The preacher's name was appropriate for this time of year: Christmas.

Thought a little faith debate would be in order here. Is the church justified in doing this? How would you feel if you were in the congregation?

Too bad she wasn't a lesbian - then we'd have another variable tossed in.

I'd tell the Pastor to STFU about things that are none of his business.
If he WANTS to be sued for making my private information public knowledge-I'd be glad to oblige.

Oohrah, I can't see ANY justification for the church going public. Any confessions or discussions to the pastor would have been made in good faith with an understanding of confidentiality. For the pastor to then turn around and threaten to expose her sins is wrong and I hope the congregants recognize this attempt as simply a way to try to MAKE someone do something they don't want to do and do something about it.

Church isn't a place to go to get threats about your conduct - it should be a place to strengthen your faith, commune with God, and strengthen social ties (although all can be done elsewhere as well).

As for Matthew being a justification to telling people about sins, the only reason I see for this is to basically excommunicate a person and remove them from the fold. As this has already been done voluntarily, even the thin excuse of the Matthew passage falls through.

*** Is the church justified in doing this?
.......#1 | Posted by OohRah *****

.......why not ?.......that's what religions do.........

....................hurt people..............

I agree, BART... since the woman has already left the church I don't see any reason for the church to continue to pursue the issue. If she'd continued in the church I think the leadership might want to talk this through with her - perhaps that was done despite what's in the article.

I see church as a hospital for sinners. We all sin... and (hopefully) seek His forgiveness... but our part is true repentence and acceptance of Christ as our Lord. And I think that's the crux of this as far as the two parties are concerned. She, apparently, is unrepentent... and the church probably feels that by allowing her to openly live an adulterous lifestyle they (the church) would be condoning that lifestyle.

I can tell you that in our church there have been people who have been asked to either leave or to alter their behavior. I am not an elder so I'm not privvy to details of how this was done or under what circumstances the sin was determined to be actionable.

This would have never happened to an atheist.

A healthy dose of community shaming never hurt anyone.

**** A healthy dose of community shaming never hurt anyone.
.....#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine ****

.........in Muslim countries they say it with stones........

..........same message......different messenger......

"A healthy dose of community shaming never hurt anyone."

That's not what Hester Prynne said.

#8 | Posted by skizziks

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Come on. Sarcasm, guys. lol.

Salvation is available to all. I think we need to be very careful in running people off. Certainly it's not something to be done in haste.
#5 | Posted by OohRah

Exactly. Church isn't about getting together with a bunch of perfect people and patting each other on the back. It's a place where you can go to learn to be a better person, recharge your spiritual batteries, and share like experiences with people with the same belief system. I would even go as far as to say that a church should always welcome people into their congregations. This doesn't mean sin should be condoned or that a church has no right to excommunicate those that are unrepentant. However, there should always be an open door policy for those who wish to "worship with the saints". Publicizing sins should never happen, as the sin is between the sinner, God, and the pastor or preacher to whom the person goes to for spiritual guidance.

*** Come on. Sarcasm, guys. lol.
.....#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine ***

......in the long run , it probably helps.......

......wakes people up to the pettiness and cruelty inherent in religions.......

Come on. Sarcasm, guys.

Mine was intended in the same spirit, Hagbard.

DOC,
We've been reviewing your sins and, frankly, we're concerned. So, we've decided to administer some attitude adjustment. Saturday at 7am you'll report to our Central Scrutinizer for social reprogramming. We trust you'll emerge a new man with a new outlook. But please, don't thank us.

- Your friends at the 1st Penecostal Church of the One True Gospel... on Second Street... just off Rt 225 along the access road.

Central Scrutinizer ... 1st Penecostal Church of the One True Gospel

oohrah: The Central Scrutinizer is associated with L. Ron Hoover and the First Church of Appliantology

Anyone who fools around with such a "church" deserves what s/he gets. There are more enlightened places for folks who feel they need stimulation on Sunday mornings. herm

"We've been reviewing your sins"

That long, eh?

"and, frankly, we're concerned."

Me, too.

"So, we've decided to administer some attitude adjustment."

Like at the Christmas party?

"Saturday at 7am you'll report to our Central Scrutinizer for social reprogramming."

Sounds like when I went to Cotillion so Mr. and Mrs. Gollotz could learn me how to smile nice at the girls, not fart in public, and do a mean fox trot.

"We trust you'll emerge a new man with a new outlook."

Well, at least I'll have a smile on my face and no bulge in my trousers.

"But please, don't thank us."

No, I insist (he says with a bow). I wouldn't want to disappoint Mr. and Mrs. Gollotz.

FF for the good Doctor!

The members of the congregation will probably be disappointed. I doubt if her "sins" could rival the one's we see depicted on TV all the time.
What really amazed me was that she said her children will be in attendance at the church, gee, a real loving family they are. She ought to be done with the lot of them.

Read this story yesterday or the day before and was blown away. This lady has voluntarily removed herself from the church in question. The preacher's actions fly in the face of the basic human values he is supposed to be teaching. Another example of religion or spirituality being derailed by man.

I wonder if there is any legal recourse available for her?

I also wonder how the other members of the congregation would react to this? I don't go to church, but I would hope the moderates attending this particular place of worship would balk and put this idiot in his place. Is his personal history so clean? What if his list of "sins" were made public by whoever he confesses to?

"oohrah: The Central Scrutinizer is associated with L. Ron Hoover and the First Church of Appliantology" - GOAT

I didn't know about Zappa's tie in with Hubbard (not Hoover)... but I was using the Central Scrutinizer with Joe's Garage in mind. I had that on vinyl and haven't listened to it in many years. Is that on CD? I mean the whole album and not just Joe's Garage, the song? Because I have the "Strictly Commercial" CD.

"The white zone if for loading and unloading. If you must..."

I didn't know about Zappa's tie in with Hubbard (not Hoover)...

No, it is Hoover in the album. As the king of puns you missed that? *grin* Zappa is spoofing L Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. He calls it L Ron Hoover (Hoover being an appliance, of course) and the First Church of Appliantology. They believe that sexual gratification can only be achieved through the use of machines.

Missed that, GOAT. It's probably been almost 20 years since I've listened to the album. Maybe I wasn't aware of Hubbard at that time or something. If I can hear it again maybe it'll register with me. Do you remember where in the album he makes those references?

But I kind of like the King of Puns title. I'll wear it proudly.

Oh, yes. It is on CD, but keep the vinyl. The album covers are much better.

"They believe that sexual gratification can only be achieved through the use of machines." - GOAT

Do you remember where in the album he makes those references?

I think it is at the very end of Act I after the song "Lucille has Messed My Mind Up"

This is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...again, Hi!...It's me again, the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER...Joe says Lucille has messed his mind up, but, was it the girl or was it the music? As you can see...girls, music, disease, heartbreak...they all go together...Joe found out the hard way, but his troubles were just beginning...his mind was so messed up...he could hardly do nothin'...He was in a quandary...being devoured by the swirling cesspool of his own steaming desires...the guy was a wreck...so...what does he do? For once, he does something SMART...he goes out...and pays a lot of money to L. Ron Hoover... at the First Church of Appliantology!

Geez, the pastor was just trying to increase attendance.

This stuff's not just for Jerry Springer anymore. Theotainment!

I don't know why, but I like that line:

being devoured by the swirling cesspool of his own steaming desires

And this one later in the album really rolls off the tongue nicely. Try it:

See the screaming hot black steaming iridescent naugahyde python screaming steam roller!

I believe that the confessions and/or discussions that a parishioner has with the priest/reverend are protected.

The priest is not required to give testimony to priviledged information, although it has been known to happen, just as it has with doctors and lawyers.

No one would disagree that giving info that may stop a murder is a good thing, but this case hardly fits into that category.

She should do exactly what the church is doing. Expose the church's sins to the community.

"But I kind of like the King of Puns title. I'll wear it proudly."

This church is giving Christians and Christianity a bad name. The actions of this particular church are disgraceful to say the least.

She chose to remove herself from the discipline of the congregation. Therefore, her behavior is no longer a matter subject to their strictures. And they have no business putting her business "on the streets."

Maybe she should send them copies of "Harper Valley PTA." They certainly are a bunch of busybodies.

Let them disfellowship her. Then they're through with each other.

"King of Puns? And if you're "king," wouldn't you wear it "pridely," not proudly? Hans"

Now I've been accused of lying around, but that's ridiculous.

"Now I've been accused of lying around, but that's ridiculous."

You might have been accused, but you've never been convicted.

There's a difference, you know.

Hans

"Bless me, Father, for I have sinned...."

But please keep it under your hat and don't tell the entire neighborhood.

Amen.

Not being part of the church in question and knowing what is going on first hand, I wouldn't shoot from the hip like some have here and presume the church is wrong.

Most people wouldn't know or understand church discipline today because it has nearly disappeared in the past several centuries as the visible church has accomodated itself to the culture of individualism in the west. The aim of genuine church discipline is the repentance and restoration of a member who has fallen into error or sin. The steps Christ gave (Matthew 18):

15"Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' 17And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

As for this specific instance, it is unusual for the church to continue to pursue the issue after the person has resigned church membership. But, then again, perhaps the concern is that all too often, members undergoing discipline simply leave that church and go to another church. If the believer is still living in disobedience to God, the believer is doing a disservice to the church they move to.

I have heard of churches doing this to members and it is usually has to do with carnal relationships outside wedlock.

So the international version of Matthew 18:17 says to treat the sinner as a pagan or tax collector.

Why not get the couple into the pre marriage classes that churches offer?

Why chase them off? And why do something like the church is planning on doing Jan 4th when the gal left the church?

Lyin(g) = lion

From Oorah's Aussie link-
"had to be rushed to hospital after his penis got stuck to a vacuum cleaner during an act that went horribly awry."
An act gone horribly awry? Good God that sounds offal!(Not to mention sorta-kinda funny)

Yeah, FRANK. It sucks.

Macv1972 has a point.

With plenty churches around, some people are good at church hopping. But if this woman received proper admonition and discipline, for her to change church without 'repentance' may be a sign she is only going through the motion. Can fool people but not God.

Don't know the whole story, so better not get specific.... or else some folks here will be happy to jump on me (LOL).

TAKE-
All you have to do is post anything, anywhere, and you'll draw a crowd.

To your point about church hopping... I can't say that I've done that, but from those I know who have it's done for two primary reasons:
1. The preaching at one church "offended" them - ran in conflict with the way they live their life or the way they were raised.

2. The church wasn't "friendly" enough. People apparently didn't feel welcome in the church.

Both are subjective rationales... one's feelings as to doctrine or fellowship.

That is what you get when you join a bunch of loonies. Just ask the people that survived Jones' Town.

"That is what you get when you join a bunch of loonies. Just ask the people that survived Jones' Town." SNIPER

The original Kool Aid drinkers.

Takeitez, MacV: the problem as I see it is that she has already willingly left her church and is no longer seeking to attend while being "unclean" or sinful. The purpose of the Matthew verse ("tell it to the church") is to bring back those who are willing to be brought back. In this case she has clearly broken completely with her previous congregation.

I think the Matthew verses are easily misinterpreted as well. I doubt Jesus wanted preachers to tell the sordid details of an adulterous relationship from the pulpit. I truly believe he said this for 2 reasons. 1) To disassociate the church from the actions being committed by 1 member, and 2) to help one member reconcile with another (if your brother sins against you). Nowhere do I read that the congregation at large is to be brought into the inner workings of someone's sins. And because the woman is not seeking reconciliation or affiliation with this church, the issue should be dropped right away. What does anyone in this situation have to gain by telling this lady's sins over the pulpit?

Maybe she was not donating enough to the church or giving favors to the Pastor.

Does this mean that anyone who works for the IRS is a heathen? Post #37.

There is a directly inverse relationship between how much folks purport to know about their deity's nature/wishes and the level of their IQ, as there is between church leaders interjecting their own shortcomings into their standards for behavior and my wanting to attend their services.

The only reasonable stance toward a deity is I don't know, you don't know and nobody knows. Anything else, curiously, proves nothing but the speaker's ignorance and pomposity. herm

Wow sounds like a nice and friendly church. They would probably be lining up to crucify the next Jesus because he did not fit in their image of the church.

Nothings changed in 2000 years.

Merry Xmas!

The original Kool Aid drinkers.

#45 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-12-19 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Actually it was Grape Flavoured FlavrAid. The cheap knock off on KoolAid.

Larry

"There is a directly inverse relationship between how much folks purport to know about their deity's nature/wishes and the level of their IQ, as there is between church leaders interjecting their own shortcomings into their standards for behavior and my wanting to attend their services."

How do you know this? Or is it a belief... not unlike those who believe in God?

