This is a refuge for people of faith seeking sanctuary from the new demonic comment section at The Washington Post online.
Feel free to carry on any type of conversation that you see fit to have.......within reason.
Once we get this thing rolling we can post it on all the WAPO threads and probably attract a pretty good following. I'm sure even the liberals are disgusted with the new format there.
because it discusses Joel 2:28-32 as RCofield, you and I have already discussed in relation to the Book of Acts.
If I recall correctly, one of your last posts was concerning a duel-fulfillment of prophecy. Matthew 24:26, as Don Preston notes say 'all these things' would be fulfilled by the generation that saw Christs coming in the clouds. See also Luke 21:22,
Don Preston has written books on Jesus' coming in the clouds of heaven and on pretty well the whole enchilada of passages that we have discussed. I might try reading one or two to see how well framed his arguments are in comparison with Scripture, but in the mean time his web-site will have to do. If you are interested, take a browse.
PS. RCofield, I saw that Walter was posting on Susan Jacoby's 'The Spirited Atheist.' Did you ever get to resume your dialog with him on the the first cause argument? I was hoping to see how the argument developed further. He was certainly playing dodge ball.
PS. RCofield, I saw that Walter was posting on Susan Jacoby's 'The Spirited Atheist.' Did you ever get to resume your dialog with him on the the first cause argument? I was hoping to see how the argument developed further. He was certainly playing dodge ball.
Yeah, we tried to get it started up again after the format change, but couldn't achieve any kind of continuity. I hope he will find his way here where we can resume.
I and my soon-to-be son-in-law attended the R. C. Sproul's Ligoneer Conference last week. The subject was the Holiness of God. We heard Sproul, Steve Lawson, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, and John Piper. It was extraordinary and we came away humbled.
While I was there I saw the book on amillenealism by Kim....can't remember the last name...that you mentioned you were reading. Have you finished it yet? What did you think of it?
I am curious as to whom you found was best in expounding on the first cause argument - Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, R.C Sproul or someone else? I would like to use this argument with my friendly atheist Bill, here in town, but I need to understand more fully how he will try to wriggle out of the argument and how to then respond.
I guess probably all of those you mentioned have influenced me on the "first cause" argument to some extent or other. Sproul and Craig are, ultimately, just working out from Aquinas' formulation of this argument. The argument is really not that complicated. It's just simple logic.
The book is 'A Case for Amillennialism, Understanding the End Times' by Kim Riddlebarger, and I have it here before me but have been waylaid from reading it by our current discussion on the Washington Post and other life issues/matters.
But since you attended R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite authors, have you read his 'The Last Days According To Jesus, When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?'
R.C. Sproul makes many references to John Stuart Russell. You will find his book here,
"I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell's important work." R.C. Sproul"
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/index.html
Here is a the on-line book page that divides the authors on the Reformed position into the different eschatology camps.
Funny that you should mention R.C. Sproul. I was just perusing his latest e-mail newsletter in which the conference was offered on-line. I'll try to listen in on Wednesday after the dreaded mid-nights are over. I remember watching his "Holiness of God" video back in the early eighties. (^8
But since you attended R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite authors, have you read his 'The Last Days According To Jesus, When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?'
I must confess I haven't read that one. I really haven't studied eschatology a great deal. Most of my disagreements with Dispensational Premillenialism arise from its conflicts with other doctrines in scripture.
I would much rather be discussing the doctrine of Justification or Christology or Ecclesiology. :-)
I will certainly peruse Russell's "Parousia" though, especially given the influence it had on Sproul. That was a pretty strong statement you quoted.
Did you guys notice that the thread where I slammed Jim Wallis, and posted the link to this blog is now missing, due to "bio error"?
Yeah. I posted the link to this site for Walter, TWMatthews, GoldenEagles, etc. on six of the active threads at WAPO yesterday morning. By noon four of the six posts had been removed.
"Losers" is a good euphemism. The new format will only be tolerated by "losers" as well, so I'm sure they will be quite a happy bunch to be rid of anything resembling a conservative view.
That's OK. I'll keep posting it until I get a response from the "crew."
hi there, guys. i see that the wallis thread is "closed to comments", but i don't think that's because of your posting a link. it's because the thread is so old... (3-4 days) ...it died of natural causes... there's no vast librul conspiracy to silence you guys...
randy, you said, "1) In your estimation, is it more reasonable to assume that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, or is it more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause?"
A: yes the universe (matter/energy) has a cause - a First Cause (but what caused the first cause...).
2) Is it more reasonable to assume that time is of infinite duration, or to assume that time had a beginning?
A: i don't know. i suppose it's reasonable to say that time started when the First Cause came into existence...
3) If it is more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause, is it more reasonable to assume that this cause was part of the universe, or is it more reasonable to assume that this cause existed apart from the universe which it caused?
A: i don't know. i don't think we can know. many people currently suppose that time starts at the time of the creation of matter - like time, energy and matter were created together.
4) Which is more reasonable to assume: A first and moving cause of all that exists, or an infinite regression of causes?
A: First Cause. but i really can't imagine what created the First Cause. sure we can "get out of" this infinite regression quandry by creating a First Cause, but that seems to me like a "trick" of convenience, used to "solve" this regression problem. so, to avvoid this, let's imagine a First Cause.
5) If it is more reasonable to assume a first and moving cause of all that exists, is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause had a beginning, or is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause has always existed?
A: the universe (matter/energy) has a cause )First Cause). i really don't know, and neither do you, whether "First Cause" has/had a beginning.
6) Is an acorn only potentially an oak tree, or is it actually an oak tree?
A: an acorn is not a tree. given the exact right sequence/combination of conditions it could become a tree. much more likely, thoiugh, it will become squirrel food, or insect food, or mulch/soil on the forest floor.
7) Can an acorn cause itself to change from an acorn to a fully mature oak tree?
A: no
8) If not what causes an acorn to change from a mere seedling to a mighty oak tree?
A: genetics and the right combination of air, soil, light etc...
9) If your response to #8 is “just reactions between matter and chemicals,” what causes these “reactions between mater and chemicals”?
A: ok, one could call it chemical/physical reactions btwn matter. these reactions are governed by "natural laws".
10) If your response to #9 is “natural laws,” (a) what causes these “natural laws” to exist, and (b) what causes them to yield the consistent results which they yield?
A: (a)natural laws are inherent properties of matter/energy. (b)because they are natural inherent properties, they do not vary - unless conditions vary.
continuing, 11) Did these physical “natural laws” of the universe cause themselves to exist, or are they dependent on a first cause?
A: same as 10. being properties of matter/energy, they are "dependent" on matter/energy. i suppose you could say, since we are supposing First Cause created matter/energy, that these properties were created by First Cause when matter/energy was created.
[somewhere along around here i said, "so if THAT'S what you mean by "god", then sign me up. i love laws like f=ma and so forth. and those are laws i always obey. please, send me to hell if i violate the law of gravity."]
