From Humanist Dad
I've begun to wonder if there are only two different ways to think about truths in reality. The non-scientific mind tends to reason 'backwards' and scientists are trained to think 'forwards'. I believe 'forward thinking' is superior but it takes some work to explain why 'backward thinking' doesn't work yet appears, on the surface, to be legitimate. I'll look at these two ways of thinking by imagining a murder scene:
Backward Thinking - The detective comes to the scene and sees a dead woman, a kitchen knife in her chest, lying in the living room. A crying man is sitting at the kitchen table with blood all over his shirt and hands shouting, "I killed her!" The detective decides that the man is most likely the killer and begins finding evidence to support his theory: signs of a struggle, the man's fingerprints on the knife, the next-door neighbour whispers that she always heard them arguing, they have high debts. The man is obviously guilty, no need to waste money doing more investigations, case closed.
Forward Thinking - Another detective enters the same scene and collects the same evidence. However, he then looks for other evidence as part of his routine: fingerprints are taken from all doors and windows, footsteps around the house are collected, tires marks on the driveway are analyzed, cigarette ashes are found on the floor but no ashtrays. This evidence suggests a third person was at the house recently (who the detective simply calls Mr. X). The detective formulates a theory - The man owed a debt to a shady character (Mr. X) who smoked. Mr. X entered the house and argued with the man and woman. Mr. X grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the woman. The distraught man tried to remove the knife but couldn't and hugged the woman while she died. He blames her death on his debt to Mr. X.
The detective has a valid theory but still requests more time to investigate further. The backward thinker quickly forms a conclusion and seeks out evidence to support it. The forward thinker never assumes a conclusion and looks at ALL evidence to see where it leads.
This, I believe, is the fundamental trap that theists fall into. They become backward thinkers. They start with an obvious conclusion (god exists, Jesus lived, Mohammed was the final prophet) and look only for evidence to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored or a twisted explanation is offered. They are not interested in changing their conclusion - they want to be right. Forward thinkers don't assume any knowledge. They use a much more difficult mental process that forces them to base a conclusion on all available evidence - even if this conclusion conflicts with what they hoped was the right answer.So, how do we teach a new generation to abandon backward thinking? Certainly more science education but teachers need to spend more time on the process (collecting evidence) and less time on giving the solution and asking students to confirm it. Even in literature studies teachers will point out what a character did (a conclusion) and ask students to find evidence for why they did it. Students need to be required to find evidence that also conflicts with a character's actions. Critical thinking is an advanced form of forward thinking so teaching students to think forward may be the first step to raising a generation of truth-seekers.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Something has come between us...
A while back my friend David over at nakedpastor offered one of his cartoons (I love his art but at times it is over my head).
(In case you can't tell, Jesus is the fellow on the left)
I couldn't resist offering my own reasons for those feelings of...well, separation.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Tim Brown? Why do I bother?
Please accept my apology. I just can't help myself.
I have a rather useless and time wasting habit of visiting several Christian blogs (as you can plainly see from my previous posts). My problem is, I enjoy the dialogue, when I do find it, that comes when two people disagree. I think there are few things as intellectual stimulating as a cordial debate.
But, what I am finding is that many Christians seem to have little or no desire for such antics. It seems that all they care about is telling anyone who will listen (or read) what they think, and have no desire to reciprocate, especially, ESPECIALLY, if the response is disagreeable. Case in point: Tim Brown has a blog, The Reformed Gadfly, of which I visit from time to time. If I find a post of interest, I will read it. If I find the post deserving of a response, I will submit one. Now, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I don't quite understand what is...wrong?, undesirable?, offensive?, in my doing that.
Tim Brown has a new post up where he states his plans on posting "Troll quotes". Honestly, I have no idea what a "Troll" is with reference to blogging. I am not sure if it is someone who reads your blog and leaves disagreeable comments? I am not sure if it is someone who leaves nasty comments? I just don't know, but since Tim Brown has not posted any, (or rather, either) of my responses in his comments section, I have to assume he is referring to me (as one of the many "Trolls" he has to sift through.
