God vs Satan
While walking on the treadmill this morning, I happened to turn on the HIstory Channel and the two hour program "God vs. Satan" was on. I had seen it a couple of years ago but had forgotten that it is full of distortion of Scripture and half truths. It just validated my understanding about the importance of Christians being the voice of truth in a world that is fallen. Tools such as Logos 4 are so vital to that mission and anybody who is a Christian can benefit from owning one version or another.
Just a passing thought.
Blessings to all,
Bob
Comments
-
I used to watch some of those History Channel mockumentaries but my wife caught on that they just got me too torqued up and she now discourages my watching unless it's something people in the church are prone to watch and I must answer.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Thomas Black said:
I used to watch some of those History Channel mockumentaries but my wife caught on that they just got me too torqued up and she now discourages my watching unless it's something people in the church are prone to watch and I must answer.
ROTFL! [:D] I hear you Thomas. I especially like the term "mockumentaries".
0 -
Thanks Thomas
I have added "mockumentaries" to my vocabulary!
0 -
[;)][y]Nord Zootman said:I have added "mockumentaries" to my vocabulary!
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
It just goes to show how important presuppositions are to interpreting data...
Prov. 15:23
0 -
One thing that really "sticks in my craw" is how they trot out so many "scholars" that are obviously hostile to the Scriptures. They seldom, if ever, interview any solid conversavtive scholars. The whole thing is rigged!
The worst effect of such programs is their availability to the general public which generally lacks the discernment to scrutinize them. I wonder how many folks are negatively influenced by Nat Geo, Discovery Channel, etc. programming about biblical issues.
0 -
Kevin Becker said:
It just goes to show how important presuppositions are to interpreting data...
True...If you've spent any time talking to unbelievers of any stripe...this is a base understanding.
Also...I do like "mockumentarys"....
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Thomas Black said:
unless it's something people in the church are prone to watch and I must answer
One of my most bemused moments as a pastor came when a guy would come up to me and say, "Preacher, I've got a question." I knew he'd been watching documentaries and wanted to ask me something based on one of them. I never could get him to see they were rubbish.
0 -
Chris Roberts said:
One of my most bemused moments as a pastor came when a guy would come up to me and say, "Preacher, I've got a question." I knew he'd been watching documentaries and wanted to ask me something based on one of them. I never could get him to see they were rubbish.
This is a real issue in Christendom.
Believers have been brainwashed into thinking that we have to somehow justify our beliefs without presupposing the authority of God....we start from the unbelievers worldview and then try and convince them of something based on whether they will accept any "evidence" we provide....
It's a lose lose situation...and it's not "Christian"....
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
The best I heard was when my neighbour, probably genuinely wanting to set my mind at rest, reassured me that historians have now discovered that it's possible that Jesus really existed!!!! I did point out that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for his own existence....
0 -
This is the main reason why I bought Logos. Logos has thousands of books, most aren’t available else except for rare books stores, or at universities, or at other religious archives. With both books and documentaries like the ones on the History Channel, using these obscure, out-of-print, and otherwise hard to find, books, its nice to actually read the passages from the sources that the documentaries, and popular books quote from, to see if they misquote it, doesn’t do a very good job of the context of the passage, or anything else, and with Logos, you don’t have to worry about “ruining” a rare book, by highlighting, or making notes in it.0 -
Robert Pavich said:
Believers have been brainwashed into thinking that we have to somehow justify our beliefs without presupposing the authority of God.
???
Why would I want to presuppose the authority of God? It would make my argument a straw man. One can build a stronger argument starting from natural theology or common human experience. I rarely watch the type of "documentary" described here (I much prefer mysteries) but I consider them of value for evangelization. They raise important questions in the minds of the unchurched which creates an opening to provide alternative answers. I will admit, however, that the PBS Campbell mythology series and the Devinci Code book both created a surge of interest that is not matched by the history channel.
Can I somehow relate this to Logos via the desirability of apologetics resources or Rosie's suggestions re: faith and movies?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Robert Pavich said:
Believers have been brainwashed into thinking that we have to somehow justify our beliefs without presupposing the authority of God.
???
Why would I want to presuppose the authority of God? It would make my argument a straw man. One can build a stronger argument starting from natural theology or common human experience. I rarely watch the type of "documentary" described here (I much prefer mysteries) but I consider them of value for evangelization. They raise important questions in the minds of the unchurched which creates an opening to provide alternative answers. I will admit, however, that the PBS Campbell mythology series and the Devinci Code book both created a surge of interest that is not matched by the history channel.
Can I somehow relate this to Logos via the desirability of apologetics resources or Rosie's suggestions re: faith and movies?
Martha...
Everyone presupposes something....everybody begins from a "reasoning starting point."
God is the ultimate authority...he's not subject to whether I think his evidence has passed my "personal test" and now I'll allow him to exist....
The unbeliever begins with his own authority...or some other man made authority, I start with God...its' not any more circular nor straw than the way we reason every day....;
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Why would I want to presuppose the authority of God?