12) Why do you mock religious worship when you, by your own confession, are a religious worshiper?
A: i don't believe that we have established that First Cause is any kind of "conscious entity" or sentient being. BUT, if First Cause is a conscious entity that created matter/energy with these properties or "natural laws, i don't see any reason to assume First Cause created heaven/hell as reward/punishment for anything. those are suspiciously human concepts. but again, i'm not "giving you" the conscious/purposeful First Cause assumption, yet.
13) Is it not reasonable to assume that these “natural laws” that govern and effect change within the universe had their beginning with the universe?
A: i assume natural laws are inherent properties of the matter/energy that have existed ever since the beginning of matter/energy - which as far as we can tell, seems to have occurred 4,500,000,000 years ago in the big bang.
14) If they had a beginning, is it not reasonable to assume that they have a cause?
A: yes
15) Is not the cause greater and more worthy of our fascination than the effect?
A: no. the effects, the actual physical universe and its natural laws are more relevant than their cause.
16) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?
A: i am not "insistent" on a disinterested First Cause, but i don't see any evidence for an interested one. whya re you so insistent on an interested first cause?
17) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?
A: i am not "insistent" on "mere molecules", but i just don't see evidence for other than mere molecules. what evidence do you see for more than mere molecules?
18) By what means does change within the universe take place?
A: by the interaction of matter/energy and natural laws. (i peeked...)
19) Assuming you will remain consistent and answer the above question “by natural laws,” I ask you: Did these “natural laws” cause themselves to exist?
A: already asked and answered, but, again, no.
20) Did the universe have a first and moving cause?
randy, you said, 21) If so, is it unreasonable to assume that the first cause of the universe is affecting the change that takes place in the acorn?
yes - it is unreasonable to think the First Cause IS causing changes - "changes" being the product of "natural laws" - in acorns etc... those natural laws are inherent properties of matter and do not require the constant "attention" (to the extent First Cause is capable of "attention" - which we have not established in the preceding 20 questions) of the First Cause.
22) Is it unreasonable to assume that the cause which created matter and the big bang also established the “natural laws” that would govern the matter which it created?
A: no.
23) Are you familiar with the concept of “secondary causes”?
A: yes.
24) Aren’t “natural forces” such as gravity, electromagnetism, and strong/weak nuclear forces, etc., part and parcel (“products,” if you will) of the big bang?
A: yes.
25) Does not the concept of “force” presuppose something exerting that force?
A: yes.
26) Assuming that by your use of the term “nature” you mean the physical universe, how do you separate “laws of nature” from the first cause of the universe?
A: i don't separate them.
27) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?
A: again, i am not "insistent" on that. but i will not suppose that purely based on personal preference. i see no eveidence in the natural world for an "interested" - which implies sentient, and interested - being. again, why are you insistent on an interested god?
28) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?
A: again, i am not "insistent" on "mere molecules" - but that's what the evidence suggests. i know of no evidence for other than "mere molecules". what evidence do you point to for your belief in more than mere molecules?
29) Why, exactly, do you personally prefer a god who “doesn’t keep track of the goings on here on earth”?
A: same as above. ----------------------
so, what have we established so far? i'd say we've ONLY established a First Cause of matter/energy. we have not established sentience or purpose. and we are light years from the First Cause you think associated himself with ancient middle-easterners and "chose" them as receptacles of his cockamamie plan of cursing us w/sin then offering "redemption" and eternal life.
randy, in #13, i should have said "14,500,000,000" (not 4,500,000,000). scientific evidence points to a 14,500,000,000 year old universe and 4,500,000,000 year old earth. some scientists go with 13.something billion year old universe, i think. i'm not really personally invested in either number.
i answered your questions, and posed questions in reply to 17, 27,28. please answer those, along with continuing to try to make your case for the First Cause being Yahweh.
guys, we recently got a little tiny snowstorm that dropped just under 1/4" of snow on my yard. it really wasn't much, but, thanks to my advanced harvesting skills, i WAS able to gather enough to make something. here's a pic of my daughter standing next to my latest sculpture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/
Glad you found your way here. Good to have you along.
hi there, guys. i see that the wallis thread is "closed to comments", but i don't think that's because of your posting a link. it's because the thread is so old... (3-4 days) ...it died of natural causes... there's no vast librul conspiracy to silence you guys...
Don't know about the "wallis thread," but I posted this link to you, TW, Sara, and GoldenEagles on 6 of the active threads yesterday morning. By noon 4 of the 6 posts had been completely removed from the threads.
Thanks for reposting your answers. I'll get to them in the next day or so.
You've got the snow-harvesting thing down to a science, don't you? :-) Nice pic.
You guys are missing some awesome stuff on the Post....
Haha, not really :)
I do appreciate the invitation. I even bookmarked it under my fun stuff category :)
I see there are several questions going on, so I'll add one. Why should there be a requirement that existence have a purpose or intent? This is a different question than asking individual people what they believe to be the purpose of their lives.
It's my sincere pleasure to use my otherwise worthless Goolge space to set up this forum. I can not imagine a better use, than to provide a forum for open discussion.
Don't let my specific invitation to people of faith, and the cool labor troll throw you off, we welcome all viewpoints, here.
Feel free to invite your discussion participants from WAPO here to continue your debates. There's no expiration date on these threads.
BTW
I'm open to any suggestions in reagrd to site content.
Is the Jim Wallis column still missing from the WAPO discussion page, or is it just me?
There is definitely a method of comment control being utilized other than the 3-4 day expiration date of the threads.
I made exactly three comments on three different columnist's threads on the current discussion page, and within the first day, both columns were taken down, due to "bio errror". (one has since been restored...at the bottom)
Both pointed out unusual ties between left-wing activists, and the Islamic revoutionaries in (most) of the mid-east.
The third column, where I made the same charges, against the writer himself, was the Jim Wallis column, where the thread was surpisingly allowed to stay for a few days. Now, it has been removed due to "bio error"
Very peculiar
Randy, Did you post comments on WAPO that were removed, for containing a link to this site?
Welcome aboard the "Refugee" train. Glad to have you along.
I'm not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, but I can't seem to get a bead on what, exactly, WAPO was trying to accomplish with the new format. At the very best it seems to be utter chaos over there now. I see no way to develop any continuity in discussions.
Why should there be a requirement that existence have a purpose or intent?
Interesting question. I have a lot I could say on that point, but I am curious as to your position on that question. Do you have a philosophical preference as to whether there is intent/purpose to our existence? If so, which is it and why?
It seems to me that Darwinian Evolution holds purposelessness as one of its formative presuppositions. Would you agree with that statement? Do you subscribe to Darwinian Evolution?
I'm open to any suggestions in regard to site content.--MM
Could I suggest that you establish a separate post/blog for each thread of our discussion here?