I am going to try very hard not to sink to his level as I continue with this post.
First, the reader will notice the picture he is using to reference those of us who disagree with him.
Sure, he is just trying to be funny...I think, and I guess if I was a believer, my attitude would be such that I would feel that anyone who disagreed with me, and had the nerve to tell me so, would be a rather ugly person.
On to a few of his comments: We get them all the time here at the 'Fly. Comments that never see the light of day, for all kinds of reasons. One main reason is that trolling has, of late, grown to almost epidemic proportions. Not necessarily in number but in just plain old nastiness. And I mean nasty. Well, at least they haven't stooped to calling my mother names. . .at least not yet.
Now, as I said, I am not very sharp, but Tim Brown seems to be saying that he gets a lot of "trolling" commenters. I have to assume that he doesn't get very many...(what's the opposite of troll)...agreeable commenters because most of his posts have no comments, and those that have comments have one or two, that's it. I have to wonder what he considers "epidemic proportions"? Is he exaggerating? Is he being dishonest?
You can plainly see from my previous post that I was anything but nasty. My comment was never posted on his blog.
It just seems that posting a comment from someone like this would be generally, well, stupid. What would be the point? After all, the whole idea of what a troll does is to try to get some sort of visceral gut reaction and start a fight. It turns into one of those "Supply proof but I'll never accept anything as valid proof" things. . .although they would never admit that.
Again, I have no idea if I qualify for a troll or not. I just have to assume that I do. I guess I will find out when he posts the "Troll quotes", to see if any of mine are in there. I don't necessarily disagree with him here. If my desire was to "start a fight", then why bother. But my only motivation in submitting a comment was to see if he is capable of thinking for himself with regard to his religious beliefs, and to (hopefully) influence a reader of his blog to think for them selves, rather than offer the robotic "Amen" to his every post.
As for his "valid proof" claim. All I can do is scratch my head. I am sure his definition for "proof" is much different than mine, especially with regard to HIS OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Proof is unnecessary with regard to a religious belief. He needed no proof to become a believer, so why would he claim to be offering proof to us non-believers? Answer: The line between proof and belief has become so blurred, in his mind and with regard to HIS OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, that he can no longer see it.
And since the chief end of man is to glorify God and such conversation doesn't glorify God, then it just stands that it doesn't belong here. Besides, so many times, these people have their own blogs and submitting their comment basically amounts to advertising their blog (click on their name and "presto" you're reading their stuff!). Don't care for that too much here.
This is one of the many reasons why I find Tim Browns particular brand of Christianity so repulsive. He actually thinks his actions "glorify God". He actually thinks everything he posts on his blog glorifies God, that includes posting pictures of ugly ghoulish figures in reference to those who disagree with him.
As for the last sentence, I find that attitude to be incredibly shallow and self serving. What kind of blogger would not want his readers to expand their minds?...answer, Christian Tim Brown.
See, just because we don't post troll comments doesn't mean we don't have them archived. No No No! Yesserreee Bob, we sure do keep them. See, we can answer troll comments, but we can opt to do it on our own terms. . .and in doing so, we don't get mired in a thread that gets further and further afield and begins to generate more heat than light.
Now, this may be a play on words, maybe not, but my blogger name is "bob"?
Besides, if I started discussing things with all the trolls that come by here demanding a "conversation", I wouldn't have time for anything else. So, they are archived. And we indeed deal with them; in a controlled way. It just seems to be the wise thing to do. Think of it as quarantining.
Actually, I really had little desire for a "conversation" with him. Would have been interesting, possibly. I mean, I do enjoy the debate, but I just submitted a response in disagreement. Me thinks Tim Brown thinks to highly of himself.
Notice the last sentence. Tim Brown actually considers any opposition as completely unworthy of any response besides making fun of. I have come across other believers like this. Their only defense for their absurd beliefs is to make fun of those who disagree with them. Kind of how middle schoolers act. If you can't offer any defense, pretend like it doesn't matter, and stick your tongue out at your detractor.
