RE: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

Bernie,

I wrote the following on another list regarding Dawkins and perhaps it might apply to you too.

“I truly believe that Richard Dawkins must debate theists in order to keep his faith in atheism alive. RD is fearful of solitude and the consequent doubt that would invariably follow from the workings of his inner mind.”

Moorad

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie [bernie.dehler@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:51 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

George said:
" We've put up with this for at least a month & to begin with were pretty respectful to someone who declared his intention to be "antichrist"."

I'm an anti-Christ like you are an anti-atheist or anti-Dawkins, so I don't see why you are so hurt by that statement. You expect to only talk to other Christians on this list, or only people who accept the gospel? I'm registered as a 'friend of the ASA.' If you want friends, you should treat them as such (respectfully). When I used that term I meant someone who rejects the gospel of Christ... in a theological sense (not a Hollywood sense), something every atheist likely does (rejects the gospel). And a anti-Christ can be a nice person and respectful. There's no relationship to the behavior with respect to the belief system (people can be rude in any belief system, as evidenced by both respectful and rude Christians on this discussion list). My goal is to be a respectful 'seeker' (who leans towards atheism currently). And I don't use that 'anti-Christ' term anymore because I learned from the very first time how it was perceived as inflammatory.

George said:
" If you were really "respectful" you would politely say good-bye and stop wasting people's time."

I was hoping to still learn. And I have found a few here who are willing to discuss and share in a reasonable and polite way.

George said:
"When flaws in your claims are pointed out you ignore them & go on repeating yourself."

Rather to respond to these kinds of comments (paying evil for evil), I practice self-control and bite the tongue. I learned that from Christianity. I could easily say a lot of judgmental things about your replies, as others have done.

Murray said:
"Second, you're shooting the messenger - it's not MY fault what other people think or do and I use the term "inane" precisely because I know from both on-list and off-list correspondence the attitude that a great many people have of your engagement with their positions."

You'd be better off speaking only for yourself instead of others. You are not aware of friends that I have on this discussion list. I think most of us learned as kids "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." That would be helpful.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:07 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

No matter how respectful you may think you're being, you don't really wish
to have a discussion. When flaws in your claims are pointed out you ignore
them & go on repeating yourself. We've put up with this for at least a
month & to begin with were pretty respectful to someone who declared his
intention to be "antichrist". But it's pretty clear that your playing of
the same old tune over & over has grown tiresome. If you were really
"respectful" you would politely say good-bye and stop wasting people's time.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective

> Murray said:
> "Guess why half the list don't want to waste their time on responding to
> your inanities?"
>
> If you don't want to have a respectful discussion I wish you would just
> keep your thoughts to yourself. I don't need to hear your abuse.
>
> You said:
> "Fact is, Bernie, that the Christian life is a life of discipleship - and
> that entails a PROCESS of putting off the old man and putting on Christ, a
> PROCESS of renewing the mind, a PROCESS of growth and discovery, a PROCESS
> of learning about God and his ways."
>
> I did that for 25 years... up until a few weeks ago...
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:20 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>
> Whether God exists or not, people still have different levels of maturity,
> emotional intelligence, and intellect - so I don't see how that point has
> any bearing on the question: except to undermine your own argument. If
> personal factors impact our moral judgement, then they do so regardless of
> one's basis for morality.
>
> Incidentally, I notice you direct your remarks to the "true believers"
> amongst us: which kinda illustrates a point, namely that YOU are the only
> one around here committing the "true Scotsman fallacy." I wouldn't raise
> the point except for your habit of refusing to acknowledge that most, if
> not all, of the people on this list don't share your concept of what
> Christianity is.
>
> I certainly haven't seen any claim - except from yourself - that
> formulating a Christian ethic entails simply lining up a few Bible verses
> and 'voilà' - a statement of absolute moral truth on ANY issue you care to
> imagine! Yet you STILL insist on asking us to defend that thesis (and
> silly Schwarzwald thinks you don't know what a straw-man is!). Well, guess
> what's not going to happen? Guess why half the list don't want to waste
> their time on responding to your inanities?
>
> Fact is, Bernie, that the Christian life is a life of discipleship - and
> that entails a PROCESS of putting off the old man and putting on Christ, a
> PROCESS of renewing the mind, a PROCESS of growth and discovery, a PROCESS
> of learning about God and his ways. And that PROCESS involves being led by
> the Spirit - not law, not moral rules, not rational deduction from first
> principles - but of STRUGGLING with the tensions of life. With good and
> evil, wisdom and foolishness, knowledge and doubt.
>
> It's discovering that the thinks we held with utter certainty are often
> least true, and learning that OUR version of the truth often stands in
> stark contrast with the one who is truth himself: that's truth HIMself,
> not ITself, because for Christians truth is a person not a set of abstract
> propositional statements. It's not something we possess, but something to
> which we stand in relationship. And we can only apprehend this truth, to
> the extent that we are open to his voice.
>
> To know the truth is not to have a correct proposition - moral,
> theological, or otherwise - that one can defend, it's to know the Father
> through the Son by the Holy Spirit.
>
> And what follows from that is that absolute truth CAN be known, but only
> if one is prepared to acknowledge that the discovery of truth is a process
> which never comes to completion - not even remotely: "now we see in a
> mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall
> know just as I also am known." (1 Cor 13:12).
>
> So pick any example you want, Bernie, you'll never know the proper
> Christian response until you're willing to surrender yourself to the
> Shepherd and follow his voice. THAT is the way God provides for us to
> discover his morals and I'm sorry that, by the very nature of the process,
> I can't reduce it to an abstract moral argument that you can analyse.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>> There are two positions I'm hearing:
>>
>> 1. Morals come from God.
>>
>> 2. Morals can be deduced without the need for God.
>>
>> If #1 is true, it would seem reasonable to me that God would also provide
>> a way to discover these morals. But on tricky issues (euthanasia and
>> suicide on the battle field (King Saul's case), for example), there seems
>> to be no absolute answer. Born-again Christians have different opinions.
>> So it is apparent that if God does give morals, he gave no sure means for
>> his followers to discover them... and I'm talking about the 'true
>> believers' and not those 'Christian' in name only.
>>
>> If #2 is true, then you'd expect different answers because people have
>> different levels of maturity, emotional intelligence, and intellect.
>>
>> If someone things that God's morals could be discovered clearly, it would
>> be good to pick an example (like euthanasia or battle suicide), and work
>> from the bottom-up to follow the train of thought. But I haven't seen
>> anyone with the willingness to try that. And I think that George agrees
>> that the moral answers can't be clearly discovered, based on his paper
>> covering the euthanasia example, after all is considered, concluding that
>> the final outcome is ultimately a personal decision.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:47 AM
>> To: ASA
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>>
>> And people read the Bible differently, so why should agreement amongst
>> Christians be expected?
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>> "It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in reason,
>>> then when atheists get together they can't agree on what the correct
>>> moral position is."
>>>
>>> That is because people reason differently, so why shouldn't it be
>>> expected???
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:21 AM
>>> To: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins new book - objective
>>>
>>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>> It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in God, then
>>>> when Godly people get together they can't agree on what the correct
>>>> moral position is. Euthanasia was the last specific issue I talked to
>>>> George about.
>>>>
>>>> ,,,Bernie
>>> To which the obvious response...
>>>
>>> It just seems so worthless to say that morals are grounded in reason,
>>> then when atheists get together they can't agree on what the correct
>>> moral position is.
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 29 07:28:41 2009