For example, you could establish one thread for the eschatology discussion you and Peter are having, a separate thread for the First Cause discussion Peter and I are having, and a third thread for the question of "purpose/intent" that Sara just raised.
I think this would make our discussions more fluid in that we wouldn't be discussing multiple topics on the same thread.
If you guys think this might be helpful we could request a new thread for each new topic introduced.
randy, in #13, i should have said "14,500,000,000" (not 4,500,000,000). scientific evidence points to a 14,500,000,000 year old universe and 4,500,000,000 year old earth. some scientists go with 13.something billion year old universe, i think. i'm not really personally invested in either number.--WALTER
Yeah, I saw that. But hey, what's a few billion years among friends, right?.... :-)
I find it comical that you make such a big "deal" out of secondary disagreements among biblical interpreters, yet you give a wink and a nod to disparities in cosmology among scientists amounting, literally, to billions of years. Here's a hint: They don't know how old the earth/universe is. They're just guessing, and they could be wrong. There are, after all, serious questions about the validity of every dating method they are using.
I am ready to respond to your answers to my 27 questions. Let's see if MrMeaner will give us a separate thread on this discussion (see my post to him above). If he does, please re-post your answers on that thread to kick it off and I'll respond to them there.
I think our own thread on this discussion will be conducive to it moving along a little more quickly and succinctly.
randy, said, "I find it comical that you make such a big "deal" out of secondary disagreements among biblical interpreters, yet you give a wink and a nod to disparities in cosmology among scientists amounting, literally, to billions of years. Here's a hint: They don't know how old the earth/universe is. They're just guessing, and they could be wrong. There are, after all, serious questions about the validity of every dating method they are using."
i have a lot to say about all that, and i'd respond but i don't want to get off-topic.
I like the idea of separate threads for different categories. In this way the discussion stays focused and does not get away from us in a sea of other discussions. I think you could keep these down to five or so broad areas, then we can dap back and forth without losing the topic.
Randy suggested eschatology and First Cause as being two. I like ethics, evolution/creation and world-views as another three. If you can do this MrMeaner does anyone have any suggestions on what the categories could be?
Disputan, I am assuming that your alias is MrMeaner?
I don't see how you get a physical appearance of the Father from Jeremiah 4.
I also find it hard to see how you can justify reading a duel fulfillment of prophecy from the Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 Olivetti Discourse? You are reading 'all these things' as applying to 'this generation' as well as a future generation also. But the text does not say that. Surely Jesus would have been more specific if He meant a duel fulfillment of prophecy. He could have made it clear by stating 'this generation and the one at the end.'
Do you agree that every other time 'this generation' is used in the NT it refers to the current generation? If you agree this is the case then why do you want to make the exception only in the Olivetti Discourse? If you disagree concerning the other passages we can test these passages to see if Jesus was talking to the current generation.
"Could I suggest that you establish a separate post/blog for each thread of our discussion here?"
Sure How do you want to do it? Do you want a thread on single issues like first cause, and purpose/intent, or do you want a thread where first cause would be one of the facets of a broader subject of discussion?
You decide. If you want to, you can write a post heading, and a brief discription of the topic, then just go ahead and post it on this thread, and I'll start a new thread with it, then delete it from this thread.
In fact, if anyone wants to contribute a topic, just chime in. We'll run it up the flag pole, and see who salutes.
I think separate threads are a great idea. I've been working on a response to the question of evolution and purposelessness and it is hideously long and I am not even quite done, so I may wait then, to post until there is a separate thread.
If you'll copy your 11:59 AM, and 12:15 PM posts from the 28th, and repost them in the new thread, I'll do the same with my response, then you can post your last reply And I'll delete them on this thread.
In trying to devise categories it is hard to know the best fit. Here are my thoughts that can be greatly improved upon.
The First Cause argument is one of many philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God. As such we could classify it under 'Ultimate Questions.' Other ultimate questions could deal with epistemology or how we come to know what we know/certainty verses uncertainty and what is necessary for truth. Is there an ultimate purpose and meaning or do we just create our own depending on our preferences? Is there an ultimate good, or is this too something that each individual decides for himself/herself? Are cultural conventions sufficient to explain why something can be 'good?' If there is no universal ideal or reference then how do we measure good? Who gets to decide?
Here are a few other suggested categories that I enjoy debating and reasoning with others on.
Creation/Evolution/naturalism verses supernaturalism. Which gives the better, more consistent view of reality.
Evidence for and against the Bible as the living, inspired, inerrant word of God.
World-views: Uncovering the persons belief systems core/foundational starting points and testing them as to how they can make sense of reality/existence. This would include the different religious views such as Atheism, Islam, Paganism, New Age, Eastern Mysticism, and of course Christianity.
Does anyone care to improve upon these or offer a different arrangement of categories or additional categories?
I'm sorry to hear that R.C. Sproul is in poor health.
You said: "I must confess I haven't read that one. I really haven't studied eschatology a great deal. Most of my disagreements with Dispensational Premillenialism arise from its conflicts with other doctrines in scripture."
It is hard to get to the bottom of these issues, but in looking at the NT from a partial Preterist position has certainly helped me put things in perspective. I am not familiar with the Amillennial position yet, but the Premillennial Dispensational position is definitely out the window.
In reading about the fall of Jerusalem and some of Josephus' accounts of it, it is amazing how what the NT describes actually fits its fulfillment by what Josephus said. Couple this with the end of the sacrificial system and Jewish economy and it appears that with the destruction of the temple and city the old covenant is done away with and God's wrath on a disobedient people is seen.
Not only the Romans came against it, in which many identify the 'siege' as marking the beginning of the 3.5 years described in the Bible, but there is civil strife and war within its walls with different groups who via for control among the Jews.
RANDY: "I would much rather be discussing the doctrine of Justification or Christology or Ecclesiology. :-)"
I also find it amazing how these themes weave throughout the Bible. Monergism.com has a special on their e-books on the current themes you mentioned. You get quite a selection in $7 to $8 per bundle.
RANDY: "I will certainly peruse Russell's "Parousia" though, especially given the influence it had on Sproul. That was a pretty strong statement you quoted."
That link I provided earlier has the works of Flavius Josephus on it as well as John Owen, Philip Mauro, John Calvin, and John Gill for starters. It is interesting to see how they look at eschatology. The link to John Owens actually has 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,' a classic!
I'm not sure which one you mean. I posted Disputan's post as well as my own. Is it his/yours that you are questioning, or the first one in which I linked two of my posts together?
I think you are doing great setting this up. I haven't the foggiest on how to do this stuff.
That's actually the name I used on a short-lived blog I started back in '08 or '09, called "The Really Mad Monk" (get it?) It was oriented toward exposing ACORN, George Soros, and your usual cast of leftist criminals....and then Glenn Beck showed up on the scene, and started doing exactly what I was trying to do.