So, while I sort through the troll archives, prepare yourselves for a chuckle or two. Yes, names will be changed to protect the. . .er, never mind. We'll just change the names or leave them off altogether.
The insults never cease. Of course, all I am offering is my opinion of Tim Browns attitude. He couldn't care less what I think. But what I think of him, and those like him, is important to me. And it is attitudes like this, from Christians, that makes me rejoice that I got out when I did, eight years ago. According to Tim Browns blog, he has been a Christian for ten years. I was one for 25 years. Is it possible that, when I was a Christian, my attitude towards those who disagreed with me, was as unappealing as Tim Browns? I guess so, but I think personality is very hard to hid, even when inside a religion. Some people are just not nice, and Jesus seems incapable of making them nice.
In a nut shell, if I had any inclinations of becoming a Christian...again...it is people like Tim Brown who would make me pause. If he is an example of what God does when one becomes a believer... no thanks. I find nothing attractive in his attitude...his attitude toward, shall we say, the vocal lost.
I have a rather useless and time wasting habit of visiting several Christian blogs (as you can plainly see from my previous posts). My problem is, I enjoy the dialogue, when I do find it, that comes when two people disagree. I think there are few things as intellectual stimulating as a cordial debate.
But, what I am finding is that many Christians seem to have little or no desire for such antics. It seems that all they care about is telling anyone who will listen (or read) what they think, and have no desire to reciprocate, especially, ESPECIALLY, if the response is disagreeable. Case in point: Tim Brown has a blog, The Reformed Gadfly, of which I visit from time to time. If I find a post of interest, I will read it. If I find the post deserving of a response, I will submit one. Now, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I don't quite understand what is...wrong?, undesirable?, offensive?, in my doing that.
Tim Brown has a new post up where he states his plans on posting "Troll quotes". Honestly, I have no idea what a "Troll" is with reference to blogging. I am not sure if it is someone who reads your blog and leaves disagreeable comments? I am not sure if it is someone who leaves nasty comments? I just don't know, but since Tim Brown has not posted any, (or rather, either) of my responses in his comments section, I have to assume he is referring to me (as one of the many "Trolls" he has to sift through.
I am going to try very hard not to sink to his level as I continue with this post.
First, the reader will notice the picture he is using to reference those of us who disagree with him.
Sure, he is just trying to be funny...I think, and I guess if I was a believer, my attitude would be such that I would feel that anyone who disagreed with me, and had the nerve to tell me so, would be a rather ugly person.
On to a few of his comments: We get them all the time here at the 'Fly. Comments that never see the light of day, for all kinds of reasons. One main reason is that trolling has, of late, grown to almost epidemic proportions. Not necessarily in number but in just plain old nastiness. And I mean nasty. Well, at least they haven't stooped to calling my mother names. . .at least not yet.
Now, as I said, I am not very sharp, but Tim Brown seems to be saying that he gets a lot of "trolling" commenters. I have to assume that he doesn't get very many...(what's the opposite of troll)...agreeable commenters because most of his posts have no comments, and those that have comments have one or two, that's it. I have to wonder what he considers "epidemic proportions"? Is he exaggerating? Is he being dishonest?
You can plainly see from my previous post that I was anything but nasty. My comment was never posted on his blog.
It just seems that posting a comment from someone like this would be generally, well, stupid. What would be the point? After all, the whole idea of what a troll does is to try to get some sort of visceral gut reaction and start a fight. It turns into one of those "Supply proof but I'll never accept anything as valid proof" things. . .although they would never admit that.
Again, I have no idea if I qualify for a troll or not. I just have to assume that I do. I guess I will find out when he posts the "Troll quotes", to see if any of mine are in there. I don't necessarily disagree with him here. If my desire was to "start a fight", then why bother. But my only motivation in submitting a comment was to see if he is capable of thinking for himself with regard to his religious beliefs, and to (hopefully) influence a reader of his blog to think for them selves, rather than offer the robotic "Amen" to his every post.
