Undereducated populations who learn that there is ultimate authority who must be obeyed without question are ripe for the plucking by evil political leaders. A people who have learned to examine ideas based on reason and evidence rather than blind faith are much less gullible.
"Barry, what the Nazis did was to ally with the churches to convince people that their security depended on following Hitler. "
William Shirer in "Churches and the Third Reich", and other historical research, clearly shows that "the Church" did not ally with Hitler, but the shell that was left when the orthodox fled became simply another Nazified institution....the only institutions permitted in totalitarianism are those who sell out. But what was sold was not "the Church" since "the Church" never veered from affirming that Christ, not Hitler, was to be revered as almighty in Germany. For this they were persectued and jailed. In the case of Bonhoeffer, even killed if the authorities sensed they were active in their rebellion of the Nazis.
Even today in this country when "the Church" leaves, the shell becomes whatever the humanists like to make of it. The present day United Church in Canada is a good example, sold to the reigning doctrine of the secular day. In the United Church "the Church" has no more aligned itself with humanism any more than "the Church" did under the Nazis, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
"Undereducated populations who learn that there is ultimate authority who must be obeyed without question are ripe for the plucking by evil political leaders."
Really? Like the ultimate authority of the state to say Christianity must be absent from public schools? Come on, who is really ultimate? Who is above the state? Who is the king of all the kings really? Jesus said to Pilate that Pilate had no authority to do anything that had not been granted by God. For a nation to lust in such "uneducated" fashion for a humanistic education is to veer dangerously close to being given what it really wants, and anarchy or totalitarianism (or so called "ultimate authority") will never be far behind.
"A people who have learned to examine ideas based on reason and evidence rather than blind faith are much less gullible. " With this I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why a secular humanism must be removed entirely from the system. Such a blind faith in "reason" by presupposing reason to exclude the authority of the God of the laws of reason is truly blindedness. And it is sad to watch the blind lead the blind into the ditch with decay that is secular humanism in our day. Give me Christian education that education itself may be salvaged for our children and delivered with the proper, right, freedom-ensuring Christianity it once had (education the secular humanists have was delivered by the Church by the way, in this country all schools were Church schools - don't get me started on that history). For more on how totalitarianism has creeped into the life of our state, reread Dales blog.
Barry,
There can be no such thing as a blind faith in reason. Reason precludes such a construct. If you approach every subject with a fixed presupposition then you effectively preclude rational examination of it. I understand why someone might fall into this trap since it is part and parcel of modern fundamentalist religion.
The root cause of the anti-humanist, anti-science, anti-reason viewpoint among some Christians is their adherence to the early 20th century doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This leads people to irrational positions such as believing the creation myths in Genesis actually happened, and that the God who habitually smote enemies in the OT stories is identical to the God Jesus taught. It prevents people from understanding why first century authors might ascribe supernatural actions and meanings to Jesus as well.
This doctrine stems from a failure to use reason and intellect to study the origins, development, environment and compilation of the books that have formed the protestant bible. We now have churches organizing bible studies that anathematize any actual study of the documents.
As long as you hold to such irrational doctrinal positions, you are forced to oppose public education that would expose your children to the truth. The real challenge is not to destroy public education, but to revisit the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and discover who he was and what he said about God and neighbor.
Democracy Lover,
Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law and the prophets and not destroy them...even down the the jot and tittle [every little bit].
The bible teaches that death entered into the world because of Adam's sin...not because God created some "stuff" and then had millions of years of a life/death cycle until Adam was even on the scene.
If the first Adam, the fall, are not literal and true, then the gospel isn't true.
And the Apostle Paul says that if you reject the gospel, then go to hell [Gal 1]
Dale,
You are assuming a lot there:
1. That the "jot and tittle" passage was actually spoken by Jesus, not added by the author of Matthew who was addressing the Israelite population of the time. It does not appear in the other gospels, so it's important to ask why not.
2. That your interpretation of the passage is what Jesus meant, rather than an assumption based on your preconceptions.
3. That the idea of original sin, based on Paul's teaching, has anything whatever to do with Jesus, since Paul never discusses Jesus' teaching.
4. That the historical veracity of the first chapters of the book of Genesis has any bearing on the gospels which were written at least a thousand years later by men who probably no longer believed in the literal creation story.