So I just started recording Beck, and abandoned the site.
Anyway, I didn't think to change my ID before I started the blog, so....yeah. That was me. So you inadvertently posted my response to you, before I, as MrMeaner, responded.
This will go much smoother once I get used to it. Once again, my apologies
If you aren't happy with my using your commentary in the ultimate questions thread, or would like to alter it, let me know, and we'll make the changes."
No, that is fine, but if someone has another suggestion, or improvements, I'm fine with that too.
I'm not good a "catchy," but here is my stab at a heading for the "cause of the universe" thread.
The Origin of the Universe
Did our universe just pop into existence by its own volition, or was there a first and moving cause which brought it into being?
Is it possible for any effect to exist without a cause? Can we, by the use of reason and logic, come to any conclusions about the origin of the universe?
Further, if the universe owes its existence to a first and moving cause, is it possible to know anything of the attributes of this first cause by observing the evidence available to us in said vast and breathtaking universe?
These are questions that beg consideration. For millennia of recorded history the greatest minds who have ever graced our planet have wrestled with these all-important issues. What can we learn from them?
This thread is dedicated to the discussion and discovery of answers concerning the origin of our universe.
We're going back...to the beginning.
____________________________________
If you think this is OK, go ahead and kick of a new thread with it.
MrM, not sure what's going on, but i've posted part 3 of my response to randy's 29 questions twice now over on the "origin of the universe" thread. it keeps disappearing...
One thing I had thought about was something I've seen another guy doing on WAPO on the past.
Write a response to WAPO's discussion questions and post part of the response on their thread with a link to this sight for readers to see the remainder of the response and discuss it.
Don't know how effective that might be, but it may be worth a shot.
If you don't mind giving it a separate thread I could give it a try.
Don't know if you guys have been on WAPO the last several days or not, but that thing has turned into a pure joke. Dozens of people posting one and two line rants and raves with virtually nobody saying anything of consequence.
I really think if we were to write some thoughtful responses to the questions raised on WAPO, post them on a separate thread here first, then post part of that response on WAPO with a link to this site we could do well.
Do you want me to post an "open thread", or do you have another idea in mind?
I also think inviting atheists here would be fine.
I actually invited Farnaz M. from WAPO, but I didn't get a response. I figured a Jewish liberal woman might add to the flavor of the discussion
I'm in favor of anything that will bring people who are interested in actual discussions.
That's kind of why I've resisted doing anything political. I'm thinking it would invite too much hostility, (probably from me, mostly) and would end up turning this place in to the same type of dung heap as WAPO's On Faith section.
I rarely even go there, since the change.
I get more religious discussion from people debating the mid-east, than what you see in the Faith section.
It really is a joke.
I also like the idea of posting partial responses at WAPO, and linking to here
I think the Washington Post did themselves a disfavor when they changed their format. It does not allow for continuity and a serious prolonged discussion. How many times did we get lost in, and lose others, by our constant bouncing around.
But they have a panel of over fifty diverse well-known panelists that can attract any kind of discussion. People want to have their say against what the panelist post.
They also have a safe site that people feel comfortable on.
Our hope is that others are upset with the changes too and are looking for a deeper conversation.
One thing about this post, MrMeaner, is, I'm convinced, that if someone wanted to duke it out with another they could request a thread from you in which to do so on a particular subject or interest.
If anyone finds GE on a thread, post a link to it here or something, if you would. I had some questions in mind, that I never got around to asking. And, I wouldn't mind asking GE put together something on reincarnation as a topic of discussion. I think it would be interesting, and as I said, I have a few questions, myself.
We said that we (the three of us) would meet on the Susan Jacoby forum April 1st. I did not see any comment from her to let us know she was back. I hope she is okay.
When I read Sara's post I was thinking this lady has a similar type of of style. Anyway, you have an ally in Sara, Walter.
I'll post on Susan's blog, 'The Spirited Atheist.'
MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteGreat! I'm in.
Once we get this thing rolling we can post it on all the WAPO threads and probably attract a pretty good following. I'm sure even the liberals are disgusted with the new format there.
I took the liberty to post this spot to those we have been dialoging with on all of the open WAPO threads.
ReplyDeleteTwo above posts are from RCofield. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteHi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteYou might find it interesting reading to include an article or two from this web-site.
http://www.eschatology.org/index.php/articles-mainmenu-61.html
I included this article,
http://www.eschatology.org/index.php/articles-mainmenu-61/31-last-days/53-are-we-living-in-the-last-days.html
because it discusses Joel 2:28-32 as RCofield, you and I have already discussed in relation to the Book of Acts.
If I recall correctly, one of your last posts was concerning a duel-fulfillment of prophecy. Matthew 24:26, as Don Preston notes say 'all these things' would be fulfilled by the generation that saw Christs coming in the clouds. See also Luke 21:22,
http://www.eschatology.org/index.php/blog-mainmenu-92/31-last-days/67-when-all-things-that-are-written-must-be-fulfilled.html
Don Preston has written books on Jesus' coming in the clouds of heaven and on pretty well the whole enchilada of passages that we have discussed. I might try reading one or two to see how well framed his arguments are in comparison with Scripture, but in the mean time his web-site will have to do. If you are interested, take a browse.
RCofiled, would you mind if I called you Randy?
ReplyDeletePS. RCofield, I saw that Walter was posting on Susan Jacoby's 'The Spirited Atheist.' Did you ever get to resume your dialog with him on the the first cause argument? I was hoping to see how the argument developed further. He was certainly playing dodge ball.
ReplyDeletePETER!
ReplyDeleteYou found your way here! Excellent. I am looking forward to our new venue.
RCofiled, would you mind if I called you Randy?
Not at all, brother.
Peter,
ReplyDeletePS. RCofield, I saw that Walter was posting on Susan Jacoby's 'The Spirited Atheist.' Did you ever get to resume your dialog with him on the the first cause argument? I was hoping to see how the argument developed further. He was certainly playing dodge ball.
Yeah, we tried to get it started up again after the format change, but couldn't achieve any kind of continuity. I hope he will find his way here where we can resume.
PS. MrMeaner, I have bookmarked this site and if our gang moves over it will be nice to continue our conversations uninterrupted by curfews.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteI and my soon-to-be son-in-law attended the R. C. Sproul's Ligoneer Conference last week. The subject was the Holiness of God. We heard Sproul, Steve Lawson, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Godfrey, and John Piper. It was extraordinary and we came away humbled.
While I was there I saw the book on amillenealism by Kim....can't remember the last name...that you mentioned you were reading. Have you finished it yet? What did you think of it?
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI am curious as to whom you found was best in expounding on the first cause argument - Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, R.C Sproul or someone else? I would like to use this argument with my friendly atheist Bill, here in town, but I need to understand more fully how he will try to wriggle out of the argument and how to then respond.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI guess probably all of those you mentioned have influenced me on the "first cause" argument to some extent or other. Sproul and Craig are, ultimately, just working out from Aquinas' formulation of this argument. The argument is really not that complicated. It's just simple logic.