As for his "valid proof" claim. All I can do is scratch my head. I am sure his definition for "proof" is much different than mine, especially with regard to HIS OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Proof is unnecessary with regard to a religious belief. He needed no proof to become a believer, so why would he claim to be offering proof to us non-believers? Answer: The line between proof and belief has become so blurred, in his mind and with regard to HIS OWN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, that he can no longer see it.
And since the chief end of man is to glorify God and such conversation doesn't glorify God, then it just stands that it doesn't belong here. Besides, so many times, these people have their own blogs and submitting their comment basically amounts to advertising their blog (click on their name and "presto" you're reading their stuff!). Don't care for that too much here.
This is one of the many reasons why I find Tim Browns particular brand of Christianity so repulsive. He actually thinks his actions "glorify God". He actually thinks everything he posts on his blog glorifies God, that includes posting pictures of ugly ghoulish figures in reference to those who disagree with him.
As for the last sentence, I find that attitude to be incredibly shallow and self serving. What kind of blogger would not want his readers to expand their minds?...answer, Christian Tim Brown.
See, just because we don't post troll comments doesn't mean we don't have them archived. No No No! Yesserreee Bob, we sure do keep them. See, we can answer troll comments, but we can opt to do it on our own terms. . .and in doing so, we don't get mired in a thread that gets further and further afield and begins to generate more heat than light.
Now, this may be a play on words, maybe not, but my blogger name is "bob"?
Besides, if I started discussing things with all the trolls that come by here demanding a "conversation", I wouldn't have time for anything else. So, they are archived. And we indeed deal with them; in a controlled way. It just seems to be the wise thing to do. Think of it as quarantining.
Actually, I really had little desire for a "conversation" with him. Would have been interesting, possibly. I mean, I do enjoy the debate, but I just submitted a response in disagreement. Me thinks Tim Brown thinks to highly of himself.
Notice the last sentence. Tim Brown actually considers any opposition as completely unworthy of any response besides making fun of. I have come across other believers like this. Their only defense for their absurd beliefs is to make fun of those who disagree with them. Kind of how middle schoolers act. If you can't offer any defense, pretend like it doesn't matter, and stick your tongue out at your detractor.
So, while I sort through the troll archives, prepare yourselves for a chuckle or two. Yes, names will be changed to protect the. . .er, never mind. We'll just change the names or leave them off altogether.
The insults never cease. Of course, all I am offering is my opinion of Tim Browns attitude. He couldn't care less what I think. But what I think of him, and those like him, is important to me. And it is attitudes like this, from Christians, that makes me rejoice that I got out when I did, eight years ago. According to Tim Browns blog, he has been a Christian for ten years. I was one for 25 years. Is it possible that, when I was a Christian, my attitude towards those who disagreed with me, was as unappealing as Tim Browns? I guess so, but I think personality is very hard to hid, even when inside a religion. Some people are just not nice, and Jesus seems incapable of making them nice.
In a nut shell, if I had any inclinations of becoming a Christian...again...it is people like Tim Brown who would make me pause. If he is an example of what God does when one becomes a believer... no thanks. I find nothing attractive in his attitude...his attitude toward, shall we say, the vocal lost.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
A Revolting Call to Action
Over at The Reformed Gadfly, the blogger posted his call to action against McDonald's, joining in with the likes of the American Family Association, those appointed by them selves to watch over the sinfulness of the entire US of A, and probably beyond.
I left a comment for the reformed gadfly but, as has been the case before, it probably will fall short of approval, so I thought I would post my comment to him here.
What is it exactly that you are against? It's obvious you are against homosexuality? Are you against homosexuals being able to make a living? I have to guess you are. Are you against anyone offering to help homosexuals make a living? Again, I have to assume you are. McDonald's wants to put some of their resources and influence to work "promoting "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures." In other words, to help gays and lesbians make a living, correct? What other "sins" do you believe should keep a person from making a living? How about fornicators? Do you think Christians should boycott any business owned by a person who had sex before marriage? What about cigarette smokers? If the owner of your local KFC is addicted to cigarettes but is heterosexual, would you consider boycotting his restaurant? How about gluttony? What if your banker is 50lbs over weight, are you going to pull your money out? Since being any religion other than Christian is sinful, just to be consistent, why don't you limit your patronage to only business that display a cross or Jesus fish in their window?