5. That the gospel Paul exhorted people not to reject was the same gospel preached by Jesus.
6. That there is a literal hell.
In my opinion, all of these assumptions are false. Can you prove they are true? Do you have evidence or rational arguments to support your position - other than the sort of circular logic you provided here?
A great man once said that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would say that the unexamined faith is not worth believing.
DL,
Another great man said. “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him.”
1. As a Christian I do presuppose the truths in the Bible. Because God is sovereign He can make truth known to His people. Because He is sovereign He can protect His word throughout the ages. God sent His Son to save sinners. God sent His Spirit to bring His Apostles into all truth. With this presupposition I have no problem believing that Matthew was writing down Jesus words. What evidence do you have that is contrary to this?
2. You point here is that I could be wrong...and yes I could be. But I am not trying to be the Lone Ranger, I do look to God’s word but I also look to Christ’s church that Jesus promised to give gifts to [teachers].
3. Jesus did teach about original sin. That men needed to be born again to see [understand] the Kingdom. That the flesh profited nothing. And that out of man’s heart sin proceeded. That men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. That men were slaves of sin and of Satan...and willfully did the will of Satan.
4. Of course I don’t expect you, an unbeliever, to see the link between the first chapters of Genesis and the Gospels...that God is author of both...that’s why you are an unbeliever. Jesus spoke of the days of Noah, Abraham...and the rest of the New Testament speaks of Adam and Eve in the garden, of the serpent deceiving Eve. I am not binding myself to your unbelief! Jesus called Apostles and Christ as the corner stone and the teachings of the prophets and apostles is the foundation for the church. John [one of the guys thousands of years later] says “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, He was in the beginning with God. ALL THINGS WERE MADE THROUGH HIM, AND WITHOUT NOTHING WAS MADE THAT WAS MADE.”
5. Jesus told Paul what to say. I know you aren’t content with these answers...but it is because you have your own unbelieving presuppositions. But in my circle, this makes sense. In yours nothing does. And I do notice that you are really good and asking questions and really poor and ever giving any answers. You just have a moral absolute...or you just don’t need one. Wow what an argument!
6. Jesus spoke of eternal damnation. The rich man was in the flames and suffering, no mercy was offered him, not even a drop of water.
Prove to me that my assumptions are false! Can you? I can show that yours are false. Because you use logic but do not have a belief system that can support logic. But I know that you will be quick to ignore this so that you can continue in your running from God. You also argue in a circle. You have ultimate beliefs, and these go unchallenged by you. You use these ultimate beliefs to interpret everything else...but you assume them to be true.
Unbelievers are quick to attack that many Christians interpret the Bible differently...therefore the Bible is not a worthy or knowable source of knowledge, or guide to truth.
But these same autonomous thinkers can then go and try and figure out things with their unbelieving minds...even though unbelievers [non-Christians] have differed [often times greatly] on every conceivable area of philosophy.
Why then do you not throw away unbelieving thought? Because you have assumptions and you have faith. The assumptions that make your reality work [professed assumptions] are stolen from God’s revelation [general].
Dale,
I'll leave you to your delusions.
In other words...Dale...I have no answer for you. I am actually the one who is self deluded. My whole system of thought is stolen from the Christian world view.
In order to keep myself from a checkmate situation I will simply pick up my king and move him all away across the board.
Like I said DL...really good at being a critic...really rotten at trying to defend your own position. Do note that I at least attempt to answer [even if you don't like the answers]. When I ask you to philosophically justify your position...run, run, run.
See ya later D.L
OK Dale, I'll take the time to respond.
1. Your presupposition that the Bible is literally true is just that - a supposition. With your presupposition you can believe pretty much anything since evidence and reason play no part. Once you drop your fantasy and start looking at the literature of the period, you find that amplification and extensions of texts to make them appealing to one's audience and the ascription of supernatural acts to a religious figure were pretty common in the period. Matthew was fairly typical in his approach which was to tell a story about Jesus that made it seem that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.
2. Jesus did not establish a church.
3. Your assertions about Jesus and original sin seem primarily based on the gospel of John which is clearly written much later and begins with a conceptual picture of Jesus and tries to fashion a story that fits the picture. The bulk of Jesus' teaching does not conform to the current doctrine of original sin.