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteThe book is 'A Case for Amillennialism, Understanding the End Times' by Kim Riddlebarger, and I have it here before me but have been waylaid from reading it by our current discussion on the Washington Post and other life issues/matters.
But since you attended R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite authors, have you read his 'The Last Days According To Jesus, When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?'
R.C. Sproul makes many references to John Stuart Russell. You will find his book here,
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia.html
Here is RC's comment from the link above,
"I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell's important work." R.C. Sproul"
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/index.html
Here is a the on-line book page that divides the authors on the Reformed position into the different eschatology camps.
Funny that you should mention R.C. Sproul. I was just perusing his latest e-mail newsletter in which the conference was offered on-line. I'll try to listen in on Wednesday after the dreaded mid-nights are over. I remember watching his "Holiness of God" video back in the early eighties. (^8
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteBut since you attended R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite authors, have you read his 'The Last Days According To Jesus, When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?'
I must confess I haven't read that one. I really haven't studied eschatology a great deal. Most of my disagreements with Dispensational Premillenialism arise from its conflicts with other doctrines in scripture.
I would much rather be discussing the doctrine of Justification or Christology or Ecclesiology. :-)
I will certainly peruse Russell's "Parousia" though, especially given the influence it had on Sproul. That was a pretty strong statement you quoted.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteBTW: Sproul is getting feeble. He had to be helped to the lectern and he sat during all of his lectures.
His mind, though, is as sharp as ever. He didn't even bring notes with him when he delivered his lectures.
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad we did this.
This should allow us to be less reserved about revealing things that might not go over too well amongst the heathen.
heh heh
I'll check out those links when I get home from work this evening, PH.
Glad to see you guys
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey
ReplyDeleteDid you guys notice that the thread where I slammed Jim Wallis, and posted the link to this blog is now missing, due to "bio error"?
lol
What a bunch of pathetic losers.
#8^P
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTesting ID change
ReplyDeleteAdjusted some settings.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to register to comment, now.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteDid you guys notice that the thread where I slammed Jim Wallis, and posted the link to this blog is now missing, due to "bio error"?
Yeah. I posted the link to this site for Walter, TWMatthews, GoldenEagles, etc. on six of the active threads at WAPO yesterday morning. By noon four of the six posts had been removed.
"Losers" is a good euphemism. The new format will only be tolerated by "losers" as well, so I'm sure they will be quite a happy bunch to be rid of anything resembling a conservative view.
That's OK. I'll keep posting it until I get a response from the "crew."
hi there, guys. i see that the wallis thread is "closed to comments", but i don't think that's because of your posting a link. it's because the thread is so old... (3-4 days) ...it died of natural causes... there's no vast librul conspiracy to silence you guys...
ReplyDeletewalter
randy, you said,
ReplyDelete"1) In your estimation, is it more reasonable to assume that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, or is it more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause?"
A: yes the universe (matter/energy) has a cause - a First Cause (but what caused the first cause...).
2) Is it more reasonable to assume that time is of infinite duration, or to assume that time had a beginning?
A: i don't know. i suppose it's reasonable to say that time started when the First Cause came into existence...
3) If it is more reasonable to assume that the universe had a first and moving cause, is it more reasonable to assume that this cause was part of the universe, or is it more reasonable to assume that this cause existed apart from the universe which it caused?
A: i don't know. i don't think we can know. many people currently suppose that time starts at the time of the creation of matter - like time, energy and matter were created together.
4) Which is more reasonable to assume: A first and moving cause of all that exists, or an infinite regression of causes?
A: First Cause. but i really can't imagine what created the First Cause. sure we can "get out of" this infinite regression quandry by creating a First Cause, but that seems to me like a "trick" of convenience, used to "solve" this regression problem. so, to avvoid this, let's imagine a First Cause.
5) If it is more reasonable to assume a first and moving cause of all that exists, is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause had a beginning, or is it more reasonable to assume that this first cause has always existed?
A: the universe (matter/energy) has a cause )First Cause). i really don't know, and neither do you, whether "First Cause" has/had a beginning.
6) Is an acorn only potentially an oak tree, or is it actually an oak tree?
A: an acorn is not a tree. given the exact right sequence/combination of conditions it could become a tree. much more likely, thoiugh, it will become squirrel food, or insect food, or mulch/soil on the forest floor.
7) Can an acorn cause itself to change from an acorn to a fully mature oak tree?
A: no
8) If not what causes an acorn to change from a mere seedling to a mighty oak tree?
A: genetics and the right combination of air, soil, light etc...
9) If your response to #8 is “just reactions between matter and chemicals,” what causes these “reactions between mater and chemicals”?
A: ok, one could call it chemical/physical reactions btwn matter. these reactions are governed by "natural laws".
10) If your response to #9 is “natural laws,” (a) what causes these “natural laws” to exist, and (b) what causes them to yield the consistent results which they yield?
A: (a)natural laws are inherent properties of matter/energy. (b)because they are natural inherent properties, they do not vary - unless conditions vary.
continuing,
ReplyDelete11) Did these physical “natural laws” of the universe cause themselves to exist, or are they dependent on a first cause?
A: same as 10. being properties of matter/energy, they are "dependent" on matter/energy. i suppose you could say, since we are supposing First Cause created matter/energy, that these properties were created by First Cause when matter/energy was created.
[somewhere along around here i said, "so if THAT'S what you mean by "god", then sign me up. i love laws like f=ma and so forth. and those are laws i always obey. please, send me to hell if i violate the law of gravity."]
12) Why do you mock religious worship when you, by your own confession, are a religious worshiper?
A: i don't believe that we have established that First Cause is any kind of "conscious entity" or sentient being. BUT, if First Cause is a conscious entity that created matter/energy with these properties or "natural laws, i don't see any reason to assume First Cause created heaven/hell as reward/punishment for anything. those are suspiciously human concepts. but again, i'm not "giving you" the conscious/purposeful First Cause assumption, yet.
13) Is it not reasonable to assume that these “natural laws” that govern and effect change within the universe had their beginning with the universe?
A: i assume natural laws are inherent properties of the matter/energy that have existed ever since the beginning of matter/energy - which as far as we can tell, seems to have occurred 4,500,000,000 years ago in the big bang.
14) If they had a beginning, is it not reasonable to assume that they have a cause?
A: yes
15) Is not the cause greater and more worthy of our fascination than the effect?
A: no. the effects, the actual physical universe and its natural laws are more relevant than their cause.
16) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?
A: i am not "insistent" on a disinterested First Cause, but i don't see any evidence for an interested one. whya re you so insistent on an interested first cause?
17) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?