I have no confidence that you will be able to see the absurdity in your stance, but I had to try.
I left a comment for the reformed gadfly but, as has been the case before, it probably will fall short of approval, so I thought I would post my comment to him here.
What is it exactly that you are against? It's obvious you are against homosexuality? Are you against homosexuals being able to make a living? I have to guess you are. Are you against anyone offering to help homosexuals make a living? Again, I have to assume you are. McDonald's wants to put some of their resources and influence to work "promoting "gay" and "lesbian" business ventures." In other words, to help gays and lesbians make a living, correct? What other "sins" do you believe should keep a person from making a living? How about fornicators? Do you think Christians should boycott any business owned by a person who had sex before marriage? What about cigarette smokers? If the owner of your local KFC is addicted to cigarettes but is heterosexual, would you consider boycotting his restaurant? How about gluttony? What if your banker is 50lbs over weight, are you going to pull your money out? Since being any religion other than Christian is sinful, just to be consistent, why don't you limit your patronage to only business that display a cross or Jesus fish in their window?
I have no confidence that you will be able to see the absurdity in your stance, but I had to try.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Am I an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian...?
Over at "The Reformed Gadfly" there is a post, which, as is the case for so many Christian blog posts, shows definite signs of straw-man building. Allow me to illustrate. Referring to an atheist encounter (probably with me) he says: "...they are "struttin' their stuff", acting all intellectual about how God doesn't exist." First of all, I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know that any gods, including the Christian God, do not exist. So, I generally refrain from "struttin'" my "stuff", since I am open to persuasion. It would be rather embarrassing to claim that I know there is no god, only to have some Christians prove to me that their God is in fact real. So, since I do not know, I just admit that I do not believe.
As for the next accusation, "acting all intellectual" since I barely graduated high school and never went to college, I don't think I could even begin to know how to act intellectual. So, I think it is blatantly obvious that the blog author, Tim, is using dishonesty to draw a picture of an atheist. Since I do not agree with him, he resorts to name calling.
He continues his description with such phrases as, "big ornery atheist", "someone who proudly says "there is no God", and "those who put on the appearance of intellectualism". All accusations against a people simply because they don't believe as he does. Why do so many Christians resort to this type of defence (offence?)?
Somewhere amongst all the straw, he draws the readers attention to a pie chart showing Christians how to get an atheist to admit that, since we don't have all knowledge of everything in the universe, we then must admit that we are really not atheists after all, but are actually agnostics. Problem is, I am still an atheist. I have no belief in any gods. I am without belief in gods. I do not believe the Christian God exists. I do not KNOW that the Christian God does not exist, I just do not BELIEVE that the Christian God exists. I am an atheist.
Now, let's use Tim's illustration, creatively? Tim says, "..."agnosticism", which is a more accurate term, which means "I don't know".
Well, Tim, do you KNOW that your God exists? Do you actually have any more knowledge about the existence of your God than I, a former believer of 25 years, have? Belief does not equal knowledge with regard to religious faith. You probably feel like you KNOW, or think you KNOW (that your God exists), but do you actually know, in the same way we have knowledge of proven scientific and historical facts? I think we know what the answer is - Tim, and all the millions and millions of Christians in the world, do not KNOW that God exists. Accurately speaking, they believe that God exists.
Tim instructs further: "...ask them "Do you possess the sum total of all knowledge?" If they are being honest at all, they will have to admit they don't know everything." I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know everything. So we have to wonder who Tim is asking his Christian friends to direct this question to (hint-strawmen)?
Do Christians "possess the sum total of all knowledge"? If not, won't they have to follow Tim's admonition and "admit they don't know everything."