4. God did not write any books. Men wrote all 66 books. They were not taking stenography from the sky. Of course, Jesus is quoted as referring to the ancient Hebrew myths. They would have been known to his hearers and probably a good way to illustrate his point. The preamble of John is a post-Jesus theological development, not a teaching of Jesus.
5. Why is it that when someone disagrees with your preconceptions about the bible, you accuse them of not giving answers? You haven't given an answer yet except that you believe something and that makes you superior to those who believe otherwise.
6. The story you refer to is a parable, not intended to portray actual events. Myth and story are powerful forms meant to illustrate truths - that doesn't mean they are themselves historical facts.
Of course unbelievers disagree about things - why shouldn't we? We don't subscribe to a closed system of moral self-righteousness and put ourselves in doctrinal straightjackets - why would we?
I have no assumptions. I simply attempt to apply reason and inquire into the evidence. Why don't you throw away your believing thought? Scared of hell? Scared you can't make it on your own without a rigid belief system to close out any disturbing challenge to your world view?
Dear DL,
Can you see yourself dude? You say you are going to answer...and then all you do is sit in the scoffers seat [Ps 1] and try to tear down "my" beliefs. But to do so you are relying on logic and experience and some type of absolutes [truths]...but you don't [because you can't] even begin to try and explain how these things work in a materialistic, naturalistic universe.
You have no assumptions! Ha, wake up man...are you for real. Look in the mirror and say that over and over again and maybe you will at least begin to convince yourself of it. You are trying to found logic and evidence [what presuppositions are you interpreting the evidence with...oh right you don't have assumptions] on your unbelieving worldview. How can you have immaterial things [like concepts] in your universe...are these immaterial things universal?
I'm sorry DL you are the one who is deluded. You looking through the world with eyes opened shut.
Dale,
Take a look at yourself. ".. to do so you are relying on logic and experience and some type of absolutes [truths]..." . Even if that were true, it would be an improvement over simply relying on what one assumes to be absolute truths and throwing logic and experience out the window. However, I do not begin with the presupposition that there are "absolute truths". That is simply unscientific. We cannot know absolute truth, we can only know that all our senses, all our logic and all our experience tells us that something is true, so we can believe that unless evidence is discovered to the contrary.
This position is a far cry from assuming facts not in evidence and neatly circumscribing our inquiry within those bounds. Once one throws away unfounded assumptions, a much different explanation can be found for the teaching of the gospels. I would recommend you take a look at books like Who Wrote the New Testament or Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and re-examine your views.
But you are assuming that the world works according to your naturalistic "assumptions".
You have not proven your naturalistic assumptions. And you want me to "give" you that starting place so that you can use logic and [naturalistic interpretation for evidences] so that you can then use these to try to attack the Christian faith.
You are very quick at pointing out my assumptions...while leaving a blindspot the size of a mountain for your own.
DL said: "I do not begin with the presupposition that there are "absolute truths""
That's quite a gambit, but the only possible one for your thinking.
If your statement were true, that there are no absolute truths, you could not have spoken the very words! If you truly thought that, then you would never have presupposed the universally true laws of logic which underly your very denial of universal truths! Where do you borrow your reliance on logic having utterly denied its objective truthfulness? If tlaws of logic are not true absolutely, but only relatively, then you and I can only pack our respective bags and go home never to speak. But because we know those truths, both of us, we can carry on a debate. At least, one of us can and that's not really a debate...but I urge you to continue to presuppose the absolute truths you must just to carry on.
No absolute truths? Really? Everything you know is contingent? Like 1+1, DL? Is it not 2 universally, absolutely? And if you say it is true by convention, then shall you say 1+1 could just as well =3? And could any of us float a boat or fly a plane or count at all on that kind of math? No, because we go out and find that 1+1=2 because God has already thought it true and you, made in His image, are able to think that thought after He already has. You can know the very real universe He made, says the Bible.
You do indeed begin with absolute truths if you are to mount any kind of offence against it, thereby crawling onto the Father lap to slap Him.
You borrow Christianity to deny it!