Don't know the whole story, so better not get specific.... or else some folks here will be happy to jump on me (LOL).

#42 | Posted by takitez

I'm not gonna jump on you. I can't imagine a scenario where it would be proper to be indiscrete, especially if it involves questions where christians may disagree with the actual morality of the subject matter, like premarital sex.

If it's a moral matter, the preacher is supposed to be versed and discrete about these things, and show the fallen the goodness and forgiveness available without pretending he knows all. Lead by example.

If it is as it seems, i would think the preacher will be available for a new assignment soon.

"All you have to do ... and you'll draw a crowd."

Two men kissing in public draws stares.

Two women kissing in public draws a crowd.

Hans

The Church is required to sanction those that lead blatantly immoral lifestyles contrary to their teachings. There only thing different about this case is that the woman isn't ashamed of her moral indiscretions.

The Church is required to sanction those that lead blatantly immoral lifestyles contrary to their teachings. There only thing different about this case is that the woman isn't ashamed of her moral indiscretions.
-Anup

No religious organization or individual has the authority, right, or obligation to attack someone based on arbitrary value judgments. If an organization wants to preach certain values, and others want to believe in them, those are their rights. Free exercise of religion does not include harassment, manipulation, or personal attacks. Faith is subjective and the experience of God is entirely personal. A religious organization exists to facilitate this experience in like-minded people. Its purpose is not serve as some sort of moral arbiter, "sanctioning" what it dislikes. Moreover, a perspective that presumes without evidence its own accuracy and superiority can never claim the authority to make such judgments.

Well, the information is all over the place now.

Maybe she has a cause of action for emotional distress, and in Florida outrage. And who knows what else. Oh yes, invasion of privacy.

There is a case in another State that resulted in an award to the plaintiff on the basis that the Church can only discipline members, and this woman had resigned.

I wonder who leaked the information that's afloat now. If it's her, she may have compromised her case, or at least the amount of the award.

Maybe she would have been better advised that rather than complain publicly, she hire a lawyer, who writes to the Pastor, and to the Board of the Church, and the Board Members, advising them not to proceed with their plan, or they will need to respond in damages, as entities, in their official capacities, and individually.

If they proceeded, they would have been "tithing" to this woman in paying off the judgment, that is after the church property, and their personal assets were exhausted.

I hope she can be successful in a civil suit. One less nutty religious organisation to worry about.

Who would Jesus excommunicate?

He preferred prostitutes and lepers to self righteous priests.

"No religious organization or individual has the authority, right, or obligation to attack someone based on arbitrary value judgments....."

That kinda makes your whole post self-refuting. Moron.

I would tell the bastard that go ahead and I will tell everyone "I heard from an unnamed source" you are raping boys..it may not be true, but it will ruin your career as a pastor.

what an asshole

People makes false accusations against clergy all the time, if accusations were enough to ruin careers then there wouldn't be any clergy left.

Excoriating members publicly is a legitimate means to deal with unrepentant members. The issue here is that she claims to not be a member any longer. Of course, that would me she isn't a Christian any longer, which she claims she still is. There is only one Church, but many different groups of believers.

I think the woman is just upset that she went to a church that wouldn't let her get away with immorality. Apparently she was just looking to have her spiritual needs met but didn't want that to interfere with any of her other needs.

"Maybe she would have been better advised that rather than complain publicly, she hire a lawyer, who writes to the Pastor, and to the Board of the Church, and the Board Members, advising them not to proceed with their plan, or they will need to respond in damages, as entities, in their official capacities, and individually.

If they proceeded, they would have been "tithing" to this woman in paying off the judgment, that is after the church property, and their personal assets were exhausted."

You can't win a settlement against someone who is telling people the truth about you. Do you people even think before you write? This isn't about breaking confidentiality. She didn't confess these sins, they learned of them.

There is no law against telling everyone in the world the truth.

Gotta disagree with you a bit, ANUP. Regarding 'membership' and the specific brick/mortar "church" vs the entire body of believers "church."

If we are to adopt your view, "The issue here is that she claims to not be a member any longer. Of course, that would me she isn't a Christian any longer, which she claims she still is. There is only one Church, but many different groups of believers..." then ANYONE attending any church which acknowledges Christ is subject to this particular church's public condemnation.

See, I don't think she's renounced her Christianity... just renounced her membership at that brick & mortar church.

While agree she is sinning in her adulterous & unrepentent relationship I don't agree it's proper that that specific church continues to pursue her as it appears they're prepared to do. She's gone. At some point this becomes piling on...

Lot's of reasonable comments and posts here on this subject so let me move toward a degeneration of this thread.

While normally not a big fan of arson, I'm thinking a good ol' fashion church burnin' on Sunday Jan. 4th about 10:40AM should solve the problem.

These religious freaks, nutjobs, pathological liars and kiddie diddlers have insinuated themselves in my life for long enough. Time for a cleansing.

... talk about being on fire for the Lord.

... talk about being on fire for the Lord.

#68 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-12-20 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag

Ok OORah, that's funny, I don't care who'ya are. Personally, my rare venture to temple is about all the wild religion I need.

There is no law against telling everyone in the world the truth.

#64 | Posted by Anup at 2008-12-20 08:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ask Scooter Libby how that's working out for him? Telling the world the Valerie Plame "truth" caused him some, if minor, discomfort. ANUP, please go back to your snake oil, what this so-called group of Xtians is doing is immoral, indecent and rude.

Who would Jesus excommunicate?

He preferred prostitutes and lepers to self righteous priests.

#60 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2008-12-19 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag:>i>

Quite a few, actually.

"22Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" Matthew 7:22

#58 | Posted by Johnson

Agreed there.

Faith is subjective and the experience of God is entirely personal. A religious organization exists to facilitate this experience in like-minded people. Its purpose is not serve as some sort of moral arbiter, "sanctioning" what it dislikes. Moreover, a perspective that presumes without evidence its own accuracy and superiority can never claim the authority to make such judgments.

#56 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2008-12-19 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless you can cite chapter and verse from Scripture, this is a thoroughly unbiblical view. The gift of faith given by God's grace is not subjective. Other "faith" experiences are counterfeit.

A religious organization may exist to facilitate an experience in like-minded people; however, the true Church of God is not a mere "religious organization." It's members are those whom God specifically has called, saved, and is progressively transforming in this life and will glorify (complete the transformation) upon entering the next.

"28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans 8:28-30

If the woman in question is truly called by God, she ultimately will repent and be restored at some point in her life; though not necessarily at the particular local church that is disciplining her at this time.

"35And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 6:35-40

"43Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:43-44

Mac, re #71.

That sounds like Jesus was talking to the self righteous priests.

This preacher should respect his calling and STFU about violating his member's confidentiality.

Any mainstream Protestant religion, with the possible exception of the Baptists who have a lay ministry, would revoke this guy's privileges as a minister in their church.

If we are to adopt your view, "The issue here is that she claims to not be a member any longer. Of course, that would me she isn't a Christian any longer, which she claims she still is. There is only one Church, but many different groups of believers..." then ANYONE attending any church which acknowledges Christ is subject to this particular church's public condemnation.

See, I don't think she's renounced her Christianity... just renounced her membership at that brick & mortar church.

You are missing the point. You can renounce the membership to an organization but you can't denounce your membership to the Body of Christ without renouncing Christianity.

As a member of the Body of Christ, the church leaders in her area believe that they need to break fellowship with her for her own good. When they communicate this to the local church there they will instruct those believers to not have fellowship with her any longer. So unless her leaving the church means she no longer has relationships with ANY of the church members they are still correct to excoriate her publicly.

It's east to say I don't belong to your church anymore, it's another thing to actually severe your relationships with all the members of that church.

The church is in favor of the latter.

Ask Scooter Libby how that's working out for him? Telling the world the Valerie Plame "truth" caused him some, if minor, discomfort. ANUP, please go back to your snake oil, what this so-called group of Xtians is doing is immoral, indecent and rude.

Your opinion is quite special, so much so that I printed it out and put it on my refrigerator with all the other "special" papers.

Run along and play with the kiddies, adults talking here.

You are missing the point. You can renounce the membership to an organization but you can't denounce your membership to the Body of Christ without renouncing Christianity.

Perhaps we're arguing different points. I most certainly can choose to "join" Pinedale (my church in Winston)... and later transfer my membership to another church (perhaps if I move) or simply remove my membership because I want to visit other churches with the idea of probably joining another one. I would be removing my membership from that brick and mortar church - this is NOT renouncing my Christianity. I fail to see where that's a Biblical directive, nor is it common practice. If I were a Methodist and chose to resign my "membership" at the local Methodist church, does that mean I'm renouncing my Christianity? Nope.

As a member of the Body of Christ, the church leaders in her area believe that they need to break fellowship with her for her own good.

Please don't lose sight of doing all things in the spirit of Christian love. That can, at times, require tough love. However, if our goal is to help bring others to Christ, I fail to see how chasing after someone who has left the church meets the "love" criteria or the winning souls to Christ issue. Frankly, it seems more like chest beating - "look at how divine we are" - dare I say, shades of Fred Phelps. It's piling on and really serves to distance people from Christ. Surely that shouldn't be the goal, should it?

When they communicate this to the local church there they will instruct those believers to not have fellowship with her any longer.

I disagree on multiple levels. First, is it the church's place to tell us with whom we can interact? And doesn't the Great Commission implore us to spread the Word (Jesus = The Word) to all the nations of the world? Are we to only associate with non-backsliding Christians? Not by my understanding.

By doing so, the church would not grow... only "perfect" Christians need attend. And no one, you and me included, is perfect. Christ is available to all... and while she has left the church, perhaps the best thing to do is to pray for her... and to continue to keep the line of communication open between her and church members. Perhaps in time she will have a change of heart. But by publicly bullying her I just don't see her "coming around," do you?

So unless her leaving the church means she no longer has relationships with ANY of the church members they are still correct to excoriate her publicly.

And what of other church members who aren't "perfect?" How far are you prepared to go down this path? I can see the church handling the matter privately, but not airing this from the pulpit.

It's east to say I don't belong to your church anymore, it's another thing to actually severe your relationships with all the members of that church.
The church is in favor of the latter.

What's your goal with this, ANUP? What is the brick and mortar church's goal? The woman is gone. We are all sinners. Hopefully she'll have a change of heart, but does anyone really think publicly humiliating her forwards that cause?

We are all sinners.

#77 | Posted by OohRah (& Grendal?:>)

no, I'm not...speak for yourself!

My old Christian High School is looking for a new President. OOrah & Grendal types, I'm sure:>)

Re: New President Search Process

Dear Members and Friends of the Minnehaha Academy Community:

I am writing to update you regarding the process for selecting a new President for our school. The Executive Committee, at its meeting on December 3, 2008, and the Board of Education, at its meeting on December 15, 2008, made decisions in three areas that will set us on a course to selecting our next President.

1. Interim President....In short, we will seek an interim President only in the event that a search beginning now does not produce acceptable results and we must continue the process in the fall of 2009.

2. Search Consultant. We have retained People Management International, Inc. (Rob Stevenson, Tony Kroening, and Mark Stevenson) as the consultant to assist with the search for a new President. This Minnetonka, Minnesota-based office of an international search firm has a most impressive list of clients in the Christian educational and non-profit arena, including World Vision, World Relief, Wycliffe Foundation, Fuller Seminary, Campus Crusade for Christ, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Young Life, and many others. They recently completed the President search process at Bethel University , and they are currently engaged to find a new head for the Association of Christian Schools International. Rob Stevenson is the father of two Minnehaha Academy graduates (one of whom, his son, Mark Stevenson, will be part of the People Management team) and is deeply committed to the school. Tony Kroening is a pastor by training (a Bethel Seminary graduate) who worked at Christ Presbyterian Church before entering the search field, and his wife also has strong ties to Minnehaha Academy with three cousins and an uncle who are graduates. People Management is local, utilizes the SIMA (System to Identify Motivated Abilities) strengths assessment process, is excited about the assignment, and is very impressive. Indeed, People Management collaborated with Max Lucado on his excellent 2005 book Cure for the Common Life: Living in Your Sweet Spot. We are excited about the opportunity to work with People Management.

3. Search Committee....ect

If you have questions or would like to discuss any issue related to the search, please feel free to contact me. I will provide additional updates about the process as we move forward, but, of course, I will not be able to reveal certain information because of the confidentiality expected by potential candidates. Please keep the search process and the school in your prayers during this time of transition. Blessings to you and yours as we await the celebration of Christ's birth!

Anup, do you realize that throughout history, terrorism, racism, and genocide have depended entirely on obsequious thralls who share your perversion of "logic"?

You cannot produce one piece of factual evidence to support your religion's claims. My argument- that religious organizations and individuals have no ground to interfere in the lives of others based on their spiritual teachings- is based on the complete and total failure of your or any other religion to support their claims with facts. If you do not have any evidence to support your claims, then they are utterly worthless when applied to a world of fact and reason.

My claims, unlike yours, are not arbitrary. Altruism and the ethic of reciprocity (golden rule) are firmly grounded in evolutionary psychology (but you probably think humans were made from mud 5000 years ago, so this argument might be wasted on you). These standards have universal and verifiable significance in humans. By acting in a petty, manipulative, and vindictive manner to enforce subjective, culturally-derived moral standards, these organizations can be objectively condemned for their violation of universal standards of morality.

Your defense of the authority of the church is devoid of any rational foundation, like that of most apologetics. It rests entirely on an unverifiable assumption of the validity of Chrisianity. Do you lash out at your opponents because you are beginning to realize that you have no logical ground to stand on? If I were to say that an Invisible Pink Unicorn told me that casual sex is permissible, I would have as much evidence to support my beliefs as you do to support yours. Tom Cruise can produce an equal amout of proof that the dark lord Xenu and the ghosts of aliens are behind human suffering. If a terrorist believes that he will receive some number of virgins when he gets to heaven after a suicide bombing, he is on equal footing with the three of us. If you want to play this game, you need to bring some facts to the table instead of your Bible, Qur'an, or copy of Dianetics.

BANI-
I wouldn't be a good fit... I like to diddle with young boys. Maybe I need to seek a different career path. The ministry, perhaps? Congress?

BANI-
I wouldn't be a good fit... I like to diddle with young boys. Maybe I need to seek a different career path. The ministry, perhaps? Congress?

#80 | Posted by OohRah

Congress could always use some bo diddlers...

"If you do not have any evidence to support your claims, then they are utterly worthless when applied to a world of fact and reason." - ZOM

I'm sure ANUP can answer for himself.
My two cents on your statement: church is a voluntary decision. If you choose to want to affiliate with ANY organization, there are accepted guidelines. If you disagree with them, you can either choose to try to alter them or choose to leave. No one is forcing you to stay.

Upthread I've stated my differences with ANUP's views. I grew up outside the church, outside Christ. I am an intelligent, rational adult... one who, as an adult male, made the decision to accept Christ. Yes, it's a faith thing. If it weren't, it would be as mundane as having to go get your driver's license. It would simply involve being compliant so as not to get fined/penalized. Christianity DOES involve belief in things not seen... that is faith. For those looking for 100% factual, concrete guarantees, you will not find it.

that is faith. For those looking for 100% factual, concrete guarantees, you will not find it.

#82 | Posted by OohRah

you will to...

But no~one else will ever get your version right:>)

Thanks for the reality check, OORAH, I'll admit I got a little carried away. I have a special disdain for fundamentalism, having been something of a fundamentalist in my childhood. I willingly turned away from that path as I became more educated, and I guess being an "apostate" in the eyes of some predisposes one to a bit of cynicism.

Faith-based beliefs and organized religion are not utterly worthless as I said earlier- they have a place in society inasmuch as they can help individuals confront difficulties in their own lives and provide a sense of community. I just become extremely embittered by people who exploit faith, which can be a positive force, and twist it for their own gain. The beliefs that give comfort become rationalizations for cruelty, and the sense of community becomes a self-righteous sense of superiority. I have high hopes for humanity to eventually transcend its petty divisions, but my optimism is challenged daily by people like ANUP, who for whatever reason rush to defend religious and political hacks without question.

I will revise my statement to acknowledge the potential personal benefits of faith-based beliefs, but I stand wholehartedly by my attack on the claim of any religion to make authoritative statements on issues of empirical fact- in this case those involving human societies and interaction. I must remember to respect the peace that ANUP and others may find in their beliefs, but when they attempt to proselytize, perpetrate injustice, or attack others based on subjective standards, I will gladly stand as their adversary.

I must remember to respect the peace that ANUP and others may find in their beliefs, but when they attempt to proselytize, perpetrate injustice, or attack others based on subjective standards, I will gladly stand as their adversary.

#84 | Posted by ZombieHunter

watch out world!!!

My claims, unlike yours, are not arbitrary. Altruism and the ethic of reciprocity (golden rule) are firmly grounded in evolutionary psychology (but you probably think humans were made from mud 5000 years ago, so this argument might be wasted on you). These standards have universal and verifiable significance in humans. By acting in a petty, manipulative, and vindictive manner to enforce subjective, culturally-derived moral standards, these organizations can be objectively condemned for their violation of universal standards of morality.

Your defense of the authority of the church is devoid of any rational foundation....

They can be objectively condemned using universal standards?

Assuming your little notion is true, that our morality is a natural product of naturalistic causation, what makes that any less arbitrary? If we just so happened to arrive at a belief of what is wrong or right as a result of a non-rational processes (naturalistic causation) what makes those beliefs rational?

Do you even understand the idiotic statements you are making?

How hard is it to understand that when you morally condemn an individual or organization for morally condemning others you condemn yourself as well. You have in your very condemnation presumed the very rights you are condemning others for exercising.

Which reduces your opinion to nothing more than, "I think my moral ideas are better."

Well thank you for your unintelligent opinion, but since I don't look to moral vacuous non-believers for spiritual insights and I certainly don't look to morons that don't even understand the logical implications of their own statements and beliefs, you can safely conclude that your opinion is worthless, to me anyway.

I disagree on multiple levels. First, is it the church's place to tell us with whom we can interact? And doesn't the Great Commission implore us to spread the Word (Jesus = The Word) to all the nations of the world? Are we to only associate with non-backsliding Christians? Not by my understanding.

By doing so, the church would not grow... only "perfect" Christians need attend. And no one, you and me included, is perfect. Christ is available to all... and while she has left the church, perhaps the best thing to do is to pray for her... and to continue to keep the line of communication open between her and church members. Perhaps in time she will have a change of heart. But by publicly bullying her I just don't see her "coming around," do you?

Maybe you should join a church were they you can erase the parts of the Bible that don't suit your sensibilities? Or perhaps you mean to say you know better how to deal with immoral believers than Paul does.

1 Corinthians 5

ZOM-
Since we're hitting this subject from opposite directions (you were raised fundamentalist... and I was not churched) I am curious as to what led you to your present take on things. You say you became more educated. Tell me about it. Not a trick question, I'm curious.

Too bad she wasn't a lesbian - then we'd have another variable tossed in.

#1 | Posted by OohRah

well, her current boyfriend & her were lesbians in a harlot of a Sultan in a past life...ps they may have been black, too:>)

Mac, re #71.

That sounds like Jesus was talking to the self righteous priests.

This preacher should respect his calling and STFU about violating his member's confidentiality.

Any mainstream Protestant religion, with the possible exception of the Baptists who have a lay ministry, would revoke this guy's privileges as a minister in their church.

#74 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2008-12-20 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think that is the case at all. I can't recall any mention in the gospel accounts where the self righteous priests aligned themselves with Christ; just the opposite was true. The Scripture I cited was part of Christ's teaching to the multitude (referred to as the Sermon on the Mount by Bible scholars); not the priests.

As for the preacher in question, I don't know what members in that church agree to uphold as members; so, I can't really determine if he is correct. There are a number of approaches to church governance followed by different churches and denominations. I would find it unusual for a church not to inform prospective members of the requirements and obligations incumbent upon formal church membership and many churches have procedures to examine prospective members before adding them to their rolls.

Bottom line: We don't know the specifics in this particular situation so we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

"He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him." Proverbs 18:13

ANUP-
We'll have to disagree. Remember, the damage was done. She's left that church. What's to be gained by outing her sins in church? Other than to beat your chest as to how pure you are...

I notice you haven't chosen to respond to my points as I have to yours. I'd be interested in your views on the goals of Christ's church... and how one brother treats another.

If our goal is to help others toward Christ and His healing blood... I fail to see how this church's practice furthers that goal. Your thoughts?

And, assuming you're a male and a father, how do you treat your sinning children?

"well, her current boyfriend & her were lesbians in a harlot of a Sultan in a past life...ps they may have been black, too:>)" - BANI

Sounds like the makings of a winning reality program. Just add a midget and some blind nymphos and we're all set.

If our goal is to help others toward Christ and His healing blood... I fail to see how this church's practice furthers that goal. Your thoughts?

OOhrah

it doesn't

But sometimes the devil is in one's own church, but no one wants to do anything about it because fear is their mantra for now...

love gives

power takes

We'll have to disagree. Remember, the damage was done. She's left that church. What's to be gained by outing her sins in church? Other than to beat your chest as to how pure you are...

She hasn't left the church unless she renounces Christianity, she hasn't left the sphere of influence of that local body unless she has severed all relationships with those that attend there.

I notice you haven't chosen to respond to my points as I have to yours. I'd be interested in your views on the goals of Christ's church... and how one brother treats another.

If our goal is to help others toward Christ and His healing blood... I fail to see how this church's practice furthers that goal.

Sounds like you need to pray and ask God what Paul was thinking then. Paul, you know the one that wrote the majority of the New Testament, is the one that taught that method of dealing with immoral unbelievers.

Let me guess, you also have a problem with hell, and would like me to figure out how hell plays an important part in bringing people to Christ?

Do you fail to see how hell plays an important teaching that furthers God's goals?

Your thoughts? And, assuming you're a male and a father, how do you treat your sinning children?

Not a parent, yet. But the Bible does provide guidelines for disciplining children, that would be the book that tells about Christ, from which we get all our doctrines.

If your not to busy trying to figure out how the bible makes sense, perhaps you should read it and apply it in order to see.

wish this church would spontaneously combust!!

LM

ANUP-
We'll have to disagree. Remember, the damage was done. She's left that church. What's to be gained by outing her sins in church? Other than to beat your chest as to how pure you are...

I notice you haven't chosen to respond to my points as I have to yours. I'd be interested in your views on the goals of Christ's church... and how one brother treats another.

If our goal is to help others toward Christ and His healing blood... I fail to see how this church's practice furthers that goal. Your thoughts?

#91 | Posted by OohRah at 2008-12-20 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

If I may comment...

Anyone "beating their chest as to how pure they are..." has missed a major point of the Gospel. The ONLY thing a believer contributes to his/her salvation is the sin from which they need saving. We all are from the same lump of fallen humanity. There is nothing we can do to merit God's favor or atone for one sin or to stand justified before God. Left to ourselves, we are all toast. It is God's grace (UNMERITED favor) granted by His choice alone that makes the difference between one person and another. There is no personal moral purity for any of us to boast about. Salvation is by (God's) grace alone through faith alone (no works on the believer's part) because of Christ alone. The believer has nothing to boast of but Christ.

Church discpline is one means God uses to correct His children; however, that doesn't mean that a fallible church elder can't get it wrong. God uses other means as He chooses to discipline and chastise as well. His goal is their ultimate good.

Psalm 119:

67 Before I was afflicted I went astray, But now I keep Your word.

71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted,
That I may learn Your statutes
72 The law of Your mouth is better to me
Than thousands of coins of gold and silver.

"If I may comment..."

Apparently, it is too late to say "no."

Hans

ANUP-
Keep in mind, all things in love. I notice you're new to the DR... or simply assuming a different handle for this thread.

Your way casts out someone in a very meanspirited way. I sense no love at all. Is there any? Please inform. It also has a ripple effect on current church members - are you prepared (you, yourself) to be held to that same standard? After all, no one is perfect. Regardless of your sin, are you prepared to be publicly blackballed? Is that helping further Christ's kingdom?

When the day comes when you're a parent I trust you'll adopt more of a loving outlook on them. Because, like kids, we adults aren't perfect... and a father's love (Heavenly or earthly father) is critical to our development.

The woman has left that church. Who are you to say she's left Christianity? You can't. I left a church due to a relocation to North Carolina. If you deem a back-sliding person who's left a brick and mortar church as having left the overall body of Christ, you are mistaken. I can understand a specific church booting a member for behavior, but I simply can't see the value in continuing to beat that dead horse once she's left the church. You disagree. What's to gain by continuing to go after her?

"Church discpline ..."

Kinky, in a real weird sort of way.

Hans

"The woman has left that church. Who are you to say she's left Christianity?"

Maybe she finally found GOD by leaving Christianity?

OORAH, you asked what my take on things was- I'm not sure that I know what things in particular you are talking about, but I'm happy to share if you clarify.

ANUP - the argument you have made previously is just an attempt to deconstruct objective knowledge. I could equally well claim that your own statements are their own refutation. This is quickly becoming a philosophical argument- it is important that I be clear about everything here. Perhaps my choice of the word "arbitrary" was confusing to you.

Religious beliefs are created by humans, and they can include all sorts of irrational statements, fanciful imagery, metaphor, and cultural reference. Anyone can start a religion and make any sort of claim in it- that is what I mean by "arbitrary".

There do exist universal constants in religious and secular codes of ethics- morality that transcends cultures and societies. Evolutionary psychology says in a nutshell that these behaviors arose because they increased the reproductive fitness of the people who engaged in them. You are correct- this is naturalistic causation. Your error is in your claim that naturalistic causation is arbitrary and irrational in the same sense as religious belief.

Natural systems follow physical laws, and hypotheses regarding these systems can be proposed and tested. It is precicely because of the rationality of nature that science thrives. Whether or not a concept is rational depends on things like its self-consistency, capacity to be empirically evaluated, and level of support from fact. Natural systems are inherently rational because of this. Religious belief systems do not have this foundation in fact.

You must admit that our two viewpoints cannot be compared to one another- they are fundamentally different. The argument I see you trying to prepare at this point is that the existence of natural laws implies a law-giver. Why do we observe the laws of nature to be what they are? This is not a matter that can be evaluated empirically. It is as valid for you to claim that order arises from the Christian God as it is for me to claim that it arises through self-organization or the action of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ZOM- I was referring to what, specifically, caused you to turn away from religion.

ZombieHunter I had to check your profile and saw you're a newbie. Take my advice and RUN while you still have a rational bone in your body. The DR will destroy your rationality. RUN Zombie RUN!!!

muslims who live in Muslim certified countries get really ticked off if one of their own converts to another spiritual path residing in their country.

In fact most ban any muslims from attending any other intro on another path of any kind other than Islam related...as far as I know.

What's the difference in this church's action toward a possible former Christian who may have awakened to higher truths? or lower hells of sexual gradification (which many of us have craved from time to time before Christianity decided it was a sin to play with one's elbows or something like that;>)

That is what the bible says to do, 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Mathew 18:15-17 or you can just not commit adulterey.

The American government does this all the time with other sex offenders.

Zombie - My point was that any belief that is the result of a non-rational process is not rational. In that sense your attributing morality to naturalistic causes simply removes the very thing you are attempting to establish, that there is a rational basis for thinking you are correct in your moral beliefs.

In order for them to be rational they need to be a product of a chain of reasoning, which is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

There is nothing inherently rational about naturalistic systems unless those systems are the product of a chain of reasoning, in which case I will assume you have just become a theist.

Now, assuming religious systems are the product of a reasonable process of thought, religion is rational. Moreover, in your example you made the case that only morality derived by a reasonable process of thought is valid, which means not only can you not possibly be correct in your assumptions about the cause of morality, but if it were possible your morality would then be invalid.

I am not, as you assume, arguing for the existence of God, but simply noting that your assumption concerning the origin of moral law invalidates that law by your own standard.

Your beliefs are illogical and therefore must be false.

ZOM-
Better listen to GIMME. GIMME's among our best and brighest. Like Otter, he's studying pre-med, or was that pre-law?

Otter: Point of parliamentary procedure!
Hoover: Don't screw around, they're serious this time!
Otter: Take it easy, I'm pre-law.
Boon: I thought you were pre-med.
Otter: What's the difference?

Your beliefs are illogical and therefore must be false.

#107 | Posted by Anup

since when has the search for GOD ever been logical?

ANUP-
Keep in mind, all things in love. I notice you're new to the DR... or simply assuming a different handle for this thread.

Your way casts out someone in a very meanspirited way. I sense no love at all. Is there any? Please inform.

My way? You mean the way the Apostle Paul taught in the Bible? I'll be sure to tell him you think his teaching is wrong when I see him.

It also has a ripple effect on current church members - are you prepared (you, yourself) to be held to that same standard? After all, no one is perfect. Regardless of your sin, are you prepared to be publicly blackballed? Is that helping further Christ's kingdom?

Of course I am prepared. This isn't about being perfect, it's about not being willing to receive correction from the church leaders. She is unrepentant. She does not acknowledge her sins.

When the day comes when you're a parent I trust you'll adopt more of a loving outlook on them. Because, like kids, we adults aren't perfect... and a father's love (Heavenly or earthly father) is critical to our development.

Further conversation with you is pointless, you can't grasp that the issue is not with her sins, but her unwillingness to repent and seek help to overcome them.

A loving God does not allow his children to keep sinning without consequences.

Your beliefs are illogical and therefore must be false.

#107 | Posted by Anup

since when has the search for GOD ever been logical?

See Aristotle, Anselm and Aquinas for starters.

Cheers

since when has the search for GOD ever been logical?

Anytime you use it in a syllogism.

Hmmmmmmm

When Jesus came upon the woman who was going to be stoned to death he didn't call her out. He started writing the sins of her wannabe executioners in the dirt.

"He who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone" - Jesus

See Aristotle, Anselm and Aquinas for starters.

Cheers

#111 | Posted by Grendel

for higher truths ~ see Rumi

blessings:>)

Anselm found the illogical path as well to GOD thru psychosomatic illness ~ perhaps? And then travelling was illogical back then, too. I'm more sure Milarepa who was around at the same time found GOD versus Anselm's god:>)

Anselm was born in the city of Aosta in the Kingdom of Burgundy (currently the capital of the Aosta Valley region in Northern Italy). His family was noble and owned considerable property. His father, Gundulph, was by birth a Lombard and seems to have been harsh and violent. Ermenberga, his mother, was regarded as prudent and virtuous. She gave young Anselm careful religious instruction.

At the age of fifteen, Anselm desired to enter a monastery but could not obtain his father's consent. Disappointment brought on apparent psychosomatic illness. After recovery, he gave up his studies and lived a carefree life. During this period, his mother died and his father's harshness became unbearable.

One more time, ANUP.

The woman is no longer a member of that church. I don't contest that she is an unrepentent sinner. When someone tells the minister/elders they no longer wish to be affiliated with ABC Church, are you saying that church ought to continue to publicly go after past members? And you think that helps bring people to Christ?

Tell me... in your home church, do they practice publicly outing back-sliding people whether or not they are members?

If they don't practice such public rebukes... why are you still there? If they do, how have the results gone? Do those members repent?

Id hire a private detective and spy on the church elders. after getting some dirt on them I would print fliers up and post them all over town. I would aim to ruin their lives. Nothing beats revenge.

There do exist universal constants in religious and secular codes of ethics- morality that transcends cultures and societies. Evolutionary psychology says in a nutshell that these behaviors arose because they increased the reproductive fitness of the people who engaged in them. You are correct- this is naturalistic causation. Your error is in your claim that naturalistic causation is arbitrary and irrational in the same sense as religious belief.

While there is a belief in natural law argued by Aristotle, Aquinas and others, the belief is generally that each creature follows the law according to its natural end (teleology). For such thinkers "survival" the principle invoked by evolution is not human teleology but individual human happiness is --of which survival to reproduce is a part but by by no means the whole.

I would be very careful of human ethical codes based upon evolutionary concepts necessary for survival--unless you wish to justify the 19th century beliefs in eugenics and social darwinism that bore its fruit in the holocaust and genocides of the 20th century.

"Nature is red in tooth and claw."

In general the great irony of post modern progressive thought is that as one hand deonconstructs western philosophy and religion based upon universals, absolutes and ideals the other reaches out to embrace an ethical system based upon said universals.

Post modernists want their cake and eat it too.
(Don't we all? Ha, ha,)

Cheers

for higher truths ~ see Rumi
-Bani

Rock on Bani!!!

#111 | Posted by Grendel

for higher truths ~ see Rumi

blessings:>)

Rumi's ruminations are an interesting mix of neoplatonism and Islamic mysticism. While I think that rational thought can take the individual in the direction of the divine, I agree that higher enlightenment is finally reached through affective piety--mysticism, the emotional response which takes us into the promise land and/or creates a relationship with God.

Allegorically, Lady philosophy/reason is like Moses before the Promise Land. She leads us to it, but will not cross us into it. See also Virgil and Beatrice from Dante's Divine Comedy.

PAX,
Shalom :-)

supposedly Milarepa went higher than Rumi...just for the logical record:>)

One more time, ANUP. The woman is no longer a member of that church.

It doesn't matter if she doesn't attend the church, she is still a member of the Body of Christ. If she still maintains fellowship with any of the local church members the leadership should excoriate her publicly according to the Biblical principles commanded by God.

I don't contest that she is an unrepentent sinner. When someone tells the minister/elders they no longer wish to be affiliated with ABC Church, are you saying that church ought to continue to publicly go after past members? And you think that helps bring people to Christ?

Your problem is with the Apostle Paul on this one. You need to pray and ask God to give you the ability to understand his word and the wisdom behind putting immoral members out of the Church.

Tell me... in your home church, do they practice publicly outing back-sliding people whether or not they are members?

If they don't practice such public rebukes... why are you still there? If they do, how have the results gone? Do those members repent?

This isn't about me or my local church, don't make it personal. This is about the Bible and what God tells us to do in scripture.

If you have a problem with the Bible I highly recommend Mormonism or Islam; they claim to have worked out all the problems you don't like.

"Your problem is with the Apostle Paul on this one. You need to pray and ask God to give you the ability to understand his word and the wisdom behind putting immoral members out of the Church."

otherwise one won't get to one of St. Paul's heavens mentioned in the Nag Hammadi Library, by golly!

"This isn't about me or my local church, don't make it personal. This is about the Bible and what God tells us to do in scripture." - ANUP

If this is such a major piece of your religious make up, how can you sit in the pews of a church which wimps out in handing out such public rebuke? Surely, if you feel strongly, you'll attend a church which publicly calls out its members.

The very few churchs (perhaps cults) who indeed practice what you proscribe probably feel they are the only ones going to Heaven and that they're alone in standing up for God. Fred Phelps comes to mind.

You need to pray and ask God to give you the ability to understand his word and the wisdom behind putting immoral members out of the Church. - ANUP

Unless you're Catholic, I don't think protestant faiths delegate that authority to other humans. So you feel you and your brethren have the moral authority to banish a person from the body of Christ? Wow. You don't. You can banish a person from attending your physical church, but ultimately whether one is a Christian and reaches Heaven certainly doesn't rest with you or me as a judge.

If this is such a major piece of your religious make up, how can you sit in the pews of a church which wimps out in handing out such public rebuke? Surely, if you feel strongly, you'll attend a church which publicly calls out its members.

I didn't say it was a major part of my convictions. You are attempting to make a personal issue out of my recognition of a biblical practice. You cowardly refuse to deal with the BIBLICAL principle at all, and instead prefer to berate me over something you have no knowledge off.

Do you or do you not agree with this BIBLICAL teaching as prescribe by the apostle Paul?

The very few churchs (perhaps cults) who indeed practice what you proscribe probably feel they are the only ones going to Heaven and that they're alone in standing up for God. Fred Phelps comes to mind.

Now who is being condemning and judgmental? Where did all the love go all of a sudden? It's okay to love unrepentant immoral believers but anyone who practices any Biblical principles you don't agree with are cooks and hatemongers?

Way to shine the love you hypocrite.

Unless you're Catholic, I don't think protestant faiths delegate that authority to other humans. So you feel you and your brethren have the moral authority to banish a person from the body of Christ? Wow. You don't. You can banish a person from attending your physical church, but ultimately whether one is a Christian and reaches Heaven certainly doesn't rest with you or me as a judge.

I meant the fellowship with the local church, sorry for the confusion.

"I didn't say it was a major part of my convictions."

So you do or don't practice what you preach?

I apologize to all cooks, who have a noble profession, that I inadvertently lumped in with hatemongers when I misspelled the word kooks.

You know what pisses Me off about Churches is the fact they don't want really bad sinners in their flock. They just want the ones who are not that bad being a part of them and no one else. They just "Love" excommunicating the double sinners.(The people who actually need church the most) Bunch of shit if You ask Me.

Larry

So you do or don't practice what you preach?

You still haven't answered some of my previous questions. Let me know when you obtain the intellectual integrity required to discuss your inability to accept Biblical teachings so we can continue this discussion.

Do you or do you not agree with this BIBLICAL teaching as prescribe by the apostle Paul?

andown?

depends...I die daily & go to his heavens/paradices like he suggests by OBEing when I can as much as goatmen will allow me to:>)

Maybe you should join a church were they you can erase the parts of the Bible that don't suit your sensibilities? Or perhaps you mean to say you know better how to deal with immoral believers than Paul does.

1 Corinthians 5

My reading of Paul's epistles show that he suggest that the faithful should remove themselves from the unrepentant sinner. There is nothing to suggest that the sins of the sinner be itemized and made public.

While Timothy chapter 1, verse 20 specifically names two sinners--Hymenaeus and Alexander--in regard to blasphmey, Paul was not apparently in the habit of writing letters in order to out every single sinner and their sinners of the early church.

Christ in Matthew 18, verses 15 to 17 says that when a sinner refuses to repent should report it to the church: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Here the point is that the church, the ecclesia--not necessarily the entire body of the church--needs to be told so they can intervene. Such intervention is for the benefit of the supposed sinner so as to retain the sinner in the congregation, not to make the sinner a mockery or an example. If the sinner does not not listen then he or she is to be treated as being outside the church.

Since this woman in the article has already removed herself from the church then she has gone to that final step herself and is, therefore, beyond the concerns of the church.

Twisting scripture to create some public verbal flogging, to create gossip or to label sinners to demean them runs contrary to Christ and his teaching. Perhaps, they all should read of Christ's association with the tax collector, Zaechaeus or of Mary Magdalene, to see how a Christian is suppose to respond to labels and social stigmas heaped upon people.

Cheers

I think we're arguing the same point now. Yes, I agree a church leadership has not only the right but the responsibility to not only instruct members as to Biblical behavior... but also to pray for and help educate the member on proper behavior.

If, after discussion, the member refuses to change, then a choice arises. Member leaves or church boots them, but certainly the church can't boot that person out of Christianity... just out of their brick & mortar church. And publicly calling out a person who has voluntarily left ABC Church accomplishes nothing except to drive others away from Christ.

Ultimately that person's relationship is with Christ, not you or me. You and I realize we are all sinners, saved by grace. All sin is repugnant to God, even the little ones.

As for your comment on being hateful or judgemental... I'm not judging you on your relationship with Christ or whether or not you'll one day be in Heaven.

As one brother in Christ to another, I'm offering my opinion on how your view stacks up with the likes of a Fred Phelps. Basically, using Scripture as a huge hammer to bludgeon those you deem morally inferior. I'd caution you to rethink your views and incorporate some love and compassion for someone who needs to know God loves them. Instead, you would appear to be telling them to get lost.

How sad for you larry, you hate everything good and embrace everything evil.

I'm not a religous man, as you know, but I hope someone out there is praying for you.

Grendel, do you know if the woman has broken fellowship with all the members of her former church? If not, then how can you know if the leaders are not correct in telling their members to treat her as if she is outside the church?

I agree if she has no interaction with the local church body then nothing further should be done.

Perhaps it might be prudent to communicate with her new church leaders concerning the issues she still needs to work on.

Keep in mind the article only reports the woman's perspective from a liberal anti-religious slant. It could very well be that the members at her former church have nothing but her best interest in mind.

"So you do or don't practice what you preach?"

I think we can see for ourselves. I'm done for the night. Apparently I'm not smart enough for you. Pity. Second time I've been told that today! Hopefully you'll find your intellectual match. GRENDEL's a bright guy. Take over, GRENDEL. I gotta polish my new pentagram medallion.

How sad for you larry, you hate everything good and embrace everything evil.

I'm not a religous man, as you know, but I hope someone out there is praying for you.

Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2008-12-20 09:40 PM | Reply

It's very wrong to throw out the very bad sinner in a church where they are supposedly in the business of saving souls and changing lives. As a matter of fact it is veryu evil to do so. Of course You wouldn't understand a fucking thing about it. Keep Your declusions Rex. That's all You've got.

Larry

As one brother in Christ to another, I'm offering my opinion on how your view stacks up with the likes of a Fred Phelps. Basically, using Scripture as a huge hammer to bludgeon those you deem morally inferior. I'd caution you to rethink your views and incorporate some love and compassion for someone who needs to know God loves them. Instead, you would appear to be telling them to get lost.

Your interpretation is way off, I don't claim moral superiority nor do I want to hit anyone with a judgmental hammer.

I think there is a loving way to apply Paul's teaching. I don't think there is anything wrong with his teaching when applied out of love.

You seem to think that the actual biblical principle itself is inherently hateful, as though you disagree with it. It isn't, if you think so you are wrong.

It's wrong to throw out every church because of a few bad apples Larry.

I don't belong to any organized religion, but I understand the hope it is to billions of people around the world.

You need to find forgivness in your heart and let go of your hate, the only on it hurts, is you.

Bwhahahahahah too fucking funny Rex. Obviously You lack any clues on the subject matter and try to make Yourself look better than You really are. God I find people like You fucking laughing stocks. Like I said keep Your delusions. I will stick to facts and how the world really fucking works. You capisce???????"?????????

Larry

Karma is Karma...not good or bad, just is.

The lady made her choices & has chose to move on to perhaps better things (& quite possibly be sin free as well since she won't neccessary believe in sin traps anymore either:>)

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there."
Jalal ad-Din Rumi

Grendel, do you know if the woman has broken fellowship with all the members of her former church? If not, then how can you know if the leaders are not correct in telling their members to treat her as if she is outside the church?

I agree if she has no interaction with the local church body then nothing further should be done.

Did you read the article? She says a number of times that she has left the church. Broken fellowship does not imply some kind of restraining order. She lives in the community and may naturally speak to members of the congregation while at the same time she is outside of the congregation. In contact with them is not the same as fellowship. (If she is to be treated like a publican and a heathen that does not mean a non contact order--again consider Christ's contact with publicans, Samaritans and prostitutes.)

Even if she was within the church, I do not think there is scriptural sanction for a publication of sins --a verbal flogging. As I said in the last post, bringing the sinner before the church does not necessarily imply the entire congregation but the ecclesia who could attempt to help the sinner. This is precisely why there is an ecclesia--someone to represent the church when it is prudent to have a single person for that role.

At least consider the spirit of the law that you think scripture implies--to help and aid the sinner. A public shaming would do this how? It would seem to me to create far more distance between the sinner and the church than communion between the two.

There was a reason why Hawthorne wrote the Scarlet Letter. This church would do well to read that work. Why for God sakes do they wish to make the mistakes of the puritans again?

Cheers

Yeah and Pray tell what sort of Christian condemns another for wearing their best tatters to church when they can't afford expensive suits. Yeah they think their fucking churches are so God damned High and Mighty that they shun the poor slobs who lack the money to buy Good "Christian" clothes to attend church in. Don't talk to Me about how fucked up churches are Rex I know I have lived it. If You don't have a certain amount of money in the bank and drive a nice vehicle they don't want any part of You. It's a fucking racket.

Larry

I forgive you Larry, forgive yourself.

There was a reason why Hawthorne wrote the Scarlet Letter. This church would do well to read that work. Why for God sakes do they wish to make the mistakes of the puritans again?

#143 | Posted by Grendel

yet man does life after life until truth finally dawns on that maybe, just maybe this sort of organize religious behavior is a sin as well in the eyes of their biblical teachings they so espouse, thus creating more karma to be worked off eventually perhaps in another life or if one is so fortunate to meet a Rumi or a Milarepa or a Marpa type of teacher this time around ~ then one can possibly work off this sort of karma finally this time around ~ perhaps, of course, & be done with rebirth on this particular little orb called earth:>)

cheers, cheers?

erratum

Ecclesia = ecclesiastic

Yeah and speaking of Churches You have these Pastors raking in the bucks. I mean if they are supposed to be shepards of the Lord how dare they have these Rich things when Jesus didn't have a pocket to piss in nor a boot to pour it out of. Now I don't see anything wrong with a Pastor living modestly. He has to feed Himself and His Family but Lexuses BMW's Merc's and the like. How can they justify that and declare they are Preaching Gods word. Oh and those Preachers who go to the poor areas begging for money when they have a fucking Jet and several Rolls Royces back at Home. Yeah don't tell Me about how churches are all good. A lot of them are in it strickly for the money.

Larry

well, Larry ~ Rich Warren sold over 30 million copies of his book "The Pupose Driven Life" making it the best non-fiction hardcover seller in history.

why can't he fly around to preach to the heathen with his jet...he can maybe afford it:>)

yet man does life after life until truth finally dawns on that maybe, just maybe this sort of organize religious behavior is a sin as well in the eyes of their biblical teachings they so espouse, thus creating more karma to be worked off eventually perhaps in another life or if one is so fortunate to meet a Rumi or a Milarepa or a Marpa type of teacher this time around ~ then one can possibly work off this sort of karma finally this time around ~ perhaps, of course, & be done with rebirth on this particular little orb called earth:>)

Religious institutions do not sin. Countries do not sin. Organizations do not sin.

Individuals do.

Religious institutions will not be accountable for sins. Countries will not be accountable. Organizations will not.

Individuals will.

Exitus and Reditus

It begins and ends in the human heart, mind and soul.

Cheers for all three.

Did you read the article? She says a number of times that she has left the church. Broken fellowship does not imply some kind of restraining order. She lives in the community and may naturally speak to members of the congregation while at the same time she is outside of the congregation. In contact with them is not the same as fellowship.

I didn't ask about contact, I asked about fellowship. Do you know if she is still in fellowship with some of the church members there?

It was a rhetorical question given to you so that you can see how your position in this specific case is based on ignorance.

You don't know.

Even if she was within the church, I do not think there is scriptural sanction for a publication of sins --a verbal flogging. As I said in the last post, bringing the sinner before the church does not necessarily imply the entire congregation but the ecclesia who could attempt to help the sinner. This is precisely why there is an ecclesia--someone to represent the church when it is prudent to have a single person for that role.

You are entitled to your opinion concerning the interpretation of that scripture but the prescription is from one to many. One person, three people, the church. It is not from one person, to three people, to one person.

At least consider the spirit of the law that you think scripture implies--to help and aid the sinner. A public shaming would do this how? It would seem to me to create far more distance between the sinner and the church than communion between the two.

So you're another believer one that doesn't like or agree with the Biblical principle. Here we go again.

There was a reason why Hawthorne wrote the Scarlet Letter. This church would do well to read that work. Why for God sakes do they wish to make the mistakes of the puritans again?

Or perhaps the Church should read and apply the Bible? Or are you proposing we canonize Hawthorne's work?

Remember we are not talking about a sinner here. Sin is forgivable. We are talking about unrepentant sinners who want to live how they please and benefit from the fellowship of the church while they do it.

Larry what's your beef with churches not all of them are greedy and a lot of them actually try to help people. If you think they're not going about it in the right way show them how to do it - set the example.

BTW I'm not Christian or even religious but I sure don't denigrate the vast majority of genuinely sincere churches/faithful just because of a relatively small number of conspicuously avaricious and hypocritical evangelists.

Gimme the vast majority of Churches I have been in were only in it for the Money. Sure they declare that they are about helping the sinner but when push comes to shove if You have a very big black blot on You or if You don't have the right clothes they shun You. I am just sick of how they claim to be Holy and Sanctified when they are trashing the "Lessers" like they do. Bunch of BULLSHIT if You ask Me.

Larry

Religious institutions will not be accountable for sins. Countries will not be accountable. Organizations will not.
br />
Individuals will.

Exitus and Reditus
br />
It begins and ends in the human heart, mind and soul.

Cheers for all three.

#150 | Posted by Grendel

everyone is accountable for their actions ~ life after life... that was written out at the council of Nicea in 325 ad & thus Jesus was made into the latest only begotten pagan god by the Roman State to serve their ends as well.

to suggest that Jesus will save one from their all their sins eternally ~ regardless of works is on of the biggest cons around ~ unfortunately, but oh well ~ life is good:>)

on = one?

I didn't ask about contact, I asked about fellowship. Do you know if she is still in fellowship with some of the church members there?

Remember we are not talking about a sinner here. Sin is forgivable. We are talking about unrepentant sinners who want to live how they please and benefit from the fellowship of the church while they do it.

She has left the church. She says she has left the church but the church has not left her. It cannot be plainer. What you mean by fellowship and benfit beyond that is your guess not mine.

At least consider the spirit of the law that you think scripture implies--to help and aid the sinner. A public shaming would do this how? It would seem to me to create far more distance between the sinner and the church than communion between the two.

So you're another believer one that doesn't like or agree with the Biblical principle. Here we go again

Not at all. The principle is the spirit of the law and is precisely what I believe in. Strict literalism is bibliolotry and should be avoided.

Or perhaps the Church should read and apply the Bible

Not without a layer of interpretation that considers the polysemous nature of the Word. Read, interpret and then apply. It is the scriptural tradition that the Hebrews themselves followed before Christ.

If, however, you wish to follow the letter of God's law without the benefit of exegesis and interepretaton (in order to get at the principle and spirit) then perhaps you should consider the Qu'ran and Islam. Submission to the law without question or consideration is their entire point.

Keep in mind that Christ himself forsaw the need for the Church to be dynamic and flexible in the real world.
Matt 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever . . ."

Also,

Remember as Christ said the law was made for Man and not man for the law.

Please read and apply that.

Cheers

Or are you proposing we canonize Hawthorne's work?

Anup

great idea!

So whatever you want the Bible to mean it means. Nice.

If the command is to treat the immoral believer as a non-believer, it's okay to not do that as long as you really are trying to keep the spirit of the command. If the command is to bring them before the Church, it's okay to not do that as long as you are trying to keep within the spirit of the command.

Must be nice to be the god of your own version of Christianity.

You are no doubt simply self-projecting yourself as the god of the Bible.

to suggest that Jesus will save one from their all their sins eternally ~ regardless of works is on of the biggest cons around ~ unfortunately, but oh well ~ life is good:>)

The early church rejected pelagius but did not dismiss the role of one's actions from salvation.

The Catholic church has always stressed the importance of works and faith. Both are necessary. Your complaint is more toward protestant beliefs of sola scriptura and sola fides.

Remember, Catholics hold a belief in purgatory. Still, the reconciliation between God's perfect mercy and God's perfect justice us unfathomable to the human mind.

Cheers

You are no doubt simply self-projecting yourself as the god of the Bible.

#158 | Posted by Anup

best self retort of this blog so far:>)

"Still, the reconciliation between God's perfect mercy and God's perfect justice us unfathomable to the human mind."

Grendel

so it is

I believe Grendel has a superb knowledge of what the Bible says. Oh and He at least to Me Practices what He preaches.

Larry

Pelagius

If the command is to bring them before the Church, it's okay to not do that as long as you are trying to keep within the spirit of the command.

One more time and the last time--I do not have the patience of Job.

To bring a sinner before the church does not necessarily mean to bring a sinner before the entire church--but before those who represent it--a minister, priest, etc. Otherwise Paul would have been in the business of publishing the sins of all to the entire church in monthly epistles to the four corners of the Roman empire, which he clearly does not do.

She is outside of the church. She removed herself from it. Does Paul advocate bringing the sinners who are outside the church before the Church? No, of course not. Then if this church wishes to apply scripture then they do nothing to this woman who is outside of the church.

Must be nice to be the god of your own version of Christianity.

You are no doubt simply self-projecting yourself as the god of the Bible.

The irony of this statement is so thick it is palpable.

Cheers

I'm not trying to deconstruct Western philosophy or argue about the existence of God or any other nonscientific concept. I have no desire to do the former, and the latter is a waste of time. Postmodernism and its cousin relativism, taken to their logical conclusions, deconstruct the notion that objective knowledge exists and act as their own refutations, so I will try to avoid them at all costs. I have the highest respect for empirical fact- that is the only truly objective form of knowledge. My goal is to deconstruct the notions that religion stands on equal footing with science and that any religion can legitimately claim the authority to be the exclusive guide to human behavior.

By studying human history and current society, it is possible to see how certain behaviors bring about certain outcomes. There still needs to be a standard by which these outcomes can be judged. An objective standard of morality must be described in scientific, rather than supernatural terms if it is to be adopted based on reason. Scientific knowledge begins with a question and ends with an answer provided by experiment. Faith-based knowledge begins with an assumption and ends with its affirmation, regardless of fact. Any rational belief must be upheld by facts- a claim backed by faith alone cannot be rational.

To legitimately claim the right to judge someone's actions, they must be evaluated against this objective standard. The cross-cultural standards of morality are a good place to begin this search, but they are by no means an end to it. Evolutionary hypotheses of human behavior may border on teleological explanations at points because they largely rely on the comparative method and inductive reasoning, but even in their currently unrefined state they are vastly superior to the blatantly unscientific claims of religions. Evolutionary psychology should never be confused with "social Darwinism" or Nazi eugenics- these movements erroneously applied evolutionary theory in areas where it had no bearing. They were attempts to disguise with scientific language the unscientific assumptions of a group's superiority. If you want to level criticism at evolutionary psychology for its scientific weaknesses, please do so. Science only progresses because of efforts to address valid critiques. No matter how pointed your criticism, however, you will never be able to reduce a scientific theory with the empirical support of evolution to the point where it can be considered comparable to feeble superstitions. Truth will be found in the form of facts through dedication to empiricism.

As I said before, an event with a natural cause can be described by physical laws- these laws may or may not be reachable through a line of reasoning, but they are by definition self-consistent and verifiable. Any religious belief not only lacks the ability to be constructed from first principles, but also any semblance of self-consistency and testability. The fact that a scientifically defined standard of morality will have a naturalistic cause is irrelevant to its validity. The validity of objective, naturally-occurring moral standards is established by their ability to create functioning societies, not by the fact that they originated through a natural process.

I find that a moral system founded on fact is superior to one founded on superstition because empiricism and reason are inherently more compatible than faith and reason. Facts are indisputable- faith varies between believers. A prioritization of fact above all else removes the need to introduce subjective values into a moral system. There is no need to rely on postmodernist thinking to reconcile differences in morality if one abandons superstition and focuses exclusively on matters that can be scientifically investigated. Reliance on fact provides the opportunity to achieve an objective viewpoint that postmodernism ultimately denies. It also avoids the problem posed by the fact that adherents of one religion are moral individuals by the standards of other religions, yet they are somehow considered flawed for believing in a different system of mythology. I am not merely trading one set of unverifiable, universal claims for another- I am throwing out everything except that which has a factual basis. My arguments are not self-refuting because they attack only nonscientific belief systems, and they do so through the application of scientific reasoning. Remember that religious attempts to explain physical reality are the pinnacle of teleology.

It comes down to a choice- do we accept, for the moment, the broad cross-cultural morality of the "golden rule," which enjoys tenuous but undeniable factual support? If so, we must accept some measure of uncertainty, as our knowledge of our own nature will never be truly complete. Or do we instead accept forever the narrowly defined morality proscribed by religion? If so, we admit that reason ultimately fails to lead us closer to objective truth and the pursuit of that truth is fruitless.

To bring a sinner before the church does not necessarily mean to bring a sinner before the entire church--but before those who represent it--a minister, priest, etc.

Otherwise Paul would have been in the business of publishing the sins of all to the entire church in monthly epistles to the four corners of the Roman empire, which he clearly does not do.

Clearly he was referring to the local gathering of believers, not the entire church. There is no reason to believe he was not talking about the entire gathering of the local believers.

She is outside of the church. She removed herself from it. Does Paul advocate bringing the sinners who are outside the church before the Church? No, of course not. Then if this church wishes to apply scripture then they do nothing to this woman who is outside of the church.

Which is why I asked if she still maintained fellowship with the local body of believers, as refusing to submit to the authority of the local leadership does not mean she has left the fellowship of the local body.

You are interpreting in/out of the church to mean whatever SHE happens to think it means, so now you are projecting her as the God of the Bible.

problems science has in dealing with weird Saints (& the benefits of torture?:>)

Perhaps the most extraordinary levitations of all was St. Joseph of Copertino born 1603 in Apulia Italy. After 22 years of ascetic behaviour coupled with religious torture to achieve a state of religious ecstasy, he finally managed to levitate. At one point a prayer-induced state of ecstasy resulted in him being transported through the air at Mass and left across the altar. Pope Urbain VIII was quite taken aback when St. Joseph of Copertino floated a few feet above the ground in front of him. It is also reported that he managed to levitate more than a hundred times until his death in 1663 when he was canonized because of his unique ability, which was seen by the Church to have been the work of God.

Today scientists tend to be very sceptical of this type of phenomena, attributing it largely to mass hypnosis of the audience, clever illusions or even drug-induced hallucinations.

"Which is why I asked if she still maintained fellowship with the local body of believers, as refusing to submit to the authority of the local leadership does not mean she has left the fellowship of the local body."

you mean she's not being shunned yet...thus that means she still part of the fellowship?

holy batman!

Proposition: Empirical fact is the only objective form of knowledge.

Inquiry: Can that proposition be known empirically?

Answer: It can not be.

Conclusion: If the basis for your epistemology is this assumption your epistemology is necessarily false since it is self-refuting.

I could go on for hours to point out the elementary logical problems in your ridiculous scientific faith, but I see little point as you can't even get past your primary premise without refuting yourself.

It's east to say I don't belong to your church anymore, it's another thing to actually severe your relationships with all the members of that church.

The church is in favor of the latter.

Posted by Anup

why is that...afraid the 'sinner' might taint the fellowship?:>)

called 'deprograming' in some circles, you know:>)

& called cultists behavior in other societies...or:

Sects of Christianity

African Methodist Episcopal Church Website from one district headquarters.

Southern Baptist Convention Official SBC website.

Brethren.org Official website. See also an unofficial, but informative site: Church of Brethren Network, maintained by C of B members.

Church of Christ, Scientist Official website.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Official website.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Official website.

Lutheran Church (ELCA) Official website.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Official website.

Mennonite Church USA Official website.

United Methodist Official website.

United Pentacostal Church International Official website.

Presbyterian Church (USA) Official website.

Catholic.net Not "official," but informative.

Jehovah's Witnesses - Watchtower Official website.

Religious Society of Friends Directory of links to many websites related to Quakers.

Unitarian Universalist From the UU Association.

Zombie

I had a nice response written up to your posts, but I hit the wrong button and lost it all. It is too late to continue the debate.

Maybe tomorrow morning, I will try to recall my ideas and respost.

Thanks for the response.

G'Night all. It has been fun.

Damn, that's a bummer. Well, I look forward to reading it if you feel like rewriting. Your posts are fun to read and well thought-out. I like it when people make me stop and think.

revenge is what this woman should seek.

Proposition: Empirical fact is the only objective form of knowledge.

Inquiry: Can that proposition be known empirically?

Answer: It can not be.
- ANUP

Your error is found in your answer.

Objective fact, in the sense that I have used it, refers to scientific facts, which are by definition empirical. In the philosophical sense of objectivity, I would the term refers to a consistency of the truth of a matter across all who use the same process of reasoning. Either way, an "objective" thing possesses an existance that is is entirely independant of the people who are observing it, discussing it, or thinking about it.

Now, the absence of evidence is a form of evidence in and of itself. There are no examples of objective information beyond what can be observed through experience or experiment. This observation is empirical support for my statement. When you or anyone can produce an example of objective knowledge that is not attainable through observation, experience, or experiment, I will have to revise my claim.

"Still, the reconciliation between God's perfect mercy and God's perfect justice us unfathomable to the human mind."

Grendel posted earlier

Zombie

I had a nice response written up to your posts, but I hit the wrong button and lost it all. It is too late to continue the debate.

Maybe tomorrow morning, I will try to recall my ideas and respost.

Thanks for the response.

G'Night all. It has been fun.

#174 | Posted by Grendel

the word/bani/tinititus/music of spheres in action or ?

yes, it has been fun:>)

The proposition in question requires you revise your claim, you simply haven't realized it.

You make the elementary error of assuming the absence of evidence is evidence for the antithetical proposition. Not only is this not true logically it can NEVER be true empirically.

To claim that empirical fact is the ONLY objective form of knowledge is the same as claiming there are NO OTHER objective forms of knowledge.

If you have empirical evidence that there is no other form of objective knowledge then present your case for your claim. I would like to see what evidence you have for such a claim.

What you are in fact doing is trying to defend your claim based on the lack of empirical evidence, which isn't empirical evidence by definition.

You are using the defeater to your proposition in a vain attempt at defending it.

In any case you don't even have empirical definitions for your own terms. Objective things posses an existence independent of observation? Independent of thought? How can you possibly know that empirically?

Your whole philosophy is riddled with contradiction after contradiction.

Anup-
re:" To claim that empirical fact is the ONLY objective form of knowledge is the same as claiming there are NO OTHER objective forms of knowledge."

I'd kinda like to see your response to this:

When you or anyone can produce an example of objective knowledge that is not attainable through observation, experience, or experiment, I will have to revise my claim.

...just for my own edification, if nothing else. What I don't care to see more of is a philosophical self-flagellation and nihilism such as this:

"Objective things posses an existence independent of observation? Independent of thought? How can you possibly know that empirically?"

It's fun in a freshman philosophy class, or to impress nerdy chicks over a joint and a twelve pack, but that's about it outside of theoretical physics and bullshit hair-splitting.

Your whole philosophy is riddled with contradiction after contradiction.

#179 | Posted by Anup

whereas yours isn't?

isn't vanity one of the 7 deadly sins?

"isn't vanity one of the 7 deadly sins?"

It's generally known as "pride", but how can you know that? (LOL)

"Objective things posses an existence independent of observation? Independent of thought? How can you possibly know that empirically?"

It's fun in a freshman philosophy class, or to impress nerdy chicks over a joint and a twelve pack, but that's about it outside of theoretical physics and bullshit hair-splitting.

#180 | Posted by BetelG

"...impress nerdy chicks...." indeed!

i have sinned then this life i now know:>(

What I don't care to see more of is a philosophical self-flagellation and nihilism such as this:

If your not interested in philosophy then I suggest you don't ask questions about epistemology.

There is no knowledge that is available without experience, knowing is an experience itself. However not all experiences are empirical, or not all experiences rely on our physical senses which are necessary for observation.

To answer this question I propose a simple experiment. Close your eyes, shut out the background noise, clear your mind of stray thoughts, and after some time ask yourself, "Can I acquire knowledge right now. Knowledge independent of any sense experience?"

Let me know what you decide.

Anup-
re: "There is no knowledge that is available without experience, knowing is an experience itself. However not all experiences are empirical, or not all experiences rely on our physical senses which are necessary for observation."

You omit the word "objective", and run around in even more furious tail-chasing circles to impress whom?

Certainly not me.

"Can I acquire knowledge right now. Knowledge independent of any sense experience?"

absolutely...Lobsang Rampa, Thesophy & Sufism has run circles around this as well as Epictitus

It's fun in a freshman philosophy class, or to impress nerdy chicks over a joint and a twelve pack, but that's about it outside of theoretical physics and bullshit hair-splitting.

Well, 12 packs, joints, (hot) nerdy girls, and theoretical physics happens to be all interests of mine from time to time (in increasing order). Philosophy classes and BS hairsplitting, not so much. ANUP is valiantly playing the devil's advocate, and I find it enjoyable, but I would like to see him actually present something other than a string of tenuous claims that my views are not self-consistent. ANUP, establish your own standards for the nature of knowledge and make your own claims. I will continue to refine mine, but I still disagree with you that they are riddled with holes.

Knowledge is true information that one believes. What do I care if it is objective?

And BetelG, Bani, I was not trying to sic the Iranian navy on anyone intentionally...

lol....Shamus i Tabriz would get even with you if you did by golly ~ Zombie:>)

Knowledge is true information that one believes. What do I care if it is objective?

#188 | Posted by Anup at 2008-12-21 01:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's the rub, isn't it? Do you get to cover solipsism in your next class? I certainly hope so, though neither that class or my typed opinion can be said to objectively exist.

Knowledge is true information that one believes. What do I care if it is objective?

If knowledge is "true information," what is your standard of truth if objectivity is irrelevant to you, and you deny the legitimacy of empirically-based information?

re: "Knowledge is true information that one believes. What do I care if it is objective?"

Is it "true" because you believe it, or do you believe it because it is "true"?

How do you know the difference?

That which is true simply agrees with reality. However, I never denied the legitimacy of empirical information. I simple questioned the premise that empirical fact was the only objective form of knowledge.

I don't even understand the proposition to be honest, "objective form of knowledge" is a string of nonsensical words to me.

It seems like poetry, it could mean whatever you want it to mean.

lol....Shamus i Tabriz would get even with you if you did by golly ~ Zombie:>)

I wonder what form his revenge would take. I have no doubt that it would blow my mind.Thanks to the wonder of the internets, I was able to find this wikipedia quote from him to share with ANUP, who appears quite willing to accept the restrictions of his view of this world.

"Blessing is excess, so to speak, an excess of everything. Don't be content with being a faqih (religious scholar), say I want more - more than being a Sufi (a mystic), more than being a mystic - more than each thing that comes before you."

We all pursue truth. Should we not all agree on the truth we find, if it is indeed "true"? Should I be satisfied with my beliefs because they are satisfying for me to hold, or should I try to uncover what lies behind them?

Anup-
re: "That which is true simply agrees with reality."

...and what criteria do you have for "reality"?

(re: "I simple questioned the premise that empirical fact was the only objective form of knowledge."

You went much, much further)

Bani, now you've got me ready to go read some Rumi. I got my ex-girlfriend (who was a poetry freak) a huge book of Sufi poetry for her birthday. We broke up, and she dumped all my stuff on my doorstep, so in the end I ended up buying myself a present...

Is it "true" because you believe it, or do you believe it because it is "true"?

How do you know the difference?

#193 | Posted by BetelG

"Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness" Ecclesiastes 2:13

You denied "objective reality" outright, apparently as it conflicted with your unsubstantiated and unstated beliefs, philosophical nomenclature and posturing notwithstanding.

"Objective form of knowledge" does roll of the tongue quite nicely, but it sounds stale despite its meter.

What I mean is that the things a person can claim to know can be divided into two categories: objective and subjective.

My view that "objective form of knowledge" sounds stale while "cellar door," perhaps, is beautiful- that is subjective. You may feel that "objective form of knowledge" is poetic. We can argue for eternity, and no one will be able to present evidence one way or another because standards of beauty are subjective- it is in the eye of the beholder.

If you and I were to take the absorption spectrum of the sun, that data would be objective- hydrogen is absorbing specific wavelengths of light to produce the spectrum we see. If our data somehow disagree, it is because of a flaw in our observations. The laws of physics don't change because they are inconvenient.

a post just in from Australia on Milarepa:>)

Where is the union when you need it?.

After some months he presented himself to Marpa with his back covered with sores, plagues and pus, but the lama tore Mila's garment apart, ordered him to use it as the rag that is applied to the wounds of donkeys and to go on with the job. Mila tried to do it, but he fell ill and decided to give himself up and flee back to his country.."

Reality is all that is.

You still haven't defined objective form of knowledge, you merely gave an example of what you understand it looks like.

I suspect what you are really saying is that empirical fact is the only form of knowledge that is empirically known. I might be inclined to agree with that.

If you mean knowledge that is free from distortion caused by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations I would then disagree. Many things can be known free from distortion without empirically validation.

I know that George Washington was the first President of the United States of America for example.

Milarepa sounds like a fascinating character- I have some reading to do. I hope that steeping the nettles does something about the sting. then again, I could see how the pain of drinking stinging nettles in a cave for years could produce enlightenment. Or ulcers.

"...produce enlightenment. Or ulcers."

#203 | Posted by ZombieHunter

lol probably both yet in the end what did it mattered as he seems to have reach his goal & people today have spoken of interacting with him & his spirit at one level or another (over the centuries as well:>)

Knowledge is true information that one believes.

Information is not knowledge;
Knowledge is not Wisdom;
Wisdom is not truth;
Truth is not beauty;
Beauty is not love;
Love is not music;
Music is the best

Zappa

Goat if you go on vacation will they transport you to the rig from anywhere in the USA or only your hometown?

Reality is all that is. I could level a similar criticism- you have yet to define reality.

Objective knowledge can only be arrived at through empirical means. I think I've said this before. I cannot find an example of a form of knowlege that does not depend on the biases of the mind in which it exists other than the knowledge that comes from experience, observation, or experiment. This is a theory. I cannot prove it, only substantiate it by showing example after example. You, however, can disprove it by finding me just one example to the contrary.

Returning to the previous analogy, I can believe that the sun is made of beer and strippers but that doesn't change the fact that it is a ball of plasma. That fact is objective beacuse it can be demonstrated empirically. That is because the sun has an existence of its own, and our opinions have no bearing on that. All we can do is observe, and the results of our observations are facts. We debate their interpretation, not their existence.

rasta: That's up to the OIM. (offshore installation manager.)

Goat check your email

Do you work on an offshore oil rig or something? That sounds kind of badass.

rasta: mail
zombie: Yes, I'm an ET on an offshore oil rig

thanks goat. I sent my resume to transocean so I will see if anything comes up. If all fails I just finished my Masters in Management so that may lead to other job openings.

Many years ago, when I was a teenager, the "good" deacons and pastor from our church didn't like it that my father did not go to church....see my mother worked and tithed her income but my father did not and he made pretty good money back in the day. So they came to our house and told my mother, an angel who walked the face of this earth, who had taken her children to church every time the doors were open, who was a Sunday school teacher, who was grace personified, that she and her children would go to hell if she did not get her husband to go to church and tithe his income. Now Daddy probably had another beer and told them to kiss his ass but none of us ever entered a church again. For me it was just fine because even as a small child I thought the things they believed in were insane (I remember at the age of 8 wondering if they really believed two of every animal got on a boat) but it hurt my mother and I'll never forgive those damn "christians" for doing that.

I never ceases to amaze me how unchristian-like most of the christians I know really are.

#213 | Posted by mizzastor at 2008-12-21 05:08 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Now THAT is what I am talking about too. They think they are all high and mighty. They tell their congregants that they are going to hell and condemn those who do not believe a certain way. I went to Church a few months back and the Preacher/Pastor couldn't stop condemning Catholics Pentacostals Methodists You name it He condemned them. What utter poppycock.

Larry

Reality is all that is. I could level a similar criticism- you have yet to define reality.

You quoted my definition of reality. Reality is all that is.

Objective knowledge can only be arrived at through empirical means. I think I've said this before. I cannot find an example of a form of knowlege that does not depend on the biases of the mind in which it exists other than the knowledge that comes from experience, observation, or experiment. This is a theory. I cannot prove it, only substantiate it by showing example after example. You, however, can disprove it by finding me just one example to the contrary.

Contradictory statements can not both be true at the same time in the same sense. This is a fundamental law of thought that can not be learned through empirical means.

If this truth is not objective then I suggest your concept of objective is simply a tautology. You are saying empirical knowledge can only be learned empirically.

You are truly revolutionizing the world of human thought.

Two men kissing in public draws stares.

Two women kissing in public draws a crowd.

Hans

#54 | Posted by Hans

Not in West Hollywood

Sorry Mizzastor for the way your family was mistreated. I mean it. It was unbiblical and horrible at the way those church folks went after your dad by putting a guilt trip on your dear mother. Just plain horrible. (Mormons and a few cult churches impose tithe)

I hope your mom found another church to nurture and grow in her faith. I hope you will find the Love of God tugging at your heart.

Just forgive that erring church and move on. Jesus too prayed for his enemies: "Father forgive them...."

God forgives. No sin is too big for God to forgive. So forgiveness opens your heart to receive God's grace. God opens heaven to those who receive and give FORGIVENESS.

LARRYMOHR, sorry for you too, about that lousy preaching you heard. Bad messenger. I don't know where you are, but if you can, try listening to Chuck Swindoll sometimes on radio.

After reading this article, my gut instinct was a lot of sympathy for this lady, as she is essentially being blackmailed by a church. This church also sounds more like a cult than anything.

Then I thought about it for a bit...

This probably isn't the first time this church has gone after somebody. It's so easy to sit back and judge others and it probably makes a lot of people feel good about themselves. Then, something happens in your own life (or your family's) and suddenly you're the target of someone elses judgment.

I guess I've just known so many righteous families, who love to condemn others for a lack of "family values" up until they have a family member get a divorce, come out of the closet, commit adultery, or has an illegitimate child. Then, it's entirely different.

I'm just not convinced this church is any different now than when she was a member. I think she is just reaping what she sowed.

Reality is all that is.

I guess I should have been more specific, and after reading your posts over again, I'm beginning to think we are getting at the same point from two different approaches. What do you define as "all that is"? What gives something existence- istigkeit- "Is-ness"? If something has istigkeit, shouldn't that quality be something that is not subject to individual whims? If reality depends on personal beliefs, then it is subjective and we are quickly on the road to relatavism. If we are to use reason to describe reality, we must agree that reality is objective.

My theory is that the only things which are real, the only things which can exist independant of observers, are those things that can be described empirically. Once again, you can provide no examples of objective knowledge that is not based on empiricism. I, however, can continuously provide supporting examples for you until one of us gets bored. Special relativity, gravitation, or heliocentricity cannot be proven strictly from a line of reasoning, and perhaps my theory cannot either. That does not mean that these concepts are invalid. Let the evidence speak for itself.

On an aside, I think that the Hebrews wrestled with this epistemological issue a long time ago. Whether you believe them to be the words of a divine or human author, "I am that I am" deals with just this issue. These words are very carefully chosen. They are an attempt to establish God as an entity with istigkeit, one that exists in objective reality yet one that cannot ever be described empirically. The "three veils of negative existence" in Jewish mystical tradition expand on this concept of a supernatural deity with a proper objective existence of its own. The mystics claimed that God is boundless. No thing which can be conceived of by the human mind is God because the mere attempt to describe God in any term comprehensible to a human imposes a limit on an infinite concept. The human mind has only finite capabilities. This is a hedge against my theory that objective knowledge is empirical- it sets aside a certain thing, God, as something that can never be empirically known. So here we have the foundation of most religions- a belief that proper, objective existence, istigkeit can originate from faith, and that we can never possibly hope to describe that existence in human terms.

You are truly revolutionizing the world of human thought.
-ANUP

I am nothing more than a link in a chain of secular prophets who speak to the existence of a truth that exists independant of us all. There is no revolution- only a counter-revolution mounted by people who would rather attack objectivity than alter their convenient worldviews.

A tree that falls in a forest makes a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. At the most basic level, a system may exist as a superposition of quantum states until a measurement is made, but the wavefunction that describes this strange behavior still exists. Schrodinger's cat is not dead or alive until we open the box, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a cat in the box.

.......why not ?.......that's what religions do.........

....................hurt people..............

#4 | Posted by skizziks

No, people hurt people. LOL

(1)
This is a VOLUNTARY organization. If she doesn' t like the rules, she's right in voting with her feet.
And she definitely DID vote with her feet. That should be the end of the story.

(2)
The biblical process is CLEARLY layed out in scripture (Matthew 18:15-21). *IF* that church bases its rules on scripture, then you have a problem with God's inpsired Word and His authority, not just a man-made rule.

(3)
ALL Biblical authority has the purpose of *restoring* the individual into right relationship with God and/or man.

There is no purpose in them taking action once the lady is gone.

Vengence would be one unholy motivation they could have.

If it's warning her children of her sinful behavior, that could/should be handled more discreetly.

(4)
Privacy is not absolute.

When you fly on a plane, there is an implicit right to have your shit searched.

When you apply at a job, there is a limited right to look at your background, sometimes even your credit (as I understand it).

When you join a voluntary organization and agree to abide by its rules, and you don't, they have a limited right to communicate within the organization and take appropriate disciplinary measures.

A job or civic organization can do so and not give a crap about you; a church SHOULD do so with sensitivity and care.

(5)
The church leaders better "check themselves before they wreck themselves."

Galatians 6:1-2
"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ."

Takitez...I appreciate your caring thoughts...really I do; however, don't fret my pet because my mother never needed another source of organized religion...she honored her God in her heart until the day she died. I, on the other hand, was set free from religion because I don't, and really never did, fall for the brainwashing.

By the way, it wasn't a Mormom church, it was the Baptist that wanted my Daddy's money no matter who they had to hurt to get it. Because, get real, it wasn't my Daddy's soul they were interested in.

*IF* that church bases its rules on scripture, then you have a problem with God's inpsired Word and His authority, not just a man-made rule.

You assume that scriptures the word of God, and are they authoritative. You cannot support for this claim with fact. You cannot even support your implied claim that your scriptures are any more correct than those of any other religion. If I choose to live my life by the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you have no factual ground on which to challenge my beliefs.

If this woman is a member of an organization like a church, then she agrees to be held accountable to its rules, no matter how arbitrary they are. She is not a member of the church anymore- barring the existence of any legal contract, the church has no authority over her. The authority that the church wields over its members is based on the voluntary acceptance of that authority by those members. If an individual rejects the authority of the church, the church has no recourse because its claims to truth are based entirely on the beliefs of its members.
This church is just being petty and vindictive.

Scripture is irrelevant. Resistance is futile.

The thing I love about it is that the Pastor's name is Dr. Christmas....
Tis the season folks!!

Just for the record, I offered to help dig up some dirt on the Pastor and members of the church... Just in case any of them had something in their life that needed to be made aware to the rest of the congregation...

My theory is that the only things which are real, the only things which can exist independant of observers, are those things that can be described empirically. Once again, you can provide no examples of objective knowledge that is not based on empiricism. I, however, can continuously provide supporting examples for you until one of us gets bored. Special relativity, gravitation, or heliocentricity cannot be proven strictly from a line of reasoning, and perhaps my theory cannot either. That does not mean that these concepts are invalid. Let the evidence speak for itself.

This is hogwash and what's more is you have shown that you don't even believe it. If individuals exists then their whims, ideas, beliefs, and knowledge exists as well. Those things may be subjective, but being subjective doesn't mean they are non-existent.

I already gave you an example of that which can be known aside from empiricism; that two contradictory statements can not both be true at the same time in the same sense. You ignored it because I suspect you can't even begin to think about concepts that don't fit into your wholly inadequate world view.

You can not learn the laws of logic through empiricism but these laws are not human conventions, they are known objectively. To deny this is to define that which is objective as that which is empirical, which is as I said before simply a tautology.

You even claim these concepts are not invalid, but certainly a concept that doesn't actually exist must be invalid?

If you can not account for concepts in your world view, and empirically you can not, then your ontology is made of the stuff of childrens dreams and fanciful wishes.

It is nothing more than your refusal to recognize that which is real.

Some people use the line 'organized religion' as their Joe the Plumber line to turn against God. I wish they would consider not throwing the baby with the bathwater.

Mizzastor, I think the good Lord will honor your mother's faith no matter what happened. As for you, if the door is not absolutely closed, if there is still a curiosity left in the back of the mind, you might want to hear what Mickey Robinson (YOUTUBE) had to say.

(in his sharing on heaven he said that the thrill of being near God was so wonderful that he'd want to be in that state forever --- much better than golfing on earth).

ANUP- First, I will respond to your apparent example of non-empirical objective knowledge.

"...two contradictory statements can not both be true at the same time in the same sense..."

You are simply restating the definition of a contradiction- nothing more. The concept of mutually exclusive alternatives is indeed objective, but it is based on empiricism. How can any two statements be known to be contradictory or mututally exclusive unless you have some way of experiencing or demonstrating that they are? If you arrive at the conclusion that two statements are contradictory, even if only in through a line of reasoning, what you have done is to conduct a "thought experiment". These are common devices, especially in theoretical branches of science.

Second- I still want you to expand on your previous claims. Specifically:

"It is nothing more than your refusal to recognize that which is real."

You have yet to tell me what makes something real to you. I get the sense that it is just your or anyone's beliefe in it. In that sense, the flying spaghetti monster and alien anal probes are quite real. Tell me your criteria for determining what is real, and I will tell you tell you if I accept them.

Third- I think I caused some confusion when I claimed that all reality is empirical- I should have qualified that.

My theory is that the only things which are objectively real, the only things which can exist independant of observers, are those things that can be described empirically.

By the way, it wasn't a Mormom church, it was the Baptist that wanted my Daddy's money no matter who they had to hurt to get it. Because, get real, it wasn't my Daddy's soul they were interested in.

#224 | Posted by mizzastor

ff

You are simply restating the definition of a contradiction- nothing more.

Irrelevant. That we define two statements that can not both be true simultaneously as contradictions doesn't address the issue that we know this fact about reality. We recognize that statements of fact can make incompatible truth claims and absolutely know that they can not both be true at the same time. This is objective knowledge.

The concept of mutually exclusive alternatives is indeed objective, but it is based on empiricism. How can any two statements be known to be contradictory or mututally exclusive unless you have some way of experiencing or demonstrating that they are?

Based on empiricism? To be sure what you are claiming is that we can not possibly know that incompatible truth claims are not both correct unless we can observe them with our senses. This is intellectual tomfoolery of the lowest order, let me explain.

If I assert that no life forms can survive temperatures exceeding 30,000 Rankine and another person asserts that certain types of life forms can survive, and indeed thrive, in temperatures exceeding 30,000 Rankine do we need to conduct a scientific investigation to know that one of these two assertions is necessarily false? Of course we do not. We need no empirical evidence at all to determine one of these assertions can not be possibly correct.

This is a logical conclusion based on objective knowledge that incompatible truth claims can not both be correct.

If you arrive at the conclusion that two statements are contradictory, even if only in through a line of reasoning, what you have done is to conduct a "thought experiment". These are common devices, especially in theoretical branches of science.

And? Certainly you don't intend to toss "thought" in with the other senses in order to make thought empirical. Being empirical, or being empirically based, requires evidence that is observable by the physical senses.

All you are doing here is admitting what I assert from the beginning, than not all objective knowledge is empirical by demonstrating your acceptance of theoretical branches of science.

If what you mean by empirical is instead that of which one is cognizant of then I retract my disagreement and wholeheartedly agree that only empiracle fact is an objective form of knowledge.

You have yet to tell me what makes something real to you. I get the sense that it is just your or anyone's beliefe in it. In that sense, the flying spaghetti monster and alien anal probes are quite real. Tell me your criteria for determining what is real, and I will tell you tell you if I accept them.

What makes it real to me? Are you joking? I don't even understand the notion of "real to me". Do you mean what I believe is real?

Something is real regardless of my opinion, perception or belief in it.

The FSM is real, at least the idea is real, if it were not real you wouldn't be able to use it in our discussion.

If by real you mean physically exist then I would have to question your sanity if you assert the FSM is real.

Third- I think I caused some confusion when I claimed that all reality is empirical- I should have qualified that.

My theory is that the only things which are objectively real, the only things which can exist independant of observers, are those things that can be described empirically.

Again, a meaningless tautology. You are using real to mean "that which physically exists". You are only saying that those things that physical exists can be described empircally.

"Something is real regardless of my opinion, perception or belief in it. "

good one, Watson!

Dear Takitez, You just couldn't help yourself could you. You already know I'm not a believer in your god but you still have to urge me to seek out your preaching. How about this, if you are open minded enough to welcome a challenge to your beliefs, try reading David Mills' Atheist Universe: The Thinking Persons Answers to Christian Fundamentalism. Instead of blindly following a "faith" with which you were brainwashed since the day you were born, why don't you open your mind to reason. Many important men in the history of our country have:

"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian." "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." "It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." Thomas Jefferson

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." James Madison

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." George Bernard Shaw

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." Thomas Payne

"When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that's my religion." Abraham Lincoln

Isn't it curious that a person who urges others to stop blindly following another's faith has to support that directive with quotes from other people.

Are you sure you are not blindlly following their lack of faith?

I find it quite humorous that atheists consider themselves free-thinkers, again a tautologically meaningless statement.

Apparently to reject tradition and religion is to be a free thinker regardless of how many idiots you follow to such insipid conclusions.

Yeah...Lincoln, Jefferson, Einstein...a few idiots. Falwell, Hagen, Palin...now that's the people you really want to look up to....LMAO

If I assert that no life forms can survive temperatures exceeding 30,000 Rankine and another person asserts that certain types of life forms can survive, and indeed thrive, in temperatures exceeding 30,000 Rankine do we need to conduct a scientific investigation to know that one of these two assertions is necessarily false? Of course we do not.

The contradictory statements you have created here are only known to be contradictory because of mathematics. Break out an abacus, and you will quickly see through empiricism that you cannot have a quantity that is simultaneously greater than and less than a given value. You are correct in stating that you can know straight away that one of the above two statements is false. You could not make this claim, however, if you did not have this preexisting empirical framework of mathematics.

All you are doing here is admitting what I assert from the beginning, than not all objective knowledge is empirical by demonstrating your acceptance of theoretical branches of science.

Theoretical branches of science describe experiments that are not yet capable of being conducted. They can, however, be mathematically approximated. And not all theoretical science is "scientific," many people fiercely debate where the line is drawn, especially in cosmology. Incidentally, if you question the sanity of a person who believes that the FSM is real as something more than a concept, would you not also have to question the sanity of someone who believes in God in the same way? I could easily raise a child to believe wholeheartedly in the FSM as a physically real entity, just as others raise their children to believe in Jesus or whatever deity they wish. The FSM is as real as any Deity of any religion that has ever existed on earth.

What I meant by "what is real to you" is "what is your definition of reality".

Something is real regardless of my opinion, perception or belief in it.

You define reality as objective, but but what makes a thing real?

Apparently to reject tradition and religion is to be a free thinker regardless of how many idiots you follow to such insipid conclusions.

ANUP, such claims do not reflect your intelligence- they just reveal bitterness toward people who do not share your beliefs. We are all free thinkers inasmuch as we are free to think whatever we want. "Rejecting tradition and religion" is an exercise of this right- and in a society dominated by theists, atheists and agnostics rally around this. To some, they are freeing themselves of the shackles of a repressive dogma. To others, they are trading one dogma for another. The point is that whatever they are doing, they do it of their own free will. Who cares if atheists and agnostics idolize Jefferson, Lincoln, Madison, Einstein, Payne, and whoever else was mentioned in the post you were commenting on? They are as worthy of our respect as any comparable religious figures. Theists embody their idols' belief, and atheists embody their idols' disbelief.

Is atheism dogmatic? In some ways, yes- it has its own beliefs and traditions. Disbelief in God, rejection of mind-body duality, and reliance on the Scientific Method come to mind quickest. Disbelief, like belief, must be taken on faith- I find that somewhat ironic. The men and women who developed and subscribe to this belief system, however, are far from being idiots. They are frequently among the most intelligent among us. Atheism and agnosticism are both far from being insipid- unless you think that a belief system is dull if it doesn't include mention of supernatural phenomena.