My point is, if Christians will be honest, and apply Tim's instructions for dealing with us big ornery atheist, they will have to admit, since they actually DO NOT KNOW that their god exists, they will have to admit that they are, in reality, agnostics. For an agnostic, according to Tim, just doesn't know. Let them claim "Christian-Agnostic" if they want, but to be honest, they have to admit that they are just as "agnostic" as Tim claims I am.
As for the next accusation, "acting all intellectual" since I barely graduated high school and never went to college, I don't think I could even begin to know how to act intellectual. So, I think it is blatantly obvious that the blog author, Tim, is using dishonesty to draw a picture of an atheist. Since I do not agree with him, he resorts to name calling.
He continues his description with such phrases as, "big ornery atheist", "someone who proudly says "there is no God", and "those who put on the appearance of intellectualism". All accusations against a people simply because they don't believe as he does. Why do so many Christians resort to this type of defence (offence?)?
Somewhere amongst all the straw, he draws the readers attention to a pie chart showing Christians how to get an atheist to admit that, since we don't have all knowledge of everything in the universe, we then must admit that we are really not atheists after all, but are actually agnostics. Problem is, I am still an atheist. I have no belief in any gods. I am without belief in gods. I do not believe the Christian God exists. I do not KNOW that the Christian God does not exist, I just do not BELIEVE that the Christian God exists. I am an atheist.
Now, let's use Tim's illustration, creatively? Tim says, "..."agnosticism", which is a more accurate term, which means "I don't know".
Well, Tim, do you KNOW that your God exists? Do you actually have any more knowledge about the existence of your God than I, a former believer of 25 years, have? Belief does not equal knowledge with regard to religious faith. You probably feel like you KNOW, or think you KNOW (that your God exists), but do you actually know, in the same way we have knowledge of proven scientific and historical facts? I think we know what the answer is - Tim, and all the millions and millions of Christians in the world, do not KNOW that God exists. Accurately speaking, they believe that God exists.
Tim instructs further: "...ask them "Do you possess the sum total of all knowledge?" If they are being honest at all, they will have to admit they don't know everything." I, as an atheist, have never claimed to know everything. So we have to wonder who Tim is asking his Christian friends to direct this question to (hint-strawmen)?
Do Christians "possess the sum total of all knowledge"? If not, won't they have to follow Tim's admonition and "admit they don't know everything."
My point is, if Christians will be honest, and apply Tim's instructions for dealing with us big ornery atheist, they will have to admit, since they actually DO NOT KNOW that their god exists, they will have to admit that they are, in reality, agnostics. For an agnostic, according to Tim, just doesn't know. Let them claim "Christian-Agnostic" if they want, but to be honest, they have to admit that they are just as "agnostic" as Tim claims I am.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
love one another...?
I honestly don't mean to keep commenting on the postings of Pastor Buck. I mean, I really have nothing against the guy. He seems nice enough. I think he is genuine (what ever that means). But since I really only read two Christian blogs, and since his church is in my community, I guess if I am going to respond to the words of a church leader, may as well keep it close to home.
Below are his word from a recent post to his blog, and my comments will follow.
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” (I John 3:14)
If I were forced to choose just ONE verse that best describes our church family, I’d have to go with John’s description the Christian life. For John, LOVE is one the defining factors that you’ve truly been saved. Love evidences the fact that what we have is the real deal. . . it evidences the fact that we have truly passed from death to life!
I don't know. I mean, I give out of love to those I love. My family, my friends, I give to them out of my love for them. How can I do that if I am not a Christian?
I just don't understand how Pastor Buck can read a bible verse, such as the one above, and completely ignore the FACT that born again Christians are not the only people who love, give out of love. Read the verse again: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers." I love my brother. I love my sister, my parents, my kids, my pets, my friends. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! How can it be that I love people?
Out of all things for which I am thankful about our church family (and there are MANY!), what touches me the most is the love of Christ that fills our fellowship. You don’t just talk a good game, you live it. You genuinely care about those inside and outside our church family, and it shows, repeatedly.
