tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post2469974569832249460..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: How to Prepare for TrialDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-42027191788015904932007-08-28T02:58:00.000-04:002007-08-28T02:58:00.000-04:00***A person who asks questions is looking. It is t...***A person who asks questions is looking. It is the person who doesn't ask questions who is not looking. (paul)<BR/><BR/>Oh yes, paul, I agree with you here! I'm not trying to say that DagoodS isn't looking. What I want to say is not that he doesn't have the right belief, or isn't looking the right way. The point I'd love to make is just the opposite - that looking is the main thing; that the fact that he hasn't found is no condemnation of the search; that anyway, God is not easily found. <BR/><BR/>But let me explain what I mean by "not easily" - not that he's easy to miss if you don't look for him the right way, but that looking for him is difficult and he's easy to miss if you're not looking.<BR/><BR/>I forget when I'm typing away here that you've been beaten to death with "Christian" thinking. I am too easily content with understanding my own meaning and not with considering how it sounds to you and DagoodS. Sorry, and thanks.<BR/><BR/>DagoodS, I'm really not asking you to do something different. I would love to offer you, in some small way, such encouragement as a stranger may offer to keep on. I know it's exhausting, but I did get answers to my questions, and I'm no better than you - guaranteed!jennypohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885906238155398438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-67669218388829615592007-08-27T17:00:00.000-04:002007-08-27T17:00:00.000-04:00Jennypo,I was going to leave this be; but as paul ...Jennypo,<BR/><BR/>I was going to leave this be; but as paul seemed fit to respond, I might highlight one point.<BR/><BR/>There are a number of ways in which to hide an object, but one of the most effective ways to do so is to mingle it with a large quantity of similar objects. A diamond is very sufficiently hidden by mixing it in a pool of cubic zirconium’s. The only way for us to “find” it is to divine a way to tell the difference. <BR/><BR/>It is (perhaps) a bit easier for a theist, because they already <I>have</I> a god belief. Oh, it may need a bit of modifying, and it most certainly does not correspond to what the actual god would be like—but at least they have something to start with. As a non-believer, I have nothing. I have a pool of sparkly items, and I am informed that somewhere within there is a diamond, amongst all the CZ’s. And the only way I can determine which is which, is if the diamond chooses to reveal itself to me.<BR/><BR/>You are right—it may be a matter of will. How many questions can I ask? How many books can I read? How many people can I interact with? How much thought can I place into this idea of a diamond in the pool before I get tired? <BR/><BR/>I have waded in that pool. I have searched, listened to a variety of experts as to what to search for, and have spent as much energy as I possibly could in the hopes of finding that diamondd. My life would be <I>easier</I> if I found a diamond.<BR/><BR/>At some point, I reach the conclusion that if all that effort is not enough, then I don’t know what else to do. Because for all I know, I am looking for the wrong thing. If I am told that diamonds are ONLY blue—I will never find the correct diamond among the CZ’s, ‘cause I am looking for the wrong thing.<BR/><BR/>How can I ever be assured I am looking for the right thing, if I have to know what the right thing is, before I can search for it?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-35836795797246457562007-08-27T12:13:00.000-04:002007-08-27T12:13:00.000-04:00jennypo,You have never come across to me as "dissi...jennypo,<BR/>You have never come across to me as "dissing" Dagoods, or anyone for that matter. You just don't come across that way. You seem a careful and considerater person.<BR/><BR/>you wrote:<BR/>"DagoodS' questions, if they spring out of honesty and his best powers of reason (and though I cannot judge such a thing, I believe they do), are questions that must be asked."<BR/><BR/>and then wrote:<BR/>"Though he reveal himself, God is so easy to miss for the one who's not looking for him! What was the difference between Peter and Judas?<BR/><BR/>The will. "<BR/><BR/>What I read here is that people such as Dagoods have easily missed God because they were not looking for God. This is an example of where one, such as yourself, values a belief over a person. If you have known Dagoods for any short period, you know he has looked for God. The intricacies of his questions are evidence of that. <BR/><BR/>A person who asks questions is looking. It is the person who doesn't ask questions who is not looking.