One strand of epistemology, championed by Cornelius VanTil was called presuppositionalism. Basically it stated that all knowledge is based on irreducible presuppositions, and that there is no 'common ground' between Christianity and competing philosophies (etc.). He also suggested that basing one's belief system on anything less than the authority of God as a starting point was suspect. Apologetics, then, becomes the task of showing how competing philosophies are self-contradictory. Sometimes this philosophical system is used to prop up logical sloppiness, or sloth, but it's a valid system in itself and worth philosophical consideration (if nothing else).
Most classical philosphers, including Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine (that's the "A" list), were not presuppositionalists, but neither did they attempt to deconstruct knowledge, nor what's knowable to some irreducible framework (as Kant attempted). They started with the observable, the self-evident, and basic logic and attempted to prove God's existence, His authority and/or the authority of His Revelation.
Alvin Plantiga and friends (search for "Reformed Epistemology" for more info.) are quite firmly established in foundationalism as the basis for their epistemology. And where VanTil has presuppositions, foundationalists begin with foundational knowledge upon which other beliefs are built. The difference is that these foundations, though necessary, can be fallible. Still this brand of foundationalism has proven valuable in apologetics, particularly against the logical postivists and the empiricists, since it begins with the assumption that there is always some common ground.
Most theologians take their lead from the classical starting point, rather than VanTil's or some other similar idea (Herman Dooyeweerd, a Dutch philosopher made a valiant, if not valuable attempt, e.g.). Though the impact of Reformed Epistemology can be read in more places than among Reformed theologians.
All this from a philosophy major at Calvin College (who sat in some classes with these champions of Reformed Epistemology). Hopefully, I'm not being too technical, nor too simplistic.
Can I make a plug for having more works by Christian philosophers in Logos?
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Bringing it back to Logos resources, Volume 1 of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics offers a great discussion of the starting points of any belief system.
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
Everyone presupposes something.
I know this well - this is why I drove chemistry professors nuts.[:)] .. and may be why last night I was reading about Godel's incompleteness, Heisenberg's uncertainity and Turing's proof of uncomputability ... all related to randomness vs. order as discussed by the creationist Morris. (Bet you didn't think I could tie that in[H])
My real problem with van Til and company is that I believe that God as many people image him doesn't exist - their image is too limited, too anthropomorphic, too culture-bound. One needs to understand who God is before granting his authority. After all, isn't one mark of human-composed religions, the mis-identification of God? I'll admit to having great fun with atheists by agreeing with them - I don't believe in their concept of God either. But I very much believe in God as I and the Church understand him/them.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
Everyone presupposes something....everybody begins from a "reasoning starting point."
God is the ultimate authority...he's not subject to whether I think his evidence has passed my "personal test" and now I'll allow him to exist....
The unbeliever begins with his own authority...or some other man made authority, I start with God...its' not any more circular nor straw than the way we reason every day....;
Here is D.A. Carson take on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvFkZYhlzdQ&feature=related
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
One strand of epistemology, championed by Cornelius VanTil was called presuppositionalism. Basically it stated that all knowledge is based on irreducible presuppositions, and that there is no 'common ground' between Christianity and competing philosophies (etc.). He also suggested that basing one's belief system on anything less than the authority of God as a starting point was suspect. Apologetics, then, becomes the task of showing how competing philosophies are self-contradictory. Sometimes this philosophical system is used to prop up logical sloppiness, or sloth, but it's a valid system in itself and worth philosophical consideration (if nothing else).
Most classical philosphers, including Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine (that's the "A" list), were not presuppositionalists, but neither did they attempt to deconstruct knowledge, nor what's knowable to some irreducible framework (as Kant attempted). They started with the observable, the self-evident, and basic logic and attempted to prove God's existence, His authority and/or the authority of His Revelation.
Alvin Plantiga and friends (search for "Reformed Epistemology" for more info.) are quite firmly established in foundationalism as the basis for their epistemology. And where VanTil has presuppositions, foundationalists begin with foundational knowledge upon which other beliefs are built. The difference is that these foundations, though necessary, can be fallible. Still this brand of foundationalism has proven valuable in apologetics, particularly against the logical postivists and the empiricists, since it begins with the assumption that there is always some common ground.
Most theologians take their lead from the classical starting point, rather than VanTil's or some other similar idea (Herman Dooyeweerd, a Dutch philosopher made a valiant, if not valuable attempt, e.g.). Though the impact of Reformed Epistemology can be read in more places than among Reformed theologians.
All this from a philosophy major at Calvin College (who sat in some classes with these champions of Reformed Epistemology). Hopefully, I'm not being too technical, nor too simplistic.
Can I make a plug for having more works by Christian philosophers in Logos?
[Y] Very good Richard, I enjoyed your post. You write well.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I am struck by the vocabulary of this thread. So much protest of those "rigged" and "rubbish" "mockumentaries" that have "brainwashed" our society.
I watch those shows and find them informative and helpful. If people ask me about them, I usually recommend that they watch. I have never felt threatened by their content or scholarship, nor have the people of our church who watched them shown any discernible weakening of faith. I/We may have disagreed or doubted, but disagreement and doubt are not threats.
Goes to show you how different people can be.