Over the past couple years I have attended Pastor Bucks church from time to time with some friends. I can count on one hand the number of members there who have come up to me and started a conversation with me. I am largely ignored. I am not ugly, I don't stink, I am not mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but I am rather introverted. It is difficult for me to put forth an effort to make new friends. But once a person approaches me, I am friendly and can be conversant.
I can think of perhaps 4-6 people, members of the church, who have actually made an effort to talk to me beyond the tepid "good morning, how are you..." So, can anyone describe to me this "love of Christ" he is talking about?
The bottom line, you guys are the real deal! I love serving Jesus with you and I truly see Him in you! In John 13:35 Jesus summed it up in a single sentence - “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Oh, I can see it. I can see them "loving one another", but I do not experience any of that love. I mean, what does a person have to do, be a member in good standing for 36 months before he or she fits in?
What I experience in Pastor Bucks church, is the exact same thing I experience or have experienced in every other church I have ever visited, or been a member of. Pure and simple - Human Nature. Some people are genuinely caring and compassionate. Some are not. But most will fall in the middle.
It doesn't matter if they are Christian or not. It makes no difference. And this is the chief reason that I find no reason, any longer, to believe in the Christian God. Christians do not, in any way, display any evidence that they have been motivated (transformed) by a supernatural being. What they do display, in their attitude and approach toward their close friends-vs-people they do not know, is exactly what you would expect to see in any group, club, church, gathering, etc. If you are their friend, you fit right in. If you are not their friend, you are largely ignored. And believe me, I have sat many a Sunday in Pastor Bucks church and been completely and totally ignored. Do I hold that against them? Absolutely not. As I have stated, it is human nature. What I do protest though is the largely held Christian belief that they, (and THEY all pretty much believe THEY are the "they") by reason of their faith, have been transformed. And that as a result of that supernatural transformation they now display such a love for all humanity.
The news is, THEY don't. They are just people who believe they do. And as they gather with each other every Sunday, they reinforce each others delusion, and keep ignoring that fellow sitting...over there. ("I can't go up and talk to him now. I mean, I have been ignoring him for months. I didn't mean to. Time just got away from me. I missed a few Sundays in a row and when I came back, there he was. How long has he been coming now? What will he think of me if I go up to him now? No, the easiest thing to do is just keep ignoring him...")
For what it's worth, during this time, I have had one person (1), out of perhaps 200-300 members, ask me if I knew Jesus as my saviour. No one else in that church has ever asked me anything about God, Jesus, church, the bible, etc.
That, my friend, is Human nature.
Below are his word from a recent post to his blog, and my comments will follow.
“We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” (I John 3:14)
If I were forced to choose just ONE verse that best describes our church family, I’d have to go with John’s description the Christian life. For John, LOVE is one the defining factors that you’ve truly been saved. Love evidences the fact that what we have is the real deal. . . it evidences the fact that we have truly passed from death to life!
I don't know. I mean, I give out of love to those I love. My family, my friends, I give to them out of my love for them. How can I do that if I am not a Christian?
I just don't understand how Pastor Buck can read a bible verse, such as the one above, and completely ignore the FACT that born again Christians are not the only people who love, give out of love. Read the verse again: “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers." I love my brother. I love my sister, my parents, my kids, my pets, my friends. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! How can it be that I love people?
Out of all things for which I am thankful about our church family (and there are MANY!), what touches me the most is the love of Christ that fills our fellowship. You don’t just talk a good game, you live it. You genuinely care about those inside and outside our church family, and it shows, repeatedly.
Over the past couple years I have attended Pastor Bucks church from time to time with some friends. I can count on one hand the number of members there who have come up to me and started a conversation with me. I am largely ignored. I am not ugly, I don't stink, I am not mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but I am rather introverted. It is difficult for me to put forth an effort to make new friends. But once a person approaches me, I am friendly and can be conversant.
I can think of perhaps 4-6 people, members of the church, who have actually made an effort to talk to me beyond the tepid "good morning, how are you..." So, can anyone describe to me this "love of Christ" he is talking about?