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-30757225729854068712007-08-25T23:51:00.000-04:002007-08-25T23:51:00.000-04:00Though he reveal himself, God is so easy to miss f...Though he reveal himself, God is so easy to miss for the one who's not looking for him! What was the difference between Peter and Judas?<BR/><BR/>The will.jennypohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885906238155398438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-35662197129198380112007-08-25T18:23:00.000-04:002007-08-25T18:23:00.000-04:00jennypo, I would agree that no methodology is suff...jennypo, I would agree that no methodology is sufficient to determine “Truth” with a capital “T.” But, as you say, we try to get as close as we can, ever mindful that new information may cause us to modify what we think is close to the truth.<BR/><BR/>Again (and again and again) what methodology do people have in effect to make that determination? That they are wrong? What I see most use—observation, determination of credibility, and review of bias—all get thrown out the window when it comes to claims of theistic events. All of a sudden, it is “What convinces <I>me</I> must convince <I>you</I>” With little openness to being off the truth—even to the point of being completely wrong.<BR/><BR/>You are also correct, that in the end my methodology (like ALL methodologies that I have seen) eventually reduces to my personal determination. That I become the judge of what would be convincing to a neutral person. I have no choice; I have to work with what I have…<BR/><BR/>I have proposed numerous times that we (another Christian debating with me) submit the question we are discussing to a neutral person. That we <I>don’t</I> use just ourselves, but try to use someone uncommitted to the conclusion. Curiously, it is always, ALWAYS the Christian that backs away from this prospect with weak defenses of “there are no neutral persons” or some other such nonsense. <BR/><BR/>Until I can get a person with whom I am discussing to use something else, I guess I am stuck trying to be as neutral as I can, with the method I have.<BR/><BR/>Like Paul, I am a bit confused about something—if the only way I can determine God exists is if He reveals himself to me—what difference does it make how much I seek that truth? If God chooses to not show himself to me; no matter how hard I look, I cannot find him. If God chooses to show himself to me; I can’t miss it.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-21130093686423383402007-08-24T21:42:00.000-04:002007-08-24T21:42:00.000-04:00Let me first assert that I am not dissing DagoodS'...Let me first assert that I am not dissing DagoodS' methodology, for the simple reason that my own methodology is subject to the very same weaknesses I want to identify in his. What I would like to point out is that any methodology of ours, while certainly necessary when discussing truth and useful in discovering truth, comes up insufficient to bring us to knowledge of Truth. This is not to say it can be ignored. We are responsible to make use of every brain cell, every synapse, every logical power available to us as we search for truths and Truth. But I maintain that these are not enough in knowing Truth.<BR/><BR/>DagoodS, one trouble your methodology offers you in relation to Truth is that you must take the place of the judge. As you point out in your previous post, a judge may take that position only after a large amount of both study and experience in relation to the practice of the law. How are you to obtain such knowledge and experience of Truth? And then, if you would judge the truth well, you are to a certain extent dependent on those who argue for or against it. If they fail to do their jobs well, your ability to judge is compromised. Or, if you are not the judge, who does take that place?<BR/><BR/>I can certainly understand that this method appeals to you in dealing with truths, as mine does for me. I also admit that the questions it raises for you must be both asked and resolved if you are to know Truth. But I don't understand how such a methodology might lead anyone to knowledge of Truth.<BR/><BR/>Paul,<BR/><BR/>I do insist that God will have to do the revealing himself. But truth of any sort is not easily recognized, and Truth, if God be Truth, must be pursued with every power that we have of discerning meaning and reality. Our methodologies are useful. They are not nothing. But neither are they enough.