Blessings,
Bill
p.s. One caution: Describing other people's approach to God and Scripture via such a harsh vocabulary not only closes doors to authentic conversation, it also practices a form of judgmentalism I suspect that is similar to that to which you object in the "mockumentaries." Scholars judged to be "hostile to the Scriptures" can't be too far from deeming what you believe from those Scriptures as "rubbish."
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. Odds are pretty good we'll also survive the occasional "mockumentary."
0 -
Bill Coley said:
Describing other people's approach to God and Scripture via such a harsh vocabulary not only closes doors to authentic conversation, it also practices a form of judgmentalism I suspect that is similar to that to which you object in the "mockumentaries."
First this discussion is not being held with those who are sponsoring, developing or participating in these shows. It's an 'in-house' discussion of an 'outside' phenomenon.'
Second, it seems quite plain to me, and to others on this forum, that a rather narrow scholarly perspective is often represented by these shows. While this is not always the case, it sometimes is very evident. In rare cases, the bias seems so blatant that 'mokumentary' seems like a grand understatement.
As to whether this practices a form of judgmentalism, I guess we'd have to talk about which judgements are legitimate for Christians to make, and which aren't. Without citing texts, we are told by the same One Who told us not to judge others, to treat the unrepentant sinner as you would "a pagan or a tax collector." Apparently, we are to make some judgements.
Secondly, in this regard, condemning a style of presentation, is not the same as judging/condemning a person, as a person. In other words, I can object to and condemn the sin in my brother's life, but I still must love my brother without condemning him.
As to your optimism about the Church, and your skepticism about the impact of these shows, I share the former, but would challenge the latter. For those who want to remain agnostic or atheist, these provide 'another brick in the wall' between them and the eternal life.
BTW, I often watch them too (unless I get too disgusted), if only to hear the arguments, and the lengths to which some folks to get around the obvious.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Bill,
I'm glad that you find them informative...
I find just the opposite. They begin with the negative, usually hype "facts" with little actual regard for the truth, and then as someone said..."load the jury with humanist experts"....
It's not that my faith will be weakened...it's just that I do believe that there is truth and that truth is God's word.
that's all.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
we are told by the same One Who told us not to judge others, to treat the unrepentant sinner as you would "a pagan or a tax collector."
To bring this back to Scripture and Logos, yup, I see by His actions how to treat tax collectors - Zacchaeus and Matthew are examples - and for pagans we have the Canaanite woman, the centurion and his son ... Shall we say there is a different between judging rightly and being judgmental? I agree that there is no problem with judging the history channel documentaries.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Shall we say there is a different between judging rightly and being judgmental?
Yes!
BTW, pagans and tax collectors are just the folks we want to win into the kingdom! That's who they were to Jesus too! But if their behavior shows that there not in, treat them as one's still to come in.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I'm always amazed at how people love Matthew 7:1 but don't read the rest of the chapter! 15 j“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mt 7:15). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.0 -
Bill Coley said:
I am struck by the vocabulary of this thread. So much protest of those "rigged" and "rubbish" "mockumentaries" that have "brainwashed" our society.
I watch those shows and find them informative and helpful. If people ask me about them, I usually recommend that they watch. I have never felt threatened by their content or scholarship, nor have the people of our church who watched them shown any discernible weakening of faith. I/We may have disagreed or doubted, but disagreement and doubt are not threats.
Goes to show you how different people can be.
Bill,
If you have not found them at fault in their content or scholarship, then perhaps you haven't seen the ones I have. Case in point - Two statements I heard this morning on "God vs. Satan" before I turned th rubbish off. "The Roman centurians bribed Judas to reveal Jesus' whereabouts so they could arrest Him and bring Him to trial." Any basic Bible student knows it was the Jewish leadership that bribed Judas, not the Romans. No place in Scripture does it say the Romans bribed him.
Second statement - "The Romans arrested and crucified Jesus because He claimed to be a king." The Romans did not arrest Jesus the temple guards did. While I'll grant there may be some wiggle room for why they crucified Jesus, Scripture tells us that Pilate wanted to release Jesus because he found no fault with Him. He relented to the pressure brought to bear by the Jewish leaders and the crowds they had incited. The final sentence was based on the hearsay evidence of the Jewish leadership.
That is only two small examples. If we watch these shows so as to know what to expect in the questions of the less informed that is good. But I balk at recommending they watch them to learn anything reliable about Scripture. As a teacher once told me many years ago, "If any part of the answer is false then the whole thing is false." I think that applies here. When the show is flawed and full of half truths that makes the whole thing worthless in my opinion.
Finally, as was pointed out, this is an internal discussion amongst educated and well informed (hopefully) Bible scholars, ministers and teachers. I don't think we are out of bounds to state our understanding of Scripture confidently and to use strong language when addressing such a subject as these so called scholarly documentaries. Adjectives such as rubbish, rigged, and brainwashed are very appropriate. I think misinformation where Scripture is concerned is a very serious matter and can have eternal consequences.
0 -
MJ, can you give some examples of how you accomplished this feat, and point me the direction of any Logos resources, that will go further into the subject. Thanks. Just in case I have to drive some one nuts. [:D]MJ. Smith said:Robert Pavich said:Everyone presupposes something.
I know this well - this is why I drove chemistry professors nuts.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Dr. Van TIl is a because I said so epistemologist.