Again, with "That is simply unscientific." All science, DL, is predicated on induction; that the future will be like the past. All scientific method relies on this! And you come along with your "nothing for absolutes" worldview and want to borrow some universal truth enough to grant a scienctific method to prove true nothing that can be absolute? All science presupposes the absolute truth of the inductive method, and every act of induction presupposes causation, those universally true cause-and-effect determinist rules you deny. And what, do you think, presupposes induction, DL? Suddenly some randomness? Some subjective truth of yours? Maybe the highest human thought frought and shackled by non-absoluteness? Absolutley not. The all-wise all-knowing God is back of it and sustaining it with power, says the Bible.
"We cannot know absolute truth," I love it when you humanists do that. Really? So I suppose I have grounds to utterly dispense with "We cannot know absolute truth," since it is clear you can not know that "We cannot know absolute truth," is even true at all. Humanistic thought drops into a ditch on its own, DL, and denies God doing it.
"we can only know that all our senses, all our logic and all our experience tells us that something is true," Again you fail. For if your very statement is the truth itself, then which of your senses proved it so? Tell me, so I can go and apply my same sense in a chaos universe and find that consistent truth also.
And spare me such "logic" as spurts out cosmically somehow of the churning random chaos of your universe to point to truths that can not exist.
Yet you try it anyway, "All our logic."?? In your thinking logic can not follow, or you rely on someone elses thinking. Logic are laws universal, immutable and timeless and yet (hold on) knowable, like 1+1=2, or that the gravitational constant is 9.8m/s2. Logic does not emanate from your humanistic stuff, DL, it is discovered. Newton did not invent the number, he found it. Facts make sense not just where you go, it is everywhere sensible and reasonable before you get there, and no more so today than ever....the laws are always the same. Logic, DL, is that kind thinking of a kind of God spoken of in the Bible; unchanging ("I change not, saith the Lord"), universal everywhere in stuff yet not of stuff (imminent in His creation), timeless ("I am the alpha and the omega"), and knowable. And you are granted grace to know many of those thoughts because, the Bible says, He grants that grace commonly. You see, the Bible accounts not just for truth, but for how you may reject it, then come back to it because in your presuppositions because you must.
"This position is a far cry from assuming facts not in evidence"
Ugh. Your brutish approach to facts grants no light at all on how it is that you make sense of them, DL. How did you already come to make intellible the facts so that they made sense when you found them? Would an ants design in the sand making footprints in the shape of Churchill make sense to anyone who had never seen Churchill, or even a human figure? Facts cohere as intelligible to us because we have presuppositions we did not choose, but must have to make them make any sense at all. What already was true in your thinking that made your interpretation intelligible at all? You don't come as a blank sheet to a brute fact, DL, because your thoughts in this universe cohere. You are not just "fact input" "fact input" "fact input". You have a system of knowing already made within you to bring them all together and what is that? It is that which grants that you may know anything. If you look at a TV and Christopher Columbus looked at the same TV, you both have the same fact-input experience. Yet you KNOW what it is, you know "television". And that is granted to you to know only in a universe ruled completely by laws of logic, uniform laws of nature, deterministic causation and induction, and real TV's, all things that can not possibly be explained or accounted for in a humanistic universe. Oh I know you know "they are there", but that is not accounting. God had thought "television" long, long before in our play among His thoughts we discovered it.
"Once one throws away unfounded assumptions, a much different explanation can be found for the teaching of the gospels. "
Or, "once DL throws away the only presuppositions that make any fact intelligible because he refuses to accept them because he's already begun by presupposing himself as the autonomous KNOWER of anything, a much different explanation can be found....". And so you bring yourself full circle. Your subjective approach of "I do not begin with the presupposition that there are "absolute truths"" to truth lands you gasping with, "It's just me thinking without being able to know absolutely, so I can't be sure of any of it for certain." We're not in your sinking boat DL, for we see the world and know it is real and knowable and thank the God who grants it. And that is how we know gnosticism as sinful heresy.
DL, this one is as bad as the rest but: "6. The story you refer to is a parable, not intended to portray actual events. Myth and story are powerful forms meant to illustrate truths - that doesn't mean they are themselves historical facts. "
Jesus, the parable giver, denies what you say in Mark 4 describing how the unbelieving only see a story and not the great truth in His teaching, which, since He does not hide it from His own, is no longer a secret to them:
"And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that
"they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."