The bottom line, you guys are the real deal! I love serving Jesus with you and I truly see Him in you! In John 13:35 Jesus summed it up in a single sentence - “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”
Oh, I can see it. I can see them "loving one another", but I do not experience any of that love. I mean, what does a person have to do, be a member in good standing for 36 months before he or she fits in?
What I experience in Pastor Bucks church, is the exact same thing I experience or have experienced in every other church I have ever visited, or been a member of. Pure and simple - Human Nature. Some people are genuinely caring and compassionate. Some are not. But most will fall in the middle.
It doesn't matter if they are Christian or not. It makes no difference. And this is the chief reason that I find no reason, any longer, to believe in the Christian God. Christians do not, in any way, display any evidence that they have been motivated (transformed) by a supernatural being. What they do display, in their attitude and approach toward their close friends-vs-people they do not know, is exactly what you would expect to see in any group, club, church, gathering, etc. If you are their friend, you fit right in. If you are not their friend, you are largely ignored. And believe me, I have sat many a Sunday in Pastor Bucks church and been completely and totally ignored. Do I hold that against them? Absolutely not. As I have stated, it is human nature. What I do protest though is the largely held Christian belief that they, (and THEY all pretty much believe THEY are the "they") by reason of their faith, have been transformed. And that as a result of that supernatural transformation they now display such a love for all humanity.
The news is, THEY don't. They are just people who believe they do. And as they gather with each other every Sunday, they reinforce each others delusion, and keep ignoring that fellow sitting...over there. ("I can't go up and talk to him now. I mean, I have been ignoring him for months. I didn't mean to. Time just got away from me. I missed a few Sundays in a row and when I came back, there he was. How long has he been coming now? What will he think of me if I go up to him now? No, the easiest thing to do is just keep ignoring him...")
For what it's worth, during this time, I have had one person (1), out of perhaps 200-300 members, ask me if I knew Jesus as my saviour. No one else in that church has ever asked me anything about God, Jesus, church, the bible, etc.
That, my friend, is Human nature.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Jesus to the rescue
From Pastor Buck's blog:
This video is definitely worth five minutes of your time. It creatively portrays the following truth: “You, dear, children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. . . everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (I John 4:4, 5:4)
The video is basically from a play, contemporary Christian music is the soundtrack, and depicts a young woman experiencing a new relationship with the Jesus character. But then the cares and influences of the world creep in, distracting the young woman, and drawing her away from her loving relationship with Jesus.
Things soon turn bad, as they always do when you forget about Jesus (sarcasm). Jesus is off to the side, wooing her back, but to no avail.
Jesus finally jumps in to protect her from her bad choices (audience breaks into cheers and applause).
What a wonderfully appealing story, if only it were true, as Pastor Buck claims. Being a sensitive atheist guy, I even felt a tug of emotion as I watched Jesus hold back all the bad in the world from reaching the young woman. But as life continually proves, it is just a story. A myth. Strip away the music, the facial expressions, the choreographed dancing, and all you have left is a few sentences in an old book. That's all.
This video is definitely worth five minutes of your time. It creatively portrays the following truth: “You, dear, children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. . . everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (I John 4:4, 5:4)
The video is basically from a play, contemporary Christian music is the soundtrack, and depicts a young woman experiencing a new relationship with the Jesus character. But then the cares and influences of the world creep in, distracting the young woman, and drawing her away from her loving relationship with Jesus.
Things soon turn bad, as they always do when you forget about Jesus (sarcasm). Jesus is off to the side, wooing her back, but to no avail.
Jesus finally jumps in to protect her from her bad choices (audience breaks into cheers and applause).
What a wonderfully appealing story, if only it were true, as Pastor Buck claims. Being a sensitive atheist guy, I even felt a tug of emotion as I watched Jesus hold back all the bad in the world from reaching the young woman. But as life continually proves, it is just a story. A myth. Strip away the music, the facial expressions, the choreographed dancing, and all you have left is a few sentences in an old book. That's all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)