0 -
I want to respond to some of what others have posted regarding my previous caution regarding a judgmental attitude toward those “mockumentaries.”
A) Richard and Bob seem to believe that the brusque language of this thread’s critiques is somehow acceptable as long as it is delivered “in house.” Bob describes the adjectives “rubbish,” “rigged,” and “brainwashed” as acceptable discussion vernacular among the “educated,” the “well informed (hopefully),” “Bible scholars,” and others. If education and a call to ministry give a person in a dispute no more command of the English language than those words, arrayed into such brutish phrases, I question the value of my investment in college and seminary training.
Do you discern any consequential difference – either in tone or in content – between these two statements:1) “I disagree with your interpretation of that biblical text and its associated history.”
2) “What you believe about that Bible text is rubbish. You’ve obviously been brainwashed.”
Any difference at all? You’re telling me that the second statement is acceptable speech among the educated faithful, at least when they talk with each other. What language do the uneducated faithful use?
Is the best defense you have of this harsh language that it’s okay as long as you keep it here? Really? Is gossip okay as long as no one other than the person you’re gossiping to hears it? Is lying okay as long as the lies don’t spread? Is bigoted speech acceptable as long as everyone in the room consents? “Rubbish” is, literally, trash talking.
Bob includes – I assume with favor – a saying from a former teacher that falsehood in one part means falsehood in all parts. I wonder how the Apostle Paul would have responded to that suggestion, given his trepidation about seeing dimly in a mirror, and his knowing things only in part; how frequently he must have been totally wrong!
And if I may apply your principle to your own posting, Bob. You say the Jewish leadership bribed Judas.* A bribe initiates with the one doing the bribing, not the one being bribed. Who initiated the payment to Judas? Not the Jewish leadership (nor the Romans, of course); Judas himself did.
* A bribe is a payment made to change someone’s behavior. Did the 30 pieces of silver change Judas’ behavior? No. He came to the priests already willing to betray Jesus. The money didn’t change behavior; it paid for it.
If we accept the dictionary’s definition, no one bribed Judas; it’s not a bribe if you start the transaction.
So, Bob, I have to conclude that your statement about Judas is false, at least in part. But from your posting, we know false in part means false in total. So, that means I must conclude your entire posting is.... See the slippery slope? (By the way, I do not at all discount your entire posting; in fact, I respect it.)
My argument here is not about the content of these programs. I’m not defending the production companies or the claims they make. I honor and respect your right to disapprove of whatever they say, suggest, or imply. But when voicing your disagreement – whether to Logos users or to the world Logos users want to reach for Jesus Christ – remember Paul in Athens (1 Corinthians 17.16-34). Confronted by a disturbing collection of idols, he met with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who took him to the Areopagus. The philosophers called him a “babbler,” presumably reflecting their disapproval. Paul, on the other hand, opened his address not with adjectives but with affirmation: “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way.” He then proclaimed the Gospel in imagery tailored for his audience. The result? Some believed. Some scoffed. Others wanted to know more...... No “rubbish.” No “brainwashed.”
We need to practice “in here” the language we intend to use “out there.” One, because we obviously need the practice. Two, because it’s the right thing to do.
Blessings,
Bill0 -
Lynden Williams said:
Just in case I have to drive some one nuts.
Just keep questioning one question further back in "how do we know" or alternatively, as a physics prof said in frustration, "Martha, when calculating the force of a car crash you don't need to consider the gravitational effect of the moon.' [true story [:D]] Somehow, I was a bit better suited for studying abhidharma theory - it pushes far beyond senses into how one's mind creates a "reality" from the raw sensory data. (think Theravadan Buddhism).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bill Coley said:
We need to practice “in here” the language we intend to use “out there.” One, because we obviously need the practice. Two, because it’s the right thing to do.
[Y][Y]
[C]
translation: I put down my coffee to give you two thumbs up.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
translation: I put down my coffee to give you two thumbs up.
Thanks for the affirmation.
As for the thumbs, my initial interpretation was, "Siskel & Ebert at the Starbucks." [:)]
Blessings,
Bill
0 -
Rene Atchley said:
Dr. Van TIl is a because I said so epistemologist.
I have not read any Van Til beyond short paragraphs. However, if his view has been accurately presented in this thread and a thread last summer, I would have problems with his epistemology for the following reason. God has revealed to us only a subset of knowledge to us. For example, God has said very little with regards to mathematics or physics Our need to find/impose order may rest on God's ordering things but I can't derive a useful mathematics based on God. This implies to me than Van Til, at least in practice, has to use two parallel epistemologies.
I would like to have more philosophy and logic in Logos. In attempting to pull this discussion into how to use Logos, I tried to do a search on entanglement =something I like to use to show there is more to the universe than our current limited scientism knows. But my search came up with zero relevant hits.[:(]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
'MJ. Smith said:God has revealed to us only a subset of knowledge to us. For example, God has said very little with regards to mathematics or physics Our need to find/impose order may rest on God's ordering things but I can't derive a useful mathematics based on God. This implies to me than Van Til, at least in practice, has to use two parallel epistemologies.
Martha...