A: i am not "insistent" on "mere molecules", but i just don't see evidence for other than mere molecules. what evidence do you see for more than mere molecules?
18) By what means does change within the universe take place?
A: by the interaction of matter/energy and natural laws. (i peeked...)
19) Assuming you will remain consistent and answer the above question “by natural laws,” I ask you: Did these “natural laws” cause themselves to exist?
A: already asked and answered, but, again, no.
20) Did the universe have a first and moving cause?
A: yes.
randy, you said,
ReplyDelete21) If so, is it unreasonable to assume that the first cause of the universe is affecting the change that takes place in the acorn?
yes - it is unreasonable to think the First Cause IS causing changes - "changes" being the product of "natural laws" - in acorns etc... those natural laws are inherent properties of matter and do not require the constant "attention" (to the extent First Cause is capable of "attention" - which we have not established in the preceding 20 questions) of the First Cause.
22) Is it unreasonable to assume that the cause which created matter and the big bang also established the “natural laws” that would govern the matter which it created?
A: no.
23) Are you familiar with the concept of “secondary causes”?
A: yes.
24) Aren’t “natural forces” such as gravity, electromagnetism, and strong/weak nuclear forces, etc., part and parcel (“products,” if you will) of the big bang?
A: yes.
25) Does not the concept of “force” presuppose something exerting that force?
A: yes.
26) Assuming that by your use of the term “nature” you mean the physical universe, how do you separate “laws of nature” from the first cause of the universe?
A: i don't separate them.
27) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that your god (naturalism/natural laws) be “disinterested”?
A: again, i am not "insistent" on that. but i will not suppose that purely based on personal preference. i see no eveidence in the natural world for an "interested" - which implies sentient, and interested - being. again, why are you insistent on an interested god?
28) Why, exactly, do you think you are so insistent that you are nothing more than “mere molecules”?
A: again, i am not "insistent" on "mere molecules" - but that's what the evidence suggests. i know of no evidence for other than "mere molecules". what evidence do you point to for your belief in more than mere molecules?
29) Why, exactly, do you personally prefer a god who “doesn’t keep track of the goings on here on earth”?
A: same as above.
----------------------
so, what have we established so far? i'd say we've ONLY established a First Cause of matter/energy. we have not established sentience or purpose. and we are light years from the First Cause you think associated himself with ancient middle-easterners and "chose" them as receptacles of his cockamamie plan of cursing us w/sin then offering "redemption" and eternal life.
randy,
ReplyDeletein #13, i should have said "14,500,000,000" (not 4,500,000,000). scientific evidence points to a 14,500,000,000 year old universe and 4,500,000,000 year old earth. some scientists go with 13.something billion year old universe, i think. i'm not really personally invested in either number.
i answered your questions, and posed questions in reply to 17, 27,28. please answer those, along with continuing to try to make your case for the First Cause being Yahweh.
MrMeaner,
ReplyDeletethanks for setting this up.
guys,
we recently got a little tiny snowstorm that dropped just under 1/4" of snow on my yard. it really wasn't much, but, thanks to my advanced harvesting skills, i WAS able to gather enough to make something. here's a pic of my daughter standing next to my latest sculpture.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58171957@N00/
Hey Walter,
ReplyDeleteGlad you found your way here. Good to have you along.
hi there, guys. i see that the wallis thread is "closed to comments", but i don't think that's because of your posting a link. it's because the thread is so old... (3-4 days) ...it died of natural causes... there's no vast librul conspiracy to silence you guys...
Don't know about the "wallis thread," but I posted this link to you, TW, Sara, and GoldenEagles on 6 of the active threads yesterday morning. By noon 4 of the 6 posts had been completely removed from the threads.
Thanks for reposting your answers. I'll get to them in the next day or so.
You've got the snow-harvesting thing down to a science, don't you? :-) Nice pic.
Welcome aboard the refugee train.
Peace.
You guys are missing some awesome stuff on the Post....
ReplyDeleteHaha, not really :)
I do appreciate the invitation. I even bookmarked it under my fun stuff category :)
I see there are several questions going on, so I'll add one. Why should there be a requirement that existence have a purpose or intent? This is a different question than asking individual people what they believe to be the purpose of their lives.
Ice sculpture pics are awesome by the way.
Cheers!
Hi Walter and Sara
ReplyDeleteIt's my sincere pleasure to use my otherwise worthless Goolge space to set up this forum.
I can not imagine a better use, than to provide a forum for open discussion.
Don't let my specific invitation to people of faith, and the cool labor troll throw you off, we welcome all viewpoints, here.
Feel free to invite your discussion participants from WAPO here to continue your debates.
There's no expiration date on these threads.
BTW
I'm open to any suggestions in reagrd to site content.
Is the Jim Wallis column still missing from the WAPO discussion page, or is it just me?
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a method of comment control being utilized other than the 3-4 day expiration date of the threads.
I made exactly three comments on three different columnist's threads on the current discussion page, and within the first day, both columns were taken down, due to "bio errror".
(one has since been restored...at the bottom)
Both pointed out unusual ties between left-wing activists, and the Islamic revoutionaries in (most) of the mid-east.
The third column, where I made the same charges, against the writer himself, was the Jim Wallis column, where the thread was surpisingly allowed to stay for a few days.
Now, it has been removed due to "bio error"
Very peculiar
Randy,
Did you post comments on WAPO that were removed, for containing a link to this site?
Randy, Did you post comments on WAPO that were removed, for containing a link to this site?
ReplyDeleteI did. Four out of six posts containing a link to this site were removed within roughly 4 hours of my posting them. Completely removed.
I checked again last night and the other two posts had been removed.
And I thought conservatives were the "intolerant" ones....
Hey Sara,
ReplyDeleteWelcome aboard the "Refugee" train. Glad to have you along.
I'm not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, but I can't seem to get a bead on what, exactly, WAPO was trying to accomplish with the new format. At the very best it seems to be utter chaos over there now. I see no way to develop any continuity in discussions.
Why should there be a requirement that existence have a purpose or intent?
Interesting question. I have a lot I could say on that point, but I am curious as to your position on that question. Do you have a philosophical preference as to whether there is intent/purpose to our existence? If so, which is it and why?
It seems to me that Darwinian Evolution holds purposelessness as one of its formative presuppositions. Would you agree with that statement? Do you subscribe to Darwinian Evolution?
Peace
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI'm open to any suggestions in regard to site content.--MM
Could I suggest that you establish a separate post/blog for each thread of our discussion here?
For example, you could establish one thread for the eschatology discussion you and Peter are having, a separate thread for the First Cause discussion Peter and I are having, and a third thread for the question of "purpose/intent" that Sara just raised.
I think this would make our discussions more fluid in that we wouldn't be discussing multiple topics on the same thread.
If you guys think this might be helpful we could request a new thread for each new topic introduced.
Let me know what you think.
Peace.
