Danny Braudrick

Thanks for the Service to all you vets.

Paul Shelton

Of course, Danny -- You can look in the mirror when you say that -- and deservedly so.

I was gratified when our local Lowe's finally assigned 4 parking stalls to veterans.  Usually they are open any time of day, which is good for me, but also a little distressing they aren't more often used. There are a lot fewer vets these days than when we were young.

I recall my experiences as a member of our band from the 5th through 8th grades, participating in the annual Memorial Day ceremony at the local cemetary.  Our small rural Michigan town of Byron, some 60 miles NW from Detroit, population about 800, had a parade of local vets dressed in what still fit from their moth-balled uniforms. We marched to the cemetary playing some familiar patriotic piece, then, just outside the main gate, went silent except for the snare drummers tapping out a cadence on their drum rims.  Once inside, we halted where we would stand at the head of the gathering, did a right-face, played the National Anthem, and remained standing at attention thoughout the event. A chosen vet would give a eulogy to the fallen, followed by our trumpeter playing tapps. This was my introduction to our traditional remembrance of those who died in our wars.

I still have a set of my uniforms, and though pretty tight, they still fit. I'll almost certainly never wear them again, but I could never get rid of them. I'll leave that to the living after I'm gone.

Kip Miller

Kip Miller

Marvin Knox

I'm sure there are a bunch of towns that lay claim to being "the most patriotic city in America". Lake Havasu Arizona is one of them. 

There's a big parade every year.

There sure are a lot of flags flying around here, and not just for Veterans's Day.  There must have been at least a couple of dozen lining our church parking lot Sunday.

As a vet - I get 10% off on every purchase at the local Lowes - and that's year round.  I did some work on my patio/grill area last month.  They gave me $400 off on the building material and thanked me for my service.

Some restaurants are serving free meals to vets. I'm tring hard not to take too much advantage of that.  But I will stop in for a free coffee.

As soon as I sign out here, I'm off to get my free Verteran's Day shave and haircut.  I've let things grow for an extra couple of weeks just to save up. 

Now - if I can just get the fish to give me a special break today - it'll be catfish tacos with mango salsa and margaritas tonight.  It's the American way.

Paul - my church in Federal Way had a special day honoring police and fire right after 9-11.  I tried - but there was just no way I could fit into my uniform.   Even my hat didn't fit.

I can only imagine trying to squeeze into my old military uniform from 55 years ago.

Richard Sherman ((Leslie Field))

Why I Wear a White Poppy

While still in my mid-teens in the early '60's I discovered the quote from John Donne (1572-1631),

"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind"

This resonated with me and it is a personal guiding principle to this day.

Donne emphasized ANY man's death -- and for me that means without regard to ethnicity, religion, politics or national identity.

I remember all those affected by war, be they soldiers or non-combatants; it matters not to me what "side" they may have been on. Those killed or maimed in war are all equal in my view -- Canadian, American, British, German or Japanese . . .

The White Poppy emerged from peace movements in the UK. It recognizes all victims of war not just those who fought for "our" side. I choose to wear it to show my sadness over the tragedy of war.

When we say "Lest We Forget" we must first recognize we are all of but one race -- the human race. We must then strive to prevent war and instead focus on bettering all of humanity.

Paul Shelton

Richard,

I am aware of the poem by John Donne, where you took your quote, as Hemingway used it to begin his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls.  It is written in old Gallic I believe and I have pondered its meaning for years.  It begins , “No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe”.  This conveys a profound, though simple understanding about humanity. The center speaks of a loss of the smallest part of something great being significant to the whole, ending in your quote, “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde”, and continues, “And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” This last puzzles me, and maybe you have an explanation to give sense to it.  Can you or someone enlighten me as to how it should be understood?

I am reminded of the “folk question” prominent in the 70’s I believe, that asked: “What if they held a war – and nobody came?” it inspired me to imagine something fanciful, that, at the time was truly unimaginable, but today, not so far-fetched. What if every member of large armies communicated with members of other large armies, and established an online network that would decide not to ever engage each other, making war impossible between these armies, no matter how military leadership attempted to engage them.  –An invitation to war – and a no-show by both armed forces. Silly, right?

Your post, Richard, is a thoughtful one, and I see more and more, the sentiment by world leaders of honoring all soldiers who died in war.

Paul Shelton

It’s been a pleasure reading the comments from our classmates who are movie buffs, and remember so well the entertainers for kids that filled the black and white screens of our childhood. I remember most of the characters that stole our time after school, from Roy and Gene and Hoppy and Cisco, and of course Superman and the Mickey Mouse Club. There were a lot of good radio shows, too, that the cows and I listened to on the barn radio. Gunsmoke with William Conrad as Matt Dillon, the Fugitive with David Janssen, come to mind. And you know, all those shows were just as entertaining as anything we see on the modern screens of today.

Our class has revealed its breadth of interests and talents, and I welcome more of the same for all our reading pleasure. However, I would like to comment on a more serious note. Several posts ago, Marvin noted that he had deleted a post regarding his feelings about the book, “Zealot” on implied grounds that it contained “attacks on Christianity and faith in general”. He then continued to resolve not to broach either religion or politics again unless directly questioned.  This act of self-censorship I find unfortunate. Speaking to you “over a cup of coffee”, Marvin, it was clear that you had a lot you wanted to share – to get off your chest, as it were. You could have simply said nothing whatever, but it seems could not stop yourself from the revelation that you had written something, almost certainly a negative review of the book, and almost certainly because, in your opinion, it had attacked Christianity and faith in general. But after considerable indecision, you had resolved not to push send – and instead just tell us what you didn’t send. I find warm humor in this, because I know exactly how you feel.  I go through this angst all the time.  I don’t want to hurt or shame anyone, but still urgently want to express my strong opinion that something is either highly laudable or deeply amiss on some subject I find significantly, or sometimes crucially, important.

We run smack up against a wall of issues that require genuine courage to confront.  Freedom of speech, rights or duties to speak truth to power, moral obligations to expose falsehoods or missteps as we see them, simple civility, compassion, and respect for others’ feelings and opinions all batter our better judgment until we either boldly stand our ground, or rationalize our fears, or cowardice, into gentle retreat to imagined compassion and peaceful acquiescence. Add to this the fear that we will be excoriated, banished from the tribe, seen as deranged, ignorant, or worse.

Well, Marvin, for my money, I wish you had pushed the send button.  I see censorship of this forum as its potential death knell, robbing it of the spark it needs to continue, and shutting down an exchange of ideas.  Best of all, it is an opportunity for all of us to learn better how to share our disagreements civilly and with respect – just as we revel in our common values and shared perspectives without insulting others personally. I am resigned to be ready to yield to sound reason, admit errors or misinterpretations, be vulnerable to embarrassment where I am wrong, and in the process, strengthen both my own understanding of the world and my respect among peers as an honest thinker.

The issues of religion and politics come up everywhere; they are fundamental to most everything that foretells the future of humanity and even life on earth. Can we really ignore them as subjects of discussion?

I am but one person, and I represent a set of views, opinions, knowledge, and moral convictions. People can agree or disagree, love me, hate me, respect me or disrespect me.  I am too old to remain silent.  I will sail forward in my final years being me, raising my voice in the most civil way I know to express values and insights important to me, and which I feel are equally important to life on earth.  Please read my pieces or ignore them as you wish.  I will try to never hurt anyone, by sticking to evaluations of ideas and behaviors. If my opinions seem to attack the beliefs of others, remember, it is not my fault others may believe otherwise. I can’t help it if your pet idea is the object of my negative analysis.  Should I remain silent just to protect your feelings? Have you no “fort of reason” to counter my missiles of conviction? If my ideas or your ideas are both amenable to reason, there is nothing preventing a common understanding that benefits us both.

So, I shall proceed with the attitude that our right to speak plainly about matters significant to us is fully protected on this forum among a group of thoughtful caring individuals (who happen to be excellent writers) who have not given up life’s mandate, as each of us sees it, to make a difference in this world.  

Now I shall “angst” over whether or not to push SUBMIT. OK, so what – as I recall saying in my first contribution, I don’t care if I rile the masses, rock the boat, shock the sedate. I’m not a professional writer, but just doing my best, and please forgive me for being me.

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

Paul, I agree with you on some of your prospective.  Agreed, freedom of speech is central to our democracy and to our freedom.  Is it safe to be totally exposed here?  I have enjoyed all the past words of wisdom expelled by some of you.   Did I agree with all of it?   No, but frankly, it did stimulate me to consider my  thoughts and convictions.   I am sure you will all agree that over the years we all have changed our opinion on subjects that continue to be raised by politics or religion.   I know I have wavered  "to and fro" over serious subjects such as abortion, to war or not to war, and Who is God?   So, lets continue to be as open as we can, without intentionally hurting someones feelings here.  

I would like to hear your opinions on one I feel strongly about and that is abortion.   Why?   Because men and women come at this from a different prospective and its interesting and may offer up some answers to questions we all have.

Paul Shelton

Thank you, Emilie, for finding worth in what I wrote. Your invitation to express my views on abortion, ostensibly in an attempt to discern any difference in how men and women view this question, I am grateful for. I have written reams on the subject in my personal files, but will attempt to write something understandable and fair minded for our forum.  One major problem in writing about "big" subjects is that we find we are forced, to make our points, to incorporate understandings in other "big" subjects.  As we all know, brevity and condensed comments may fit our space better, but leave so much out.  Unless I am writing to the choir, almost anything I say cries out for another paragraph or more to justify it.  In the end, an attempt at a "brief" essay becomes a dissertation, or a book. I have several starts to a post here on immigration, all failing because I can't seem to end, the subject is so broad.

Anyway, I will make a valiant effort to contribute something worth the time to read, and hopefully not incite a riot. The subject truly is a critical one for our country, and for the world.

My next post is already in process, and it critiques and questions the phenomenon of hate and intolerance as demonstrated by Islamic blasphemy laws. Standby. And thanks again, Emilie, for your kindness in responding.

Marvin Knox

Paul:

Partial quotes from your post follow.  You said:

"Several posts ago, Marvin noted that he had deleted a post regarding his feelings about the book, “Zealot” on implied grounds that it contained “attacks on Christianity and faith in general”.

I won't deal with the book in question again since the original reference to the book was not addressed to me here in the forum but to someone else..  However -  I will simply say that the book "Zealot" is exactly as I have said it is - a warmed over attack on ChristIanity which has been leveled many times over the centuries in much more eloquent ways than the author of "Zealot" managed to do.

"He then continued to resolve not to broach either religion or politics again unless directly questioned.  This act of self-censorship I find unfortunate."

You shouldn't find it "unfortunate".  As is being demonstrated here and now -  my "self censorship" only applies to my interjecting myself into conversations not addressed to me - as I did before and which I corrected..  I am perfectly willing to address subjects addressed to me and not to others - just as I am now doing. 

"You could have simply said nothing whatever, but it seems could not stop yourself from the revelation that you had written something, almost certainly a negative review of the book, and almost certainly because, in your opinion, it had attacked Christianity and faith in general. But after considerable indecision, you had resolved not to push send – and instead just tell us what you didn’t send."

My critique of "Zealot" was sent.  I not only "pushed send", I also let the sent post stand in the forum for a couple of days - until the fact that I had interjected myself into a conversation not addressed to me weighed on me and caused me to reconsider. 

I did not "resolve not to push send".  That was a done deal a couple of days before.  In the post from me that you read, I did not "just tell you what I didn't send"  I told you what I had sent. 

I "deleted" my critique of the book - not by "not" pushig send in the first instance.  I deleted my critique of the book by hitting "edit" and by replacing my uninvited critique of the book and author with my apologies to those into who's conversation I had interjected myself.    

"I find warm humor in this, because I know exactly how you feel.  I go through this angst all the time.  I don’t want to hurt or shame anyone, but still urgently want to express my strong opinion that something is either highly laudable or deeply amiss on some subject I find significantly, or sometimes crucially, important."

I have no trouble expressing my opinions when I am asked about them or when I don't have to interject myself in a conversation not addressed to me but to another in order to do it..  Whether I will or to what extent I will - depends on whether I feel like it at the time and whether I feel that it will be beneficial to others here or detrimental to our enjoyment of this forum.

"Well, Marvin, for my money, I wish you had pushed the send button." 

I did send my critique of the book in question.   I later regretted it because two other people were talking about the book between themselves and their discussion did not include me.  

I am very familiar with the book in question and I have strong opinions about not only the material in the book but about the integrity of the author of the book. 

"I am resigned to be ready to yield to sound reason, admit errors or misinterpretations, be vulnerable to embarrassment where I am wrong, and in the process, strengthen both my own understanding of the world and my respect among peers as an honest thinker."

So am I.  But I doubt that you or anyone else here in the forum desires for me to post a long and thorough theological dirertaion concerning all of the errors and the lack of sound logic displayed in the book in question.  Others have done that elsewhere.  You can refer to them for that if you have questions about where the apostate Muslim author goes wrong.

In fact - there have been a great many theologians over a couple of centuries who have addressed the very areas this particilar author addresses.  His basic ideas are hardly novel.  As I said in my original post (which you apparently did not get a chance to read) - what is novel is the putting forth of these old questions in a book so full of logical and scriptural errors as "Zealot".

In the opinions of most observers, including myself - had the greedy publishers not rushed the sloppily edited "Zealot" into print following a botched interview of Aslan on Fox News, which went viral on the internet, no one here would likely have even heard of the book much less read it. 

"The issues of religion and politics come up everywhere; they are fundamental to most everything that foretells the future of humanity and even life on earth. Can we really ignore them as subjects of discussion?"

No - nor shoud we.

But there is a time and a place for everything.

What we can and must do is keep things civil and not insult others by insinuatiing that their world view is nothing but superstition.

A person who displays that kind of attitude in a conversation with me is not only obviously ignorant of the reasons for my faith.  He or she immediately forfeits any consideration by me of being a worthy interlocutor in this area. 

I have been involved,for many years, in internet theological and philisophical discussions worldwide - often intra-religion wise and with atheists as well.  Many involved in those discussions are hostile to my faith - such as Muslims.  Most, however are not atheists or those of other religions but are what I would class as "liberal" or at best nominal Chrisitans

Whether I will choose to inolve myself in such discussions much in this forum remains to be seen.

Right now I am merely addressing your comments and your obvious misunderstanding concerning how and why I edited a previous post.  That seemed appropriate since you referenced me by name.

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

You know, Marv, I did read the post you and Paul refer to...several times.   I did not comment (I don't think) because I am no expert on the subject.  You seem to be and therefore, would welcome anything you have to say on the subject.   You and Paul could have some interesting discussions...he a non-believer, you a believer, so if you two want to go at that difference one day, would be happy to read it. 

One thing I will throw out here.   I am a strong believer in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.   Its a feeling that comes from having directly experiencing an intervention on my behalf by God.  What I find hard, almost impossible to do, is explain it to a non-believer.   Shoot, its hard to explain it to anyone.  Belief in something not visable is difficult at best.    Those of you who are believers please tell me how you do this or not.    Maybe you don't try to explain it.   I feel a need to; I just don't know how to make it real for someone else to believe also.   Non believers you can chime in too...I might learn something.

Sandra Wittmeier (Taylor)

Greetings Fellow Alum,  I'm pleased this "Message Forum" continues to be utilized and offers thought-provoking commentary.  However, the 'Sammamish63.com'  coffers are now depleted.  I have just renewed our domain name ($19.95/yr) & class creator website ($165.50/yr) which are charged to my credit card.  Our bank account balance is $91.00 which only partially covers this expense.  If you would like to see this website continue, please feel free to contribute whatever you can.  Otherwise, our website will expire in November 2019.  Cheers to all of you.  Sandy Wittmeier Taylor, 34814 SE Jacobia St, Snoqualmie, WA 98065

George Furst

Sandy,

How and where should any contributions be directed?  Thanks for all of your efforts in maintaining the website.

George

Marvin Knox

Emilie,

I don’t know that I’d hold myself up as any kind of “expert” on the book in question or the author of the book.  But I am familiar with it enough that I disagreed with what was being said about it here in the forum. 

While the author displays a talent for writing such as I only wish I had – there is nothing particularly new or even thought provoking in his book.

While I dislike being someone who simply cuts and pastes from the internet to present my arguments – here are a couple of simple links for you to get the idea of the subject from a grounded Christian viewpoint.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/07/zealot-life-jesus-aslan-review

The segment from The Guardian is of particular interest since, Reza Aslan, the author of “Zealot” is a frequent contributor there and he therefore isn’t being critiqued harshly simply because of his non-Christian beliefs.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/zealot-reza-aslan-tells-same-old-story-about-jesus.html

That clip is from Christianity Today.  The entire article isn’t available through that link.  But there’s enough there to get the basic idea of why Zealot isn’t respected much as a scholarly work by mainstream Evangelicals.

That’s enough "cut and paste" for now - even though there is enough online concerning the book and Aslan himself, both pro and con, to keep a person busy for some time even if he or she doesn’t want to take the time to read the book itself and compare it with the scriptures and the historical record. 

The bottom line IMO is that, if a person is going to attack Christianity, there are better sources of information than Zealot and any other writings by Reza Aslan, an Iranian American Muslim who left Christianity early on in life to supposedly return to his roots.  I.e. – he didn’t abandon Christianity, the religion of his youth, for intellectual reasons – but for what seems to be social reasons and peer pressure.

For what it’s worth, he’s also at odds with most in both major branches of Islam as well as most in evangelical Christianity.     

Regarding your other statements - according to the scriptures - there is nothing weak or second rate in placing ones faith in Christ either as a little child or because of experience.  In fact, as I read the words of the Lord, childlike faith is to be respected more than that of people who come to the Lord supposedly from a purely intellectual position.

I say “supposedly from a purely intellectual position” because no one comes to Christ from purely that kind of endeavor.  Without getting too deep into the theological weeds here – the things of God are foolishness to those who are not being drawn to them and being enlightened by God Himself.   We come to salvation purely by grace  albeit through a personally experienced faith.

Just to be entirely theologically accurate - neither you nor I nor for that matter any other human being including the likes of Billy Graham or the Apostle Paul can convince anyone of the truth of the scriptures and compel them to believe.

I suppose there are some Christians who might seize on that biblical fact and use it for an excuse to not even try to convince people concerning the way to salvation.  That would be a mistake since the Lord tells us to try as long we are able.  It may well be, after all, that our  words of argument are the very method God is using to draw a particular one of His elect to Himself.

The Christian who doesn’t even try to enter into God’s method of reaching a lost world may or may not hear about it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.  But that’s between them and God. 

As for me – I will try to not shirk my duty.  To quote the scriptures,

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.”  (2 Timothy 4:1-3)

Regarding preaching to atheists – I won’t tell you that I don’t try to a certain degree, even though I know I probably won’t make many inroads.  In fact, I often do engage with them, at least for a time - up until they dig in their heels and I feel I have done all I can do.  But I also often pass on the opportunity to engage atheists at all if I don't feel so led.

The reason for that is because God calls atheists “fools”.   I won’t disagree with Him on that.  In fact, I even called them fools myself back when I was running with a pack of them as my main friends for so many years and was busy undermining the faith of Christians right along with the worst of them.

All those years, before I finally returned to the faith of my youth at the age of 30, I never called myself an atheist but rather an agnostic (albeit a rather vocal and virulent anti Christianity kind of agnostic).

It has always struck me that claiming to know there is no God is even sillier than I considered the totally position of those pointy headed non evangelical religious Christians I so despised during those years of rebellion.  

I even told my atheist friends as much at the time. 

But so long as a person displays come degree of willingness to entertain the possibility that Christianity is true (i.e. - he indentifies as an agnostic rather than as an atheist) – I will usually engage them willingly.  That is to say - at least if I see the setting as being an appropriate one.

But I will not “cast my pearls before swine” and I certainly won’t cast them before those God Himself calls fools.

Again – I would never call a man a fool simply because he did not believe as I do.  Only those who show themselves, either by direct word or by their attitude to be unwilling to consider the possibility that the scriptures show us the way to eternal life will I pass by and leave them to their own devices - just as God Himself does.

Regarding ways of witnessing to those willing to discuss without rancor - I have found that certain avenues of argument are more successful in various settings than others. 

My preferred approach is rather philosophical.  But I know from experience that such logical arguments are often as wasted on the hurting and the down and out as they are on the uneducated who are not schooled in logic. 

There – that ought to get things started.   Again – I’m not entirely sure how deep into things I want to get in this particular forum.

Having said that – I’d love more than almost anything else to see all of my old classmates on the other side of this obviously fallen and flawed world and celebrate our salvation together.  

To that end - I may well continue to comment here on spiritual things - so long as I am asked to do so directly and I am not merely preaching to those who do not want my opinions..

I suppose that those just reading along here will just have to try their best to ignore my posts on these subjects - just as they may well ignore those who are engaging me from an opposite position.

Thomas Stromberg

Sandy,

Please tell us where and how to contribute. 

send checks to your address?  can do, if that work

Tom

Danny Braudrick

Sandy, please send me the info on where to contribute. Also, can we help with some of the prior expenses?

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

Sandy, since you provided your address, I will send you a check to help with the costs.   Hopefully, we can get enough to pay for the following year.   This is a great way to stay connected without dealing with the issues of Facebook and other social media that I don't indulge in at all.  Facebook yes, for now, but considering getting off of that except I do get information from friends I don't see any more and I don't want to give that up.

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

Marv, I read and reread your message.   Thank you.   I clearly understand all the scriptures that you quoted and believe in them.   Still, I find it difficult.  I find it easier, when the setting is right, to share my story on how I came to the Lord again.  I was immerced in it as a child and kid...my mother was a staunch Lutheran, and I had to go to church and was confirmed in the church and took my first communion at 14.   Yeah, I did all that but frankly it was just "going through the motions" and I did not understand at my "soul" level what it was all about.  I just did it for my mother.   Then, as usual, during a difficult time in my life, I asked God for help.   I think I remember the prayer which was something like, " If you are really out there, I need you now.   Please fix this situation for me."  Nothing very lovely about that prayer, but it was enough.   Without going into details, he fixed it for me and I found a church that was just what I needed to help me understand and believe in the power of God.  Or, at least to the level any human being can understand that power.  

Thanks Marv for spending time to answer my questions.  

Patricia Doyle (McLain)

Sandy...my check is in the mail! Thanks for keeping this going. I don’t often post but do read often. Alsways interesting and lively. 

Eric (Rick) Moon

Okay Marv - you got ME started.

Point 1:  I am puzzled that you believe that the probable motivation (if not the only possible motivation) for studying Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure is the desire to "attack" Christianity.  Don't you think some people might simply be interested in studying history?  If I recall, it was Laura Fletcher who brought Zealot up in the first place.  Laura, was your motive to attack Christianity?

Point 2:  You say that an atheist is someone who claims to "know" that there is no God.  I suppose some people who call themselves atheists do make such a claim, but I believe most of us are just placing the burden of proof on those who claim to know that there IS a God.  I for one simply think that there is no reason to believe, not that I know the "truth".

Point 3:  I think that Christians are engaging in some weaseling when they claim that their subjective experience constitutes proof that there is a God, and that it is the God of the Bible.  I don't think many people would go so far as to say that you have not experienced what you claim to have experienced, but they might question the interpretation you have placed on your experience.  Faith?  Hundreds of millions of people throughout history had just as much faith as you have, but they had faith in something other than what you have faith in.  If all you require in order to believe something is to have faith that it is true, then is there anything that it is not possible to believe?  Isn't faith really the epitome of circular reasoning?

Point 4:  God calls atheists fools? (which you of course would never have the temerity to do - you're only quoting the Almighty).  How do you know God said this?  Did He say this directly to you?  To whom did He say this if not to you, and how can we verify this? 

I'm only asking.

Marvin Knox

Emilie,

I came to my faith in a much different way than you did.  But - it seems you and I agree - there has to be a time when any person makes their trust in the work of Jesus highly personal and not just a religious subscription.  

Some come out of a religious background and some come from an agnostic or atheistic background.  The exact story of our conversions are as different as our paricular lives are different.  

But true Christianity and a saving faith is not that hard to understand.   

So long as a person comes to the realization that they are so flawed that they need to be fixed somehow if they are to stand in the presence of a pure God - and realizes that the work of Jesus is the only remedy God has provided for this lementable  situation - and aprehends that work of Christ for him or herself on a personal basis - and communicates those concepts to God in their own personal way   -----   that person becomes a child of God and stands acceptable (or justified) before God and will so stand for eternity.  (There's a reason we call it "eternal" life.)

I have had no trouble over the years explainig the gospel to non-believers - so long as they can make the jump from looking at Christianity as organized "religion"  and see it for what God means it to be - namely a simple (albeit profound) transaction between God and His fallen creation which He loves..

Marvin Knox

Rick,

You said, the following:

Okay Marv - you got ME started.

Point 1:  I am puzzled that you believe that the probable motivation (if not the only possible motivation) for studying Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure is the desire to "attack" Christianity.  Don't you think some people might simply be interested in studying history?  If I recall, it was Laura Fletcher who brought Zealot up in the first place.  Laura, was your motive to attack Christianity?

There is no reason to be puzzled.   I don't believe that the only possible motivation for studying Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure is the desire to attack Christianity.  I have not said or even insinuated otherwise.

Whether Laura’s motive in bringing up “Zealot” was to attack Christianity – only she could say.  I doubt very much, however, that it was.

As to whether Reza Aslan’s motive in making the assertions he does in Zealot was to attack Christianity – I have little doubt.

Point 2:  You say that an atheist is someone who claims to "know" that there is no God.  I suppose some people who call themselves atheists do make such a claim, but I believe most of us are just placing the burden of proof on those who claim to know that there IS a God.  I for one simply think that there is no reason to believe, not that I know the "truth".

For the record and to show how I use the terms when I’m allowed to nuance them - most would agree with the basic statement that an atheist believes there is no God

An agnostic is generally seen as one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god.

I suppose this is the kind of trouble we get into when we try to pigeon hole complex beliefs with a single term.   

It seems to me that you are indicating that you are an agnostic in the generally accepted sense of the word and not an atheist.  If you choose to use the term differently - that is fine with me.  Just so we understand where you stand.  Thank you for making that clear for me.  Now, IMO, it would be good for us to leave the single word labels for others to use.

If we are really going to finely nuance the concept of atheism vs. agnosticism so as to not unfairly list anyone as something they are not we can certainly do that and probably should.  

A Gnostic atheist – does not believe in God and claims to know.

An agnostic atheist – does not believe in God and does not claim to know.

A Gnostic theist – believes in God and claims to know.

An agnostic theist - believes in God and does not claim to know.

Using this system  - you would be an “agnostic atheist”.   I’m OK with that if you really want to identify with atheists.

While these various differences can seem small – they can amount to very different world views when the rubber meets the road.

By the way - atheists and agnostics are often lumped together in one group – those who lack faith in God. 

But this isn’t actually correct.  Agnosticism covers a broad swath of views, many having nothing to do with God at all.

Point 3:  I think that Christians are engaging in some weaseling when they claim that their subjective experience constitutes proof that there is a God, and that it is the God of the Bible.  I don't think many people would go so far as to say that you have not experienced what you claim to have experienced, but they might question the interpretation you have placed on your experience.  Faith?  Hundreds of millions of people throughout history had just as much faith as you have, but they had faith in something other than what you have faith in.  If all you require in order to believe something is to have faith that it is true, then is there anything that it is not possible to believe? 

I totally agree with you here.

Isn't faith really the epitome of circular reasoning?

No.

Faith is having the assurance of something – whatever that something may be.  There is nothing circular about having faith.  You simple have it or you don’t.  Very straightforward – no circles involved at all.

One can simply have faith like a little child or one can build faith. 

You can simply jump up on a ladder without much consideration as to it’s strength – or you can test it and others like it within a certain frame of time or over a lifetime  - thus creating and or building faith.

But we are talking here about faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary as being sufficient to justify us if or when we stand  before a white hot judgmental God Who requires perfection when we meet Him face to faith. 

We are not talking about faith in ladders, Islam, native American spirituality or even so called “Christian” rituals.

Point 4:  God calls atheists fools? (which you of course would never have the temerity to do - you're only quoting the Almighty).  How do you know God said this?  Did He say this directly to you?  To whom did He say this if not to you, and how can we verify this?  I'm only asking.

To quote the scriptures (i.e. “God”) – “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” 

Notice that the scripture did not say “the fool has expressed doubts about the existence of God”.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I somehow lack “temerity” in this matter.  I not only have the temerity to call “Gnostic” atheists fools – I have said as much. 

I believe the scriptures to be the Word of God.  You apparently do not.   Many, even most, people on earth lack such faith.   I’m good with that so long as you and most of the people on earth are.  I wish it were otherwise.  But I've become resigned to that fact.

I believe the scriptures are addressed to God’s children - of whom I am one.   You apparently are not.  

You are in a very large company of people on earth – the vast majority.  I’m good with that as well - so long as you are.  I wish it were otherwise.

A while back you posted a quote which said that “the secret of the universe is not asking silly questions”.

IMO that is not correct. 

Not asking questions you think are silly or have been told are silly – is pure folly when it comes to considering your creator.  It is a particularly bold folly when it comes to considering  what a great many believe to be God's chosen and revealed method of making you right with Him when you meet Him face to face.

If you feel that you have considered these things as much as you are going to consider them before you come to the end of this life – I’m good with that.

If, on the other hand, you have questions about these things which you wish to address to me – I’m good with that as well.

Paul Shelton

You just know I have to respond to all this great conversation.  I will share that I usually write my posts in Word and then post them on the site.  Not this time. I have to burst out with my considerable joy having inspired, if I can take any credit, this great round of thought. Briefly, I want to laud you, Marvin, for "getting in the spirit" and giving us your greatest treatise.  You are right, I never saw your post, and so probably payed no attention to tense in your statement, or I would not have chided you for deleting it.  I will say that I think you are perfectly within appropriate behavior, on any social site, for interjecting on a subject initially introduced by others.  Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with that. 

As for the definition of an atheist, I have read many (reading just one source will get you in trouble), and I don't think your list comports with modern thinking in the non-believing community.  First, by establishing a gnostic athiest who "knows" there is no god, and an agnostic atheist who isn't quite sure, to balance this Aristotelian logic we need comparables of belief: the believer who "knows" there is a God, and the wishy-washy believer who isn't quite sure. I don't believe however, it works that way.  It largely boils down to understanding the difference between the deductive and the inductive.  Deductive proof gives us conclusions of absolute certainty.  This can only happen in "closed" logical systems. Induction, more commonly called empiricism, can only yield conclusions with a probability attached. Science is called an "empirical exercise", meaning its findings are almost exclusively empirical. And with that background, we can now understand that an absolute belief in God requires a closed logical system, which, quite clearly, we don't have.  This means that no one who claims belief in God can possibly, without gross logical violations, have absolute belief, and must attach a probablility to their belief, just like, you guessed it, atheists do. However, we know believers DO claim absolute belief, and that is one monstous blemish in their argumentation. Atheists, that is, all the dozens upon dozens I have ever known, understand and accept that their claim is empirical.  They would ALL readily agree that they actually believe that there is a vanishing small probablility that any supernatural agent exists or in any way manages the natural world or the outcome of our lives. For this reason, I conclude that all of us, believers and non-believers alike are either agnostic at one end or the other of the probability scale, and the only identifier that matters is degree. Are you 99.9999999% sure there is a God, or are you 99.9999999% sure no god exists -- or are you stuck somewhere in the middle at 50/50.  If believers want to claim absolute belief, then anyone only 99% sure there is a God must be an agnostic -- or, since they concede the empirical nature of the question, and don't claim absolute belief, they may as well be called athiests, if we define atheism as simply allowing any measure of doubt in the question.

And there is so much more to be said -- but thanks to Marvin and Eric for "getting involved".  I loved both your posts. And Emilie, you are a blessing willing to be informed from all sides.

Marvin Knox

Paul,

Thank you for your measured response. 

Obviously everyone commenting on their personal beliefs would prefer to be allowed to nuance or explain in detail what those beliefs are.   No one likes being labeled something exactly like something else.  We are, after all, everyone as individual as the snowflakes.  

As I have said before – I don’t like being labeled any more than non-believers do.  That usually assumes things about what I believe, and or why I believe them, which may or may not be entirely accurate.  Within my own general associates (worldwide Christianity) I try to resist labels for that very reason. 

The way I see and apply various biblical doctrines in my own life is rather “eclectic” – most who know me would agree.  I try to not allow people to call me a “Calvinist”, “Protestant”, “Baptist”, “charismatic”, “Pentecostal”, “Word of Faith”, or any other grouping without early on defining just how I might be lumped in with a grouping and how I might be rejected in that group. 

I’m sure, as we have seen here,  non-believers dislike being pigeon holed every bit as much as I do. 

Paul – you say that it is appropriate for someone here to chime into a conversation even though not invited.  I participate in many forums of various types.  I agree and I do exactly that.  It would be a dull forum indeed if all we had was two people talking together and no one else was allowed in. 

However – in the case of my thoughts on “Zealot” and it’s author – I chimed in with a rather blistering critique of a book someone else had commented on (or recommended – I can’t remember).  Had you or Rick recommended the book – at this stage – I would have willingly and happily posted my opinions and I would not have had those later misgivings about it as I posted   But, in the case of Laura, this was someone with whom I had not spoken before and a person who doesn’t jump into things like this very often.  I felt that it had been insensitive and it was therefore inappropriate for me to have dropped a boatload of negative comments on her just after she had ventured out into these deep waters- perhaps with some trepidation.   

Now - definitions of atheists vary in the degree of  thought and word a person has put into consideration of God.  To not nuance the term in each case –and simply say that an atheist is one who does not believe in deity – one would have to then say that cows, chickens, new born humans and the mentally deficient are atheists.  I undoubtedly have said in the past that an atheist is one who does not believe in God.  But I certainly don’t mean to use the term in that overreaching way.  Actually, it seems to me that no one should or perhaps even does use it that way.   

IMO – to be labeled (by me at least) as an atheist – one must have given some thought to the matter and have commented on it enough that I understood pretty much where he or she stands.

I suppose we could say that an absence of a theistic belief system which didn’t have a conscious rejection of God should be called “implicit atheism”.   “Explicit atheism”, on the other hand would be a conscious rejection of God’s existence.

Now you rightly have said, “an absolute belief in God requires a closed logical system, which, quite clearly, we don't have.  This means that no one who claims belief in God can possibly, without gross logical violations, have absolute belief, and must attach a probability to their belief, just like, you guessed it, atheists do.  ……..  Atheists, that is, all the dozens upon dozens I have ever known, understand and accept that their claim is empirical.  They would ALL readily agree that they actually believe that there is a vanishing small probability that any supernatural agent exists or in any way manages the natural world or the outcome of our lives.”

We do indeed live in a system  in which we cannot correctly “deduce” things which lay outside of this system.  To speak with any kind of authority on the matter of God, one must leave this closed system to be able to do so accurately. 

I believe that millions of people have done so by now.  They are, IMO, currently around the throne of God and worshipping Him – as is His due.  But of the ones who have gone before us, with the apparent exception of the apostles John and Paul, none are  likely going to be allowed to report back to us here.   

If you will allow me to quote God on the matter -  There is one notable exception to this fact and that is Jesus Himself – God in the flesh.

“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”

We Christians have faith that One has visited us from outside of this “deductively challenged” system   He is the One Who is thereby able to correctly deduce what we can only comment on “inductively” or “empirically” here from earth.

Whether you and I will be able to or be forced to deduce things about the existence of God from within another kind of system within what is likely the next couple of decades remains to be seen.  I believe that we will and I have prepared myself for that eventuality via a method which I believe has been recommended to us by the very God who visited us from outside of this system.   

To quote the scriptures again, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

However, we know believers DO claim absolute belief, and that is one monstous blemish in their argumentation.

While you are correct in agreeing with the scriptures that few if any of us can deduce these things absolutely in the here and now – I don’t believe that believers who claim absolute belief are exactly displaying a “monstrous” blemish in their reasoning.  They are – after all and by faith – not primarily deducing things for themselves but are merely quoting the One whom they believe can so deduce things about deity accurately - having been with God and indeed is Himself God.

What you may view as a blemish God seems to view as the beautiful product of a faith that He Himself has authored in those of such fatih.. 

In leaving this post for now - I state again that you are right that most people, be they believer or a  non-believer, can't know anything for absolute certainty  about God until we leave this system which we are all forced to operate in while in this flesh. All we are able to do is pray that God will give us the faith to feel that we “know” things about God precisedly and only because He Himself has told us certain things about Himself.

That being the case – (and putting aside faith for now) - we should  most, to be entirely accurate, label ourselves, believers and non-believers alike,  “agnostics”.  It seems that you agree.  

Some may prefer to label themselves atheists ( like Rick for instance) – but they can’t logically claim to be what I called Gnostic atheists (i.e. those who know for sure there is no God).   Fortunately Rick has made it clear that he does not fit into that foolish category.   

God correctly calls such a Gnostic atheist a fool.  That is not to say  that someone who uses for themselves the label "atheist" is automatically labeled a fool by God.  But the one who claims to know about the lack of existence of God for sure is a fool.  I concur with God.  Such a one is not only illogical.  He is a fool for stating emphatically something which He cannot know.

It seems to me that your post in which so adeptly outlined the necessity of a merely empirical belief or lack of belief in God and the ridiculousness of claiming a deductive belief or disbelief in God – agrees totally with God and I on the matter.  I.e. - that it is foolish to say you know for sure there is no God. 

God said, and I believe it was indeed Him who said it  ---  “The fool has said in their heart there is not God.” 

Again I point out that neither He nor I said that the one who has some doubt about God is a fool.  To do that would be to deny what it means to be a mere human trapped in this fallen system.  

Nor is God commenting on the exact meaning we may each have for the word atheist or whether we choose to apply that label to ourselves instead of calling ourselves agnostics . 

What He and I are commenting on when we call an absolute atheist a fool is the fact that such a one has obviously no understanding of how deductive and empirical logic must of necessity work here in this dimension.  

I would certainly never call a person a fool simply for believing that we can’t know the things of God for sure.  That would be silly since both you and I agree that it is the lot of most of us here on earth to not be able to know for sure.

Nor would I call a person a fool who simply used the term atheist in a different way than I understand it.   If a person prefers the label atheist to agnostic – I’m absolutely fine with that- so long as they will nuance for me what they are saying (just as Rick, for instance, has done).

I’m typing here without rewrites myself just as you did.  Hopefully my thoughts concerning your post will still be clear.

Hopefully also - those not involved directly in these discussions will understand that my own intent is not to turn this forum into a lecture on the correctness of Christianity over against some other belief system.  I am merely responding to posts and questions directed to me.

Having said that - I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.  I am persuaded that God is able to keep what I have entrusted to Him against the day of judgment which awaits us all.  I am always willing to give a defense for the hope within me.