I wasn't saying that ONLY things found in scripture are true; after all....God didn't tell us how to make a pepperoni pizza but it's obviously a blessing !
I guess what it all comes down to is this:
Either everything in creation is from God...including mathematics and the very logic we are using to talk about this subject...
Or it's not.
I'm just saying that it is...that's all...
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
I don't know your background or even your nationality Bill. Is your reaction perhaps based on a different understanding of the words used? In your first post you stated you found the History Channel documentaries "informative" and you recommended them to those who are seeking understanding of the topics. Perhaps we stepped on your toes inadvertantly prompting your reaction?
Bill Coley said:Bob describes the adjectives “rubbish,” “rigged,” and “brainwashed” as acceptable discussion vernacular among the “educated,” the “well informed (hopefully),” “Bible scholars,” and others.
If I am talking about a container of trash, what would I call it except rubbish? If I am talking about somebody with a PhD who misquotes the Bible, then brainwashed isn't out of line. If my audience in both cases are other people who know the Bible and would immediately grasp my meaning without a long dissertation then the language is appropriate.
Bill Coley said:We need to practice “in here” the language we intend to use “out there.” One, because we obviously need the practice. Two, because it’s the right thing to do.
I agree with you entirely about use of language Bill. But if somebody were to come to me and begin quoting the so called facts of the documentary in question, "rubbish" and "rigged" are two words I would use to describe the overall content of the documentary. My two examples (who PAID Judas and why Jesus was crucified) were not the only inaccurate claims made in the show. I picked two that immediately came to mind. Yes there were certain parts of the show that were correct.but there were many others that basically made the whole show pretty much distortion of Scripture. So I offer no apologies that I would use the word rubbish and I don't really see the word as "harsh" langauge. Granted I may use it in a different context and only after explaining why I felt the doncumentary is rubbish.
.
Bill Coley said:If we accept the dictionary’s definition, no one bribed Judas; it’s not a bribe if you start the transaction.
I stand corrected. I chose the word bribe because that is the word the narrator in the show used. You are correct in that Judas initiated the transaction and therefore was not bribed.
Bill Coley said:Bob includes – I assume with favor – a saying from a former teacher that falsehood in one part means falsehood in all parts. I wonder how the Apostle Paul would have responded to that suggestion, given his trepidation about seeing dimly in a mirror, and his knowing things only in part; how frequently he must have been totally wrong!
Okay. Bad analogy. She was referring to true/false questions. I stand corrected here as well. [:)]
Your refernce to Paul in Athens is a good point. He was dealing with pagans who had no concept of Christianity or Jesus Christ. But Paul also dealt with inaccurate statements about the Gospel when he confronted the Judaizers concerning circumcision and the gentile believers. And his langauge was extremely harsh. He was confronting the so-called experts about some critical issues in the Church. I started this thread because there were some so-called experts being quoted on "God vs Satan" making statements about Scripture that I believe are totally inaccurate. So strong language is appropriate.
Bill Coley said:Is gossip okay as long as no one other than the person you’re gossiping to hears it? Is lying okay as long as the lies don’t spread? Is bigoted speech acceptable as long as everyone in the room consents?
So given these statements calling a documentary "rubbish" and "rigged" is synonymous with gossiping, lying and using bigoted language? Granted if done in the wrong context we might do more harm than good. I agree that we must choose our words carefully when we discuss our faith and our beliefs with others. But within the boundaries of this forum one can assume all members are of the same mind concerning the validity of Scripture. And I think one could also assume that we all have a much higher degree of knowledge concerning the Bible than a non-believer. Given those two assumptions I don't think the words used are out of line or bigoted.
I think the heart of our disagreement here boils down to one word - context. If I am having a discussion with a non-believer I would handle it differently than if my discussion is with a church member. And furthermore it might take on different language if I am discussing something with other ministers or teachers. But I don't believe we are obligated to never use strong language. Jesus often used strong language, as did Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.
All of that said, I do thank you for getting me to back up and examine in detail what I thought was a simple issue.
KIndest regards,
Bob
0 -
Bill Coley said:
My argument here is not about the content of these programs. I’m not defending the production companies or the claims they make. I honor and respect your right to disapprove of whatever they say, suggest, or imply. But when voicing your disagreement – whether to Logos users or to the world Logos users want to reach for Jesus Christ – remember Paul in Athens (1 Corinthians 17.16-34). Confronted by a disturbing collection of idols, he met with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who took him to the Areopagus. The philosophers called him a “babbler,” presumably reflecting their disapproval. Paul, on the other hand, opened his address not with adjectives but with affirmation: “Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way.” He then proclaimed the Gospel in imagery tailored for his audience. The result? Some believed. Some scoffed. Others wanted to know more...... No “rubbish.” No “brainwashed.”
We need to practice “in here” the language we intend to use “out there.” One, because we obviously need the practice. Two, because it’s the right thing to do.With full deference Bill I acknowledge precisely what you are saying insofar as language is concerned. Yet I stand by the term (Which by the way is not my own, I heard it so long ago I no longer recall it's origin) in naming these sorts of programs a mockumentary. It is a fair term for their content.