WALTER,
ReplyDeleterandy, in #13, i should have said "14,500,000,000" (not 4,500,000,000). scientific evidence points to a 14,500,000,000 year old universe and 4,500,000,000 year old earth. some scientists go with 13.something billion year old universe, i think. i'm not really personally invested in either number.--WALTER
Yeah, I saw that. But hey, what's a few billion years among friends, right?.... :-)
I find it comical that you make such a big "deal" out of secondary disagreements among biblical interpreters, yet you give a wink and a nod to disparities in cosmology among scientists amounting, literally, to billions of years. Here's a hint: They don't know how old the earth/universe is. They're just guessing, and they could be wrong. There are, after all, serious questions about the validity of every dating method they are using.
I am ready to respond to your answers to my 27 questions. Let's see if MrMeaner will give us a separate thread on this discussion (see my post to him above). If he does, please re-post your answers on that thread to kick it off and I'll respond to them there.
I think our own thread on this discussion will be conducive to it moving along a little more quickly and succinctly.
Peace.
randy, said,
ReplyDelete"I find it comical that you make such a big "deal" out of secondary disagreements among biblical interpreters, yet you give a wink and a nod to disparities in cosmology among scientists amounting, literally, to billions of years. Here's a hint: They don't know how old the earth/universe is. They're just guessing, and they could be wrong. There are, after all, serious questions about the validity of every dating method they are using."
i have a lot to say about all that, and i'd respond but i don't want to get off-topic.
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteWelcome Sara!
I like the idea of separate threads for different categories. In this way the discussion stays focused and does not get away from us in a sea of other discussions. I think you could keep these down to five or so broad areas, then we can dap back and forth without losing the topic.
Randy suggested eschatology and First Cause as being two. I like ethics, evolution/creation and world-views as another three. If you can do this MrMeaner does anyone have any suggestions on what the categories could be?
Disputan, I am assuming that your alias is MrMeaner?
I don't see how you get a physical appearance of the Father from Jeremiah 4.
I also find it hard to see how you can justify reading a duel fulfillment of prophecy from the Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 Olivetti Discourse? You are reading 'all these things' as applying to 'this generation' as well as a future generation also. But the text does not say that. Surely Jesus would have been more specific if He meant a duel fulfillment of prophecy. He could have made it clear by stating 'this generation and the one at the end.'
Do you agree that every other time 'this generation' is used in the NT it refers to the current generation? If you agree this is the case then why do you want to make the exception only in the Olivetti Discourse?
If you disagree concerning the other passages we can test these passages to see if Jesus was talking to the current generation.
"Could I suggest that you establish a separate post/blog for each thread of our discussion here?"
ReplyDeleteSure
How do you want to do it?
Do you want a thread on single issues like first cause, and purpose/intent, or do you want a thread where first cause would be one of the facets of a broader subject of discussion?
You decide.
If you want to, you can write a post heading, and a brief discription of the topic, then just go ahead and post it on this thread, and I'll start a new thread with it, then delete it from this thread.
In fact, if anyone wants to contribute a topic, just chime in.
We'll run it up the flag pole, and see who salutes.
Hey PH
ReplyDeleteWhat a coicidence.
As you can see, I was thinking the same thing.
I was wondering where to put first cause, and purpose/intent.
They could almost be part of the same discussion.
I was thinking about an evolution/creation thread, as well.
I was also considering a thread on the relationship between politics and religion.
I think separate threads are a great idea. I've been working on a response to the question of evolution and purposelessness and it is hideously long and I am not even quite done, so I may wait then, to post until there is a separate thread.
ReplyDeletePH,
ReplyDeleteIf you'll copy your 11:59 AM, and 12:15 PM posts from the 28th, and repost them in the new thread, I'll do the same with my response, then you can post your last reply
And I'll delete them on this thread.
Someone write a catchy header for the evolution/creation thread
ReplyDeleteHi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteIn trying to devise categories it is hard to know the best fit. Here are my thoughts that can be greatly improved upon.
The First Cause argument is one of many philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God. As such we could classify it under 'Ultimate Questions.' Other ultimate questions could deal with epistemology or how we come to know what we know/certainty verses uncertainty and what is necessary for truth. Is there an ultimate purpose and meaning or do we just create our own depending on our preferences? Is there an ultimate good, or is this too something that each individual decides for himself/herself? Are cultural conventions sufficient to explain why something can be 'good?' If there is no universal ideal or reference then how do we measure good? Who gets to decide?
Here are a few other suggested categories that I enjoy debating and reasoning with others on.
Creation/Evolution/naturalism verses supernaturalism. Which gives the better, more consistent view of reality.
Evidence for and against the Bible as the living, inspired, inerrant word of God.
World-views: Uncovering the persons belief systems core/foundational starting points and testing them as to how they can make sense of reality/existence. This would include the different religious views such as Atheism, Islam, Paganism, New Age, Eastern Mysticism, and of course Christianity.
Does anyone care to improve upon these or offer a different arrangement of categories or additional categories?
Hey, that all sounds pretty good, man.
ReplyDeleteI think we can work with that
OK
The bad news is,
I screwed up a little bit.
Could you repost your second (or third, I've already forgotten which) comment on the new thread, then everything should be in a row, again
Be patient, I'm a novice
Ultimate Questions.....
ReplyDelete.....done
I think that works just fine
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to hear that R.C. Sproul is in poor health.
You said:
"I must confess I haven't read that one. I really haven't studied eschatology a great deal. Most of my disagreements with Dispensational Premillenialism arise from its conflicts with other doctrines in scripture."
It is hard to get to the bottom of these issues, but in looking at the NT from a partial Preterist position has certainly helped me put things in perspective. I am not familiar with the Amillennial position yet, but the Premillennial Dispensational position is definitely out the window.
In reading about the fall of Jerusalem and some of Josephus' accounts of it, it is amazing how what the NT describes actually fits its fulfillment by what Josephus said. Couple this with the end of the sacrificial system and Jewish economy and it appears that with the destruction of the temple and city the old covenant is done away with and God's wrath on a disobedient people is seen.
Not only the Romans came against it, in which many identify the 'siege' as marking the beginning of the 3.5 years described in the Bible, but there is civil strife and war within its walls with different groups who via for control among the Jews.
RANDY: "I would much rather be discussing the doctrine of Justification or Christology or Ecclesiology. :-)"
I also find it amazing how these themes weave throughout the Bible. Monergism.com has a special on their e-books on the current themes
you mentioned. You get quite a selection in $7 to $8 per bundle.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/Intro-to-Reformed-Theology-A-Calvinist-Survival-Guide-eBook-p-19885.html
http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Sufficiency-of-Jesus-Christ-Alone-Classic-Essays-on-the-Doctrine-of-Justification-eBook-p-19811.html
http://www.monergismbooks.com/Christ-Our-Sanctification-The-Reformed-View-of-Mortification-and-Vivification-by-Grace-eBook-p-19892.html
http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Need-for-Grace-Does-Away-with-Free-Will-Altogether-eBook-p-19843.html
It is a lot of reading!