<BR/><BR/>DagoodS' questions, if they spring out of honesty and his best powers of reason (and though I cannot judge such a thing, I believe they do), are questions that must be asked. I am not belittling his experience, nor am I asking him to put the inconsistencies and questions he has identified away and "just believe". I only make argument with him because I want to urge him not to depend on the ability of Christians or others to answer him. Such questions can only be answered by God.jennypohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885906238155398438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-79126268029749302212007-08-24T17:02:00.000-04:002007-08-24T17:02:00.000-04:00Paul wrote:When did the standard change over from ...Paul wrote:<BR/>When did the standard change over from God directly affirming a course of action in an obvious, unquestionable way to "fruit?"<BR/><BR/>Jim wrote:<BR/>"That's an easy one. Answer: at the cross."<BR/><BR/>Paul wrote:<BR/>"And these [signs] will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Lk. 16:17,18 <BR/><BR/>"But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God exclaiming, "God is really among you!" I Cor. 14:24,25 <BR/><BR/>These couple of scriptures, words purportedly spoken by Jesus and Paul, do not speak of "fruit" but signs. And pretty spectacular signs at that. These were after the cross. <BR/><BR/>You offer me an "easy" answer, with no reference to where you got it. I offer you a simple one in return, words from the book that I'm guessing you believe to be the word of God? I do not see how you so easily dismiss these, I guess you know them...and that's just a small sampling. <BR/><BR/>Jim wrote:<BR/>"Paul from Virginia,<BR/>I noticed this tacked onto references to the OT; Kill an abortion doctor?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Obviously that's contemporary bad fruit. I'm curious as to why it's tacked onto the usual OT suspects." <BR/><BR/>Paul wrote:<BR/>Yeah, why not? A "Christian" from North Carolina (if I remember correctly) killed an abortion doctor because he believed the God of the bible told him to. I see little difference between God telling someone to kill their kid, or kill an entire people or kill and abortion doctor. The bible says God doesn't change. In each of these cases it is God who is purportedly ordering the killing, but people doing the killing. Abraham and Israel are okay with you, because it's written in a book that God told them to do this...the abortion doctor isn't so lucky. Maybe in a couple of thousand years people will read of the abortion doctor in some book he wrote and judge that he was okay too.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-82876522546887195422007-08-24T15:10:00.000-04:002007-08-24T15:10:00.000-04:00Catching up…jennypo: What hope do you think ther...Catching up…<BR/><BR/><B>jennypo: </B> <I> What hope do you think there is in a jury trial for a guy who's innocent and chooses not to hire a lawyer? Will the truth still come out? </I><BR/><BR/>No question it would be harder. However, you still have a judge who is monitoring what evidence gets in. The Prosecutor cannot run rough-shod. Further, jurors are not necessarily mesmerized by what attorney’s say. They may even put a heightened burden on the prosecutor (what with the American ideal of “routing for the underdog.”) This situation of both an innocent person (I have never had one) AND not choosing a lawyer would be something that I would not generally consider in my methodology.<BR/><BR/>It is not what I normally face, nor is it something I would use as a method. I would like comparison of the <I>best</I> arguments with the <I>best</I> evidence.<BR/><BR/><B>Jim Jordan: </B> <I> I would only add that "most likely" doesn't count with the supernatural when the acts are attributed to God, a supernatural being. </I> <BR/><BR/>I would agree. Most Christians, though, use this argument all the time when it comes to creationism. They like to argue how unlikely natural abiogenesis is, or how unlikely the Big Bang occurred, or how unlikely evolution could occur—all of which is then used to argue it is “more likely” that a supernatural being performed a supernatural act. <BR/><BR/>I agree that claiming creationism (a supernatural act) is “more likely” doesn’t count. Can you agree to that as well?<BR/><BR/>And, as I have said time and time again, if all we were talking about was how many strikes a supernatural batter gets in a supernatural baseball game, against a supernatural pitcher, all played on the supernatural plane…well…we have no ability to verify any of that information.<BR/><BR/>However, THESE are claims of a supernatural being interacting on a <B>natural</B> plane. These are claims of acts, no matter how fantastic, that actually occurred in our time, our space, with our physical beings, our atoms, and our physics. While it may be fantastic to happen, the claim is that Peter (an actual, natural person) got out of a boat (an actual, wooden, floating piece of material) in an actual storm (with winds, and waves) and walked on water (not ice, not rocks under the water, but his natural feet (with its atoms) were in contact with water (and its atoms)) at a certain point in time.<BR/><BR/>I know you cannot jump across the English channel. ‘Cause I know the size, and the human limitation. If you did, and even if that is a claim of a “supernatural act” it was still done, at least partially, in a natural fashion with an actual channel, actual time elapsing, actual space moving, etc.<BR/><BR/><B>Jim Jordan: </B> <I> How then can you tell if someone is lying about a supernatural encounter? </I><BR/><BR/>Probably shouldn’t have used Paul for this one. Paul describes his salvation event, the events of Damascus and travel to Jerusalem in Galatians 1-2 and 2 Cor. 11:32. This does NOT conform with what the author of Acts Claims in Acts 9, 22 and 26. (In fact, even the accounts within Acts vary.) One of the two is not accurately telling what happened. What “fruit” would I look for? What was Paul like before his conversion? If the author of Acts was not accurate about Paul’s salvation experience, why should I surmise that the author WAS accurate about what Paul was like prior to something he is inaccurate about? <BR/><BR/>See, you accept these as history, and then say, “Apply the methodology.” I look to see if they are history using the methodology first. <BR/><BR/><B>Jim Jordan: </B> <I> Sometimes you don't know the truth until well after the trial's over. Ask O.J. Simpson. </I><BR/><BR/>Again, probably not the best example to use. A Jury DID find that it was “more likely” O.J. Simpson committed the murder of two individuals. Actually supports my use of this methodology, if you think about it!<BR/><BR/>As to the “change”—was it at the cross, or was it during Jesus’ ministry? Did John 13-14 not kick in until <I>after</I> Jesus died, or were these commandments in place prior? How much earlier? Does it go back to Lev. 19:18? <BR/><BR/>God said as far back as Mosaic Law (Deut. 30:8-9) that if one obeys God, they will have good “fruit.” What, exactly, are you saying is the difference between, say Deut. 30:8-9 and John 14:23-24?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-4976789587440973852007-08-24T13:49:00.000-04:002007-08-24T13:49:00.000-04:00Paul from Virginia,I noticed this tacked onto refe...Paul from Virginia,<BR/>I noticed this tacked onto references to the OT; <I>Kill an abortion doctor?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Obviously that's contemporary bad fruit. I'm curious as to why it's tacked onto the usual OT suspects.Jim Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456957270007304493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-71700177287088397592007-08-24T13:36:00.000-04:002007-08-24T13:36:00.000-04:00When did the standard change over from God directl...<I>When did the standard change over from God directly affirming a course of action in an obvious, unquestionable way to "fruit?"</I><BR/><BR/>That's an easy one. Answer: at the cross.<BR/><BR/>A few points to consider about Gen. 22<BR/>1) Isaac was a supernatural child. His parents couldn't have children.<BR/>2) Isaac carried the wood for his own sacrifice up the hill. Yet Abraham said the Lord would provide the lamb for the sacrifice, which he did.<BR/>3) The location of that site is the Temple Mount. Two thousand years later, Jesus was sent to die on the cross from that very same spot.<BR/>4) Gen. 22 makes no sense without Jesus.Jim Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456957270007304493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-30113651380782248882007-08-24T12:40:00.000-04:002007-08-24T12:40:00.000-04:00"How then can you tell if someone is lying about a..."How then can you tell if someone is lying about a supernatural encounter? The Bible correctly tells us to look at the fruit it bears. If they drown their children in a bathtub, the vision was not from God. "<BR/><BR/>How about if "they" offer their kid up on an alter to God? Or divorce their wife and marry a prosititute? Wipe out an entire tribe of people? Kill an abortion doctor?<BR/><BR/>When did the standard change over from God directly affirming a course of action in an obvious, unquestionable way to "fruit?"paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-5536601157912006862007-08-24T12:20:00.000-04:002007-08-24T12:20:00.000-04:00Jenny and Paul are right. I would only add that "m...Jenny and Paul are right. I would only add that "most likely" doesn't count with the supernatural when the acts are attributed to God, a supernatural being. If I say I can jump across the English Channel you would be right to judge that I am lying. I am not supernatural.<BR/><BR/>But the testimony of the apostles can't be thrown out, not even Paul's, based upon the "most likely" method. After all, it is "most likely" that a supernatural God would be able to do supernatural things.<BR/><BR/>How then can you tell if someone is lying about a supernatural encounter? The Bible correctly tells us to look at the fruit it bears. If they drown their children in a bathtub, the vision was not from God. If the person cleans up their language and their life, becoming a responsible adult and parent, the question should be, "How can I prepare for that encounter?"<BR/><BR/>It's not unlike that child support deadbeat. You believed he was telling the truth, until you saw he didn't blink at posting bail. That was the fruit of a rotten tree, the tree of lies. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes you don't know the truth until well after the trial's over. Ask O.J. Simpson.Jim Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456957270007304493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-38419347027436261642007-08-24T11:49:00.000-04:002007-08-24T11:49:00.000-04:00"Coming to a knowledge of the Truth, if Truth be i..."Coming to a knowledge of the Truth, if Truth be indeed God, will require more than a methodology, more than a judgement. It will require evidence greater than the kind that can be bagged, labelled, and lugged into the courtroom. It will require nothing less than God revealing himself directly to a whole person - body, mind, and spirit."<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty certain Dagoods is working on this,so forgive me. From what I have read of Dagoods stuff, he had this. He was a Calvinist after all. <BR/><BR/>When did "God" switch his modus operandi? Back in the day, "God" purportedly gave a sign or miracle to back up the assertions of the person speaking for "God." Or, God would show God to a group of people simultaneously. <BR/><BR/>Jennypo, I think it will take more than "God revealing himself directly to a whole person - body, mind, and spirit." It did in the past. In the past there were corroborating signs and miracles or a whole group got the revelation. Now we have individuals claiming they have had a revelation of God with nothing to substantiate it for the individual receiving the revelation. Nothing to demonstrate to the 'receiver' that they have indeed heard from God.<BR/><BR/>But, if you insist that God will have to do the revealing himself, that that is the way God does things, why would you even talk about it? What's the point?paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-60942575108096412682007-08-22T21:17:00.000-04:002007-08-22T21:17:00.000-04:00DagoodS,What do you think about the possibility th...DagoodS,<BR/><BR/>What do you think about the possibility that the entire "jury" of the United States electorate carefully reviewed the evidence and decided that George Bush would make a good leader? Sorry for the political reference (Doubly sorry if you are a Bush fan). It doesn't offer me much hope that God would do really well in such a situation.<BR/><BR/>What hope do you think there is in a jury trial for a guy who's innocent and chooses not to hire a lawyer? Will the truth still come out?<BR/><BR/>I don't mean to be flippant. I wish I could frame my knowledge into something that would offer you the challenge you ask for, because according to your methodology, truth emerges most meaningfully when there are two sides with similar but opposite goals and roughly equivalent abilities.<BR/><BR/>Don't stop arguing- for you, it certainly appears to be a good way of sorting through information. Hopefully, your arguments will challenge others who have thought it unnecessary to think and make choices for themselves. And it is very interesting to me to have gained a peek into your perspective. <BR/><BR/>Please don't think I'm knocking your methodology. Generally speaking, it's just as good as mine. Both of them help us to make judgements based on our individual priorities. Beyond that, I think they offer us a valuable critique of our own thinking and what is presented to us. Both of us have held our ideas up to the light of such methodologies and recognized holes. That is great, and necessary.<BR/><BR/>Coming to a knowledge of the Truth, if Truth be indeed God, will require more than a methodology, more than a judgement. It will require evidence greater than the kind that can be bagged, labelled, and lugged into the courtroom. It will require nothing less than God revealing himself directly to a whole person - body, mind, and spirit.jennypohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885906238155398438noreply@blogger.com