They are not - in any reliable form dedicated to revealing facts. They are, from inception to direction to production intent upon spewing a singularly errant viewpoint and this with such consistency that I must conclude it is no mere accident of careless scholarship but intentional bias. They do not exist to document anything, merely to mock anything that remotely resembles accurate scriptural teaching. The parade of characters consistently brought on all seemingly reflect a complete lack of biblical knowledge unfit for men bearing the title of biblical experts.
I am not threatened by their content, I am highly disturbed that people watch them at all and attribute any level of accuracy to them; so poor are they that they render the entire flow of programming from these channels suspect in regards to accuracy.
<sigh =puzzled>I have no idea how to state this without sounding like I'm scrapping for a fight... I'm not I merely mean to explain myself.</sigh>
RE: Language. I suppose right or wrong I wouldn't hesitate to use the same term to the authors, actors and producers.
Be mindful that these men by claiming to see and yet being blind have already staked out their position on the gospel. If Jesus called the Pharisees et al "Whitewashed tombs" which is highly inflammatory language given the cultural understanding of such than I feel no concern in calling the fruits of errant laborers "rotten." Indeed I have done so, occasionally from the pulpit when the occasion called for it. While my primary goal is to expound the truth of scripture I find it very helpful to point out when I have discovered something that is clearly not it.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
I won't quote TB's post...it's very long but I'll only say...
Amen.
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
0
-
Thomas Black said:
While my primary goal is to expound the truth of scripture I find it very helpful to point out when I have discovered something that is clearly not it.
[Y]
Amen.
0 -
Rene Atchley said:
Dr. Van TIl is a because I said so epistemologist.
That is an extreme over-simplification. While not a fan, nor a follower of Van Til (nor do I own any of his works in Logos), I know enough to know that this caricature of his epistemology is so far off as to be unrecognizable when compared to the real thing. While his views have been adopted by some folks, whose theology is quite
heterodoxical (if not heretical), you can't blame an idea for the
people who hold it.If I were to do any work in the are of Christian philosophy, particularly in the area of epistemology, I would certainly get these works by Van Til. If nothing else, he is a worthy and intellectually challenging opponent.
Maybe if you read even the Wikipedia article, focusing on the sections dealing with the Kuyper Warfield synthesis and the Transcendental Argument, you might understand how your statement is so far removed from what Van Til was saying.
EDIT: Forgot to add this little article in the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (part of The Essential IVP Reference Collection)
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
I won't quote TB's post...it's very long but I'll only say...
Amen.
[Y] here too.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Bob Schlessman said:
I think the heart of our disagreement here boils down to one word - context. If I am having a discussion with a non-believer I would handle it differently than if my discussion is with a church member. And furthermore it might take on different language if I am discussing something with other ministers or teachers. But I don't believe we are obligated to never use strong language. Jesus often used strong language, as did Paul, Peter, James, John, etc.
All of that said, I do thank you for getting me to back up and examine in detail what I thought was a simple issue.
KIndest regards,
Bob
Bob,
I honor the candor of your response. Thank you.
No need to pursue a ping-pong match of replies to each other's posts, so just a couple of comments:
1) I find the programs in question to be helpful and informative, but actually hardly ever watch them (for no other reason than that my limited attention span prompts me to watch only certain kinds of programming). If people ask me whether it would be worth their time to watch such shows, I usually say yes, but few people ever ask. I have no oar in the water for the shows or the people who make them. My theology and assumptions about Scripture are no doubt far closer to theirs than to those of the majority of Logos forum participants, but so what? My contentious posts in this thread have been about what we say about each other, not about what we believe.
2) For me, the final filter for comments we make about each other -- perhaps especially about people unable to respond for themselves -- is the Golden Rule, whose application in this instance to me sounds something like this:
If you or Thomas or Nord or Robert anyone else who defends the language I have in this thread called harsh and judgmental can authentically, honestly say to me, "Bill, the next time you talk with some of your liberal clergy colleagues, during the conversation I want you to announce your judgments about my heart. I don't want you simply to disagree with my opinions; I want you to decide about my intentions. And when you strongly disagree with me, as you speak with those colleagues I want you to call my opinions "trash," "stupid," and "insane." I want you -- it is my personal preference that you -- call me an "idiot," and tell them I must be "brainwashed." That's how I prefer that you talk about me and my opinions with which you disagree," then I will surrender my point.
But I don't think any of you will do that. I bet your preference would be that I limit my comments to your opinions. I bet you'd rather I say, "I disagree," than "What garbage!" or "I see it differently," rather than "How moronic." The Golden Rule says treat others the way you'd prefer to be treated. As long as your language about those producers complies with that standard, I'm fine. But I don't think it does (and I also think you know it doesn't).
Now, you may well remind me that the other side engages in judgment all the time. I agree. To misappropriate from Jerry Lee Lewis, when liberals and conservatives return to their respective theological hives, there's a whole lotta judgin' goin on. But that it happens doesn't make it right. Because other liberals name call conservatives doesn't mean I'm going to. Because others are judgmental, doesn't mean any of us has to be.
It's probably a hopeless cause, Bob, but I believe there's a better, more faithful way for followers of Jesus to talk to and about each other when they disagree. I don't expect to change anyone's mind -- at least not in this thread -- but I won't stop defending the cause.
Blessings,
Bill
0 -
Thomas Black said:
They are not - in any reliable form dedicated to revealing facts. They are, from inception to direction to production intent upon spewing a singularly errant viewpoint and this with such consistency that I must conclude it is no mere accident of careless scholarship but intentional bias. They do not exist to document anything, merely to mock anything that remotely resembles accurate scriptural teaching. The parade of characters consistently brought on all seemingly reflect a complete lack of biblical knowledge unfit for men bearing the title of biblical experts.
“They are, from inception to direction to production intent upon....”
How do you know that, Thomas? I have a reasonably clear idea as to how you infer it – but you don’t couch your observation as an inference; you state it as a fact. You claim to know the hearts of the people who make these programs. You claim to know not only the content of the programs (of which you disapprove), but also the intentions of those responsible for those programs. How do you know?
- Do production companies issue press releases confessing their intentions?
- Do on-camera “experts” include in their commentaries acknowledgment of their real agenda?
- Do the final credits include the revelation, perhaps right before the copyright information to which no one ever pays attention?
Thomas, the fact is you don’t know their intentions; you’re surmising them. Your judgment about their intentions is a product of an inference, one that might be accurate or inaccurate – doesn’t matter. But you claim to know their intentions. Without caveat or hesitation you attach a pernicious, deceptive spirit to people you don’t know, haven’t met, and cannot possibly understand through the murky lens of an edited one hour documentary – at least not well enough to render such a profound verdict on their hearts. That’s judgmental.
Why not respond to these shows with statements such as this: “The program I watched said this.... That’s incorrect because....” Had you offered such a limited, focused critique, the only grounds for discussion would have been a) Did you accurately report the program’s assertions? b) Were your counterclaims accurate and complete? and c) Is your conclusion therefore supported by the facts?
Those questions would stake out stimulating, edifying, and morally defensible inquiry. You and the program producers could debate those questions without ever casting aspersions about each other’s hearts. They and you could adduce supporting evidence. It would make a GREAT pay-per-view! Instead, you judge their intentions, and tell us they want to "mock...scriptural teaching." As if you know.
In your reply's final paragraph you said Jesus called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs.” Well, he didn’t. He compared them to whitewashed tombs, he said they were “like” whitewashed tombs (Matthew 23.27). Should I infer that from the beginning of your reply, you intended to misuse the words of Jesus to make your point? Would it be appropriate for me to decide that you willingly, knowing distorted Scripture for your personal gain? After all, in your reply you also said that when it came to describing program participants, you’d use words of your choice whether they were “right or wrong”?
Of course not. The only justifiable conclusion from your “whitewashed tombs” reference is that in reporting Jesus’ words about the Pharisees, you made a mistake, a mistake that tells me nothing about your character or intentions. Neither does your willingness to judge others’ intentions.... I hope.Blessings,
Bill
0 -
Bill Coley said:
It's probably a hopeless cause, Bob, but I believe there's a better, more faithful way for followers of Jesus to talk to and about each other when they disagree. I don't expect to change anyone's mind -- at least not in this thread -- but I won't stop defending the cause.
The labels "rubbish" and "rigged" were not directed at any particular person(s) but at the general nature of the documentary in question. This entire discussion has gone far astray from my original post. There is implication in your replies that suggest personal attacks where there have been none. If a person came up to you and told you it was 10 degrees below zero but you are sitting there in shorts and a t-shirt on a sunny 90 dgree day, would you not be justified to tell him the statemnet is rubbish? It doesn't mean you are saying he/she is rubbish, just the statement about the weather. You seem to be stuck on the "harsh language" and that we should never use it. That to do so in any form is a afront to any scholarly debate or discussion. I am not doing onto others in a non-Christian manner when I challenge the truth of their statements about Jesus Christ if said statements run totally contrary to Scripture in numerous places. I don't see it being a personal attack to call those statements rubbish especially when I can read Scriputre and Scripture tells me something totally different. Once again I point to Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament. Apparently they often saw the need for strong words at times.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Regards,
Bob
0 -
Bob Schlessman said:Thomas Black said:
While my primary goal is to expound the truth of scripture I find it very helpful to point out when I have discovered something that is clearly not it.
Amen.
And Amen [Y] [Y] The title of this thread is God vs Satan. I have heard from many wise persons "if you know the truth you can recognize error." We, like the Apostle Paul on Mars Hill, must meet the masses where they are, sometimes physically, psychologically, emotionally and economically but always in Spirit and in Truth. Using a documentary that is built on a foundation of lies ("untruths" if the label is more palatable to you) is intellectual dishonesty. An honest scholar would be true to the facts best to his ability and it is easy to determine the internal evidence to debunk the claims that Rome was the instigator of Jesus' trial and conviction.
These "mockumentaries" always portray themselves as "unbiased" and scholarly. Watch the movie "Jesus Camp" that aired on A&E and read the reviews. I can point out anti-Christian hostilities and mis-representations throughout the movie. Yet it garnered lots of support from fellow "Christians" who missed the bias.
Warning: The movie "Jesus Camp" attempts to portray Pentecostals and middle America in a poor light and may be offensive to some. I found it a heartwarming reassurance there are still people who love God and his word.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Bob Schlessman said:
The labels "rubbish" and "rigged" were not directed at any particular person(s) but at the general nature of the documentary in question. This entire discussion has gone far astray from my original post. There is implication in your replies that suggest personal attacks where there have been none. If a person came up to you and told you it was 10 degrees below zero but you are sitting there in shorts and a t-shirt on a sunny 90 dgree day, would you not be justified to tell him the statemnet is rubbish? It doesn't mean you are saying he/she is rubbish, just the statement about the weather. You seem to be stuck on the "harsh language" and that we should never use it. That to do so in any form is a afront to any scholarly debate or discussion. I am not doing onto others in a non-Christian manner when I challenge the truth of their statements about Jesus Christ if said statements run totally contrary to Scripture in numerous places. I don't see it being a personal attack to call those statements rubbish especially when I can read Scriputre and Scripture tells me something totally different. Once again I point to Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament. Apparently they often saw the need for strong words at times.
Please revisit the Golden Rule application in my previous reply to you, Bob. I think you will discover that it referenced opinions/attitudes, as well as persons. In addition, that my critical word about you is not a "personal" attack doesn't exempt it from biblical standards of truth, compassion, grace, forgiveness, and understanding. How far has a phrase like "What a stupid idea!" ever advanced a conversation with a friend/colleague/family member? Wrong is wrong, whether it's personal or attitudinal.
Your reply bypassed the Golden Rule challenge I issued. I'll try one more time. The next time I speak with some of my liberal clergy colleagues, is it your preference that I describe your opinions with which I strongly disagree as "garbage" and products of some form of brainwashing? Or is it your preference that I simply report your opinions, then tell those colleagues why I disagree? Would you prefer that I report our differences of opinion, or name call your opinions? If you abide by the Golden Rule, the language you're defending in this thread suggests you'd prefer the latter. I hope that's not the case.
So, please continue to "challenge the truth" of statements about Jesus Christ. Just be sure to care about your methods and how you report the results of your efforts.
Blessings,
Bill
0 -
Bill Coley said:
Your reply bypassed the Golden Rule challenge I issued.
And your replies have all bypassed my statements that we see in Scripture the use of strong language not only by our Lord but the Apostles at times where truth is concerned. Besides, your challenge is irrelevent to the topic that started this thread. Opinions are one thing but we weren't discussing opinions when the langauge in question was used.. Statements given as facts that are contrary to Scripture are another.That is the issue I brought up originally. That is the issue with which I am concerned about the documentary. Several PhD's made statements as fact that contradict Scripture. They are presenting them as "experts" on the topic. That my brother must be challenged in strong language.
Bill Coley said:Just be sure to care about your methods and how you report the results of your efforts.
I have no problem with my methods. The disagreement here seems to be driven by the use of strong language being unacceptable to you under any circumstances. I don't agree for the reasons I have given. Am I saying it is always acceptable? Not at all. But I think you are comparing apples and oranges and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. However, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. [;)]
Blessings,
Bob
0 -
Post on the vocabulary of reasoning vs. vocabulary of emotion delete by author.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bob Schlessman said:
If a person came up to you and told you it was 10 degrees below zero but you are sitting there in shorts and a t-shirt on a sunny 90 dgree day, would you not be justified to tell him the statemnet is rubbish?
Actually, unless he was a known practical joker, I would be concerned about his health [^o)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bill Coley said:
And if I may apply your principle to your own posting, Bob. You say the Jewish leadership bribed Judas.
* A bribe initiates with the one doing the bribing, not the one being bribed. Who initiated the payment to Judas? Not the Jewish leadership (nor the Romans, of course); Judas himself did.
* A bribe is a payment made to change someone’s behavior. Did the 30 pieces of silver change Judas’ behavior? No. He came to the priests already willing to betray Jesus. The money didn’t change behavior; it paid for it.
If we accept the dictionary’s definition, no one bribed Judas; it’s not a bribe if you start the transaction.
So, Bob, I have to conclude that your statement about Judas is false, at least in part.
I recall watching a news program in the '90s showing a video of a congressman soliciting a bribe from undercover officers. The officers did not initiate the payment, the congressman himself did. The congressman was, of course, charged with bribery. We could also discuss an ex-governor of Illinois. I would say the dictionary definition is somewhat incomplete and Bob's statement about Judas appears to be rather accruate.
Robert
0 -
Bill Coley said:Thomas Black said:
They are not - in any reliable form dedicated to revealing facts. They are, from inception to direction to production intent upon spewing a singularly errant viewpoint and this with such consistency that I must conclude it is no mere accident of careless scholarship but intentional bias. They do not exist to document anything, merely to mock anything that remotely resembles accurate scriptural teaching. The parade of characters consistently brought on all seemingly reflect a complete lack of biblical knowledge unfit for men bearing the title of biblical experts.
“They are, from inception to direction to production intent upon....”
How do you know that, Thomas? I have a reasonably clear idea as to how you infer it – but you don’t couch your observation as an inference; you state it as a fact.
Point taken Bill.
Modify above comments to "They are apparently from inception...." and so on.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0