RANDY: "I will certainly peruse Russell's "Parousia" though, especially given the influence it had on Sproul. That was a pretty strong statement you quoted."
That link I provided earlier has the works of Flavius Josephus on it as well as John Owen, Philip Mauro, John Calvin, and John Gill for starters. It is interesting to see how they look at eschatology. The link to John Owens actually has 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,' a classic!
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/index.html
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which one you mean. I posted Disputan's post as well as my own. Is it his/yours that you are questioning, or the first one in which I linked two of my posts together?
I think you are doing great setting this up. I haven't the foggiest on how to do this stuff.
PH
ReplyDeleteIf you aren't happy with my using your commentary in the ultimate quetsions thread, or would like to alter it, let me know, and we'll make the changes
I'm Disputin.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain.
That's actually the name I used on a short-lived blog I started back in '08 or '09, called "The Really Mad Monk" (get it?) It was oriented toward exposing ACORN, George Soros, and your usual cast of leftist criminals....and then Glenn Beck showed up on the scene, and started doing exactly what I was trying to do.
So I just started recording Beck, and abandoned the site.
Anyway, I didn't think to change my ID before I started the blog, so....yeah. That was me.
So you inadvertently posted my response to you, before I, as MrMeaner, responded.
This will go much smoother once I get used to it.
Once again, my apologies
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "PH
If you aren't happy with my using your commentary in the ultimate questions thread, or would like to alter it, let me know, and we'll make the changes."
No, that is fine, but if someone has another suggestion, or improvements, I'm fine with that too.
mrmeaner, you said,
ReplyDelete"I was wondering where to put first cause, and purpose/intent. They could almost be part of the same discussion."
imho, these are miles apart. it assumes WAY too much about "First Cause".
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI'm not good a "catchy," but here is my stab at a heading for the "cause of the universe" thread.
The Origin of the Universe
Did our universe just pop into existence by its own volition, or was there a first and moving cause which brought it into being?
Is it possible for any effect to exist without a cause? Can we, by the use of reason and logic, come to any conclusions about the origin of the universe?
Further, if the universe owes its existence to a first and moving cause, is it possible to know anything of the attributes of this first cause by observing the evidence available to us in said vast and breathtaking universe?
These are questions that beg consideration. For millennia of recorded history the greatest minds who have ever graced our planet have wrestled with these all-important issues. What can we learn from them?
This thread is dedicated to the discussion and discovery of answers concerning the origin of our universe.
We're going back...to the beginning.
____________________________________
If you think this is OK, go ahead and kick of a new thread with it.
are the topics "up"? are they listed somewhere?
ReplyDelete"imho, these are miles apart. it assumes WAY too much about "First Cause"."
ReplyDeleteThat's why we made a thread to discuss such things.
If you'll click on the site name at the top, it will take you to the main pages, where we're trying out the separate threads idea.
I'll put the archiving back in, and you should see a list of topic threads on the right side.
mrm,
ReplyDeletethanks. you da man!
MrM,
ReplyDeletenot sure what's going on, but i've posted part 3 of my response to randy's 29 questions twice now over on the "origin of the universe" thread. it keeps disappearing...
i tried 3 times and it keeps disappearing. must be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to suppress liberal voices...
ReplyDeleteHmmm
ReplyDeletelet me check around and see what's going on
It was a problem with the spam blocker.
ReplyDeleteFixed
MrM, thanks much. you're quite the webmaster, or host or something.
ReplyDeleteI've been racking my brain trying to figure out a way to get some traffic here.
ReplyDeleteI've considered doing a political page, and linking to this blog.
I've considered posting more stories like the one I just now posted.
Any suggestions on ways to attract some folks?
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteAny suggestions on ways to attract some folks?
One thing I had thought about was something I've seen another guy doing on WAPO on the past.
Write a response to WAPO's discussion questions and post part of the response on their thread with a link to this sight for readers to see the remainder of the response and discuss it.
Don't know how effective that might be, but it may be worth a shot.
If you don't mind giving it a separate thread I could give it a try.
Let me know.
How about sending out an invitation to debate on an atheist forum?
ReplyDeleteMRMEANER, PETERHUFF,
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you guys have been on WAPO the last several days or not, but that thing has turned into a pure joke. Dozens of people posting one and two line rants and raves with virtually nobody saying anything of consequence.
I really think if we were to write some thoughtful responses to the questions raised on WAPO, post them on a separate thread here first, then post part of that response on WAPO with a link to this site we could do well.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteThat Sounds good to me.
Do you want me to post an "open thread", or do you have another idea in mind?
I also think inviting atheists here would be fine.
I actually invited Farnaz M. from WAPO, but I didn't get a response.
I figured a Jewish liberal woman might add to the flavor of the discussion
I'm in favor of anything that will bring people who are interested in actual discussions.
That's kind of why I've resisted doing anything political. I'm thinking it would invite too much hostility, (probably from me, mostly) and would end up turning this place in to the same type of dung heap as WAPO's On Faith section.
I rarely even go there, since the change.
I get more religious discussion from people debating the mid-east, than what you see in the Faith section.
It really is a joke.
I also like the idea of posting partial responses at WAPO, and linking to here
I think the Washington Post did themselves a disfavor when they changed their format. It does not allow for continuity and a serious prolonged discussion. How many times did we get lost in, and lose others, by our constant bouncing around.
ReplyDeleteBut they have a panel of over fifty diverse well-known panelists that can attract any kind of discussion. People want to have their say against what the panelist post.
They also have a safe site that people feel comfortable on.
Our hope is that others are upset with the changes too and are looking for a deeper conversation.
One thing about this post, MrMeaner, is, I'm convinced, that if someone wanted to duke it out with another they could request a thread from you in which to do so on a particular subject or interest.
Has anyone seen Golden Eagles?
ReplyDeleteI haven't since the format change.
If anyone finds GE on a thread, post a link to it here or something, if you would.
I had some questions in mind, that I never got around to asking. And, I wouldn't mind asking GE put together something on reincarnation as a topic of discussion. I think it would be interesting, and as I said, I have a few questions, myself.
(Almost) no subject off-limits, PH.
ReplyDeleteIf you know someone with an idea, or even a question that we might be able to come together to answer, I will post it immediately
peter,
ReplyDeleteif you could find "pamsm", that would be great.
Hi Walter,
ReplyDeleteWe said that we (the three of us) would meet on the Susan Jacoby forum April 1st. I did not see any comment from her to let us know she was back. I hope she is okay.
When I read Sara's post I was thinking this lady has a similar type of of style. Anyway, you have an ally in Sara, Walter.
I'll post on Susan's blog, 'The Spirited Atheist.'
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenever mind
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete