Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
So my question with respect to particular doctrinal position[s] could rephrased: Are belief in the credibility of the Bible, that the Bible is "God's word" and "respect" for the Bible as "God's Word" required in order to participate here?
|
Allow me to answer.
Those are not requirements for participation. But at some level, when you consider anything beyond science as being discussed toward truth, there has to be some level of acceptance of more than can be simply proved by mere observation. There are good people without believing in Christ. So simply saying that Christ makes us better is not, in itself, proof. (But the observation of a way of living that is not just good, or better, but also different might be persuasive in some circumstances. But even then it might be that the Spirit is using things to speak to someone at the right time.)
But the point is that discussing anything about religion eventually comes to points that are matters of faith. We may be too quick to treat some things are merely faith. But some clearly are. So someone coming along and disagreeing with those clear points of faith is, by definition, stepping outside of the bounds of the discussion.
That does not mean that not having that faith disqualifies you from the discussion. But it does mean that simply dissing the existence of that faith is a pointless thing. Either we believe or we don't. We have had more than one agnostic and/or atheist join in here who did not simply say "you can't believe." They engaged in the discussions in their context (that of religion), and occasionally asked whether the particular conclusions and or evidences were consistent with the belief upon which we claimed to hold. That might send us back to rethink whether we have been sloppy in describing our "truth" or whether we have actually made statements that we might need to back-track from.
Sometimes an outsider's view is good. They help you ferret out bad reasoning. Maybe even bad belief.
And Harold is not simply some atheist or unbeliever. He seems to be mired in a quandary between belief in God, and disbelief in a God that would have allowed a system that is so strong to claim his name to be so desperately wicked in some ways. Actually more wicked than many (most or all?) of the other Christian groups that they slander so mercilessly.
I think that he is squarely moving in his mind between Job, Job's wife, and Job's "friends" that came to tell him where he was the problem. He is not sure how to accept that free will can be allowed because of the problems it brings, yet demands that it continue to exist because he wants the free will to lash out about it.
This is not simply "wrong." It is not simply something that shouldn't be happening to him at this point in time. It is something that someone(s) close to him need to be walking with him through. Hopefully they will be better than those "friends" Job had.
And the issue is not that Harold is simply bad and we don't want him. he has been a good part of these forums for quite a while. But there has begun to be a dark side of it that is counterproductive in terms of the forum. And there is a lack of filter on his actions and statements. It is not to disparage Harold or hate him. None of us hate him. None of us want him to simply go away.
Actually, most of us hope he will stick around. But stop throwing out nonsense while refusing to actually think about the things actually being discussed. He is turning his back on what little help could be coming from this kind of semi-cold environment by lashing out at everything in it. I realize that it might be that what he really needs is to not be "listening" to our cerebral discussions about things and instead be speaking live with one or more true friends in Christ that can help him off this spiritual cliff he is dancing on. There is a need to be free to discuss the stuff this forum is about without these crazy interruptions. But there also needs to be a way for Harold to get some help. And due to the tendency for everyone to throw in their 2 cents, the open forum is not really a good place. I would suggest real-live people who are facing you or that you can at least hear their voices. But alternately, some ongoing email traffic, or even PMs to talk through things. Search through what is going on. Find answers.
Whatever. I doubt that I would be very good at this. But if I were contacted about it, I would at least try. I absolutely stand by some of the more cold-sounding things I said in earlier posts relative to the operation of the forum. But that does not mean that I cast Harold aside in the process. I'm just not sure that the forum is the fix. it might be more of the problem. It may be dredging up old problems. Highlighting the worst of the worst. Bringing it all back. And then some callous remark about how Mel whoever was not really so bad. Or a snip at the person rather than the post, action, idea, statement, etc. We all dance around that one. And despite our clear understanding that it is the idea and not the persons that we go after, we also know that it is sometimes hard to separate ourselves from our ideas.