And then he goes on to show him what the ACTUAL EVENTS ARE as represented by the parable.
But if all you are saying is "Parables are parables", then you needn't have mentioned that.
I really don't have time to respond to Barry's lengthy tirade - sorry, Barry.
Dale, since you always begin by assuming facts not in evidence - even when discussing my comments - you effectively close off all argument. That's a great strategy assuming you really don't want to learn anything, and I assume you don't.
You hate the idea of public education because it does not begin with your assumptions - and of course it doesn't and won't. That would be a recipe for shutting off the possibility of learning and that's exactly what you want to achieve. You want to make sure your children do not learn any facts that might lead them to question your preconceptions and illogical assumptions.
You say I have "naturalistic assumptions", well then let's throw them out. Let's have no assumptions. Let's not assume the bible is literally true and not assume it is untrue. Let's not assume the world was created in 6 days and not assume it was not. How would we proceed? The only way to proceed without assumptions is to use our senses and our minds to examine these topics. How would we know when we arrive at an answer? Simple - we don't.
That's where we part company. You are afraid to be faced with questions for which you don't have answers, so you manufacture (or more likely buy into) a world view that provides all the answers up front. Then you spend all your time defending that world view instead of examining whether it is true.
It's a positively medieval approach to the world. I have no problem with your choosing to live with the world view of a 12th century peasant, but when you try to force it on others or destroy the work of others (like the public school system) because it doesn't fit your view, then you're infringing on my rights.
What you miss DL, is that you do the some thing. You begin with your presuppositions and use them to interpret the "facts" or "evidence", also rejecting other "facts" or "evidence" that don't meet up with your presuppositions.
It would be nice if DL even attempted to "justify" his use of logic or reason, and experience and how they match his view of reality. I know the reason why he doesn't try...he can't.
Do you notice Barry, that DL is an excellent cross examiner...but he really stinks when sitting in the witness box.
Dale,
It would be nice if you read my posts and made some attempt to engage in a discussion. I agreed to eliminate any presuppositions and then asked how one would begin to examine a topic without them. I suggested using reason and the senses - do you have another idea? How would you begin to examine let's say, whether the Bible is literally true without presuppositions? I'm all ears.
I don't feel the need to justify the use of logic, reason and experience to examine questions because they are common to every person. You use these same tools everyday, Dale, for lots of situations. You just eschew their use when your religious beliefs are involved.
You have so far not offered any possible way to examine these questions without presuppositions and preconceptions that effectively shut out the possibility of learning anything new about the subject. If you have some alternative, I'm waiting to hear it.
Dear DL,
I do read your posts...but you are giving me everything except what I am asking for.
You said
"I don't feel the need to justify the use of logic, reason and experience to examine questions because they are common to every person."
And thats your problem, you live in God's world, use God's world and don't give thanks to God and acknowledge Him.
Its a real cheezy way of not having to prove your stance.
I have supernatural "justification" for why I use logic, experience and morality [absolute laws].
As long as you take that stand then I guess we are done.
Nice chatting with you DL.
Dale,
Speaking of "cheesy ways of not having to prove your stance", what do you call your response?
You presuppose that God created the world, that God requires the acknowledgement and thanks of humans. How is that proof of anything? It's not, it is an assumption.
Supernatural justification is not what you have. What you have is a belief that labeling something supernatural is adequate justification. There is nothing supernatural about your argument.
Again, I have no problem with your believing in God, miracles, virgin birth, or whatever. I only have a problem when you deny children the right to a public school education because they might learn something that conflicts with your beliefs, or use your belief as a justification for denying other people their human rights.
Does the public school your children attend teach the bible or anyother religious book in the classroom?
Right...they teach the religion of humanism and thats it.
If you want to send your kids to the State School [public school is a farse of a name] then go ahead...send them but DON'T start telling me where to send my kids man! And if humanism is so great then let the humanists pay for their education. Christians can pay for theirs and anyone else with another view can pay for theirs.
Don't like that? Its because atheists don't have good news to promote...they ride on the back of those who really do have convictions...those who really do have purpose in life. If you are going to say that you do have convictions then shut your mouth and put your money where your mouth is...don't expect people who don't hold to your unbelief to support your cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home