Why would something good hide in darkness?

[SOIL]

Wow - we did it again!

[SOIL]

Maybe I am "running away" - but I can't justify risking my job and negatively effecting my family, at this point - by continuing the addiction this site has caused.

 

If I can achieve a greater level of self-control so as to work when I need to do that - and read and post here when I am free to do that - then I will most likely return (as I have done several times before).

 

As it is though - I need to help pay for one more daughter to get some college - and keeping the "day job" would certainly make that more possible!

 

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

I don't honestly think my rejecting Christianity would help to heal your ongoing pain however.

 

(And I realize neither you, nor anyone else has requested that of me.)

 

-Dennis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well that. at least, is a good realization to make. Follow it with this, for my sake: keep your faith, I care not whether you or what you believe. But at least have the courtesy to admit to me that neither you, nor Kreeft, nor Lewis, nor whoever wrote the bible, could solve the problem of pain. And when someone asks why god let's people suffer, answer truthfully. Say you have no idea. And leave it up to us to decide whether or not any "idea" would suffice.

[Cerise]

This reason...

 

but I can't justify risking my job and negatively effecting my family, at this point - by continuing the addiction this site has caused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...is not this reason...

 

We each make our own decisions about who we are willing to listen to.

 

For now, I choose to use my time listening what Peter has to say (until I can feel better that I really understand the depths of what he is saying) - I think I have mow listened to the regulars here long enough.

[SOIL]

Good points Cerise, (as most always)

 

As far as the "why is there pain?" is concerned - yes I see what you are getting at.

 

I just trust that God does care even though people suffer pain.

 

Another one of Peter's talks (which I mentioned in a couple of other threads) did seem to help me - at least to some extent - when I was listening to it while driving to town yesterday - the one on Time and Eternity.

 

I have never suffered the severity and type of pain which you have, Cerise.

 

So I don't know what to offer you to help make things better.

 

I can only offer what has helped the type of pain that I have suffered - and I have done that.

 

-Dennis

[Fweethawt]

We each make our own decisions about who we are willing to listen to.

 

For now, I choose to use my time listening what Peter has to say (until I can feel better that I really understand the depths of what he is saying) - I think I have mow listened to the regulars here long enough.

 

Dennis,

 

Let me save you some time.

 

I don't know about you, but I can easily understand the depths of what the speaker is saying just by reading this thread and seeing the exchange between you and Cerise.

 

He's making up detail oriented answers where there aren't any. After all, that's mostly what theology is all about.

[SOIL]

Fweet,

 

I can appreciate that point of view. I agree about the "detailed" idea - but I have to believe there are some answers - even if we can only see them through a glass darkly while we are living in these bodies on this planet in it's current state of degradation.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Like I mentioned to Cerise earlier though Fweet,

 

I will view with more respect - your opinion about what Peter Kreeft says - after I hear that you have heard what he as said.

 

I appreciate Cerise taking her time and listening (even though I don't share the same conclusions she has come to) I respect her for taking her time and listening - I can ask for no more.

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

Fweet,

 

I can appreciate that point of view.  I agree about the "detailed" idea - but I have to believe there are some answers - even if we can only see them through a glass darkly while we are living in these bodies on this planet in it's current state of degradation.

 

-Dennis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There very well may be answers to the question of pain and suffering. But I don't see that as the issue. What I think the issue is, whether any answer would be good enough.

 

Even the drunk who beats his wife has an answer about why he does it. That doesn't make it a good answer, though, no matter how true it might be.

[Fweethawt]

even if we can only see them through a glass darkly while we are living in these bodies on this planet in it's current state of degradation.

 

Yeah... Uh-huh...

 

I will view with more respect - your opinion about what Peter Kreeft says - after I hear that you have heard what he as said.

I see how this works. You've simply chosen this method of dismissal due to the fact that my comments didn't agree with your interpretation of the speach.

 

That's fine. Just remember, from what has been written here, you could only have assumed that I didn't listen to the sound files.

 

See ya.

[SOIL]

Fweet,

 

Your comments are just that - your comments. I didn't try to "dismiss" Cerises comments after she said she had listened to the resource I provided the link to. Until and unless you say you have listened to it - I assume you have not - just like I mentioned to Cerise originally that I may have been assuming incorrectly - the same certainly applies to you.

 

I'm just saying your comments mean more to me when you SAY you have already either read or listened to what I have suggested I want to hear your opinions about.

 

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with you or anyone else.

 

Though I have sometimes felt the reverse impression.

 

-Dennis

[chefranden]

Dennis,

 

I just listened to the Faces thing, what do you think I should have heard? I am Ivan, I cannot be not Ivan. God has shown himself as a torture and killer of children and innocents. Sorry but that is what it looks like if God is real. Kreeft says this is heaven and the problem is we just can't see that.

 

That is what they told the Emperor you know. These are the best clothes ever, but if you are not pure you will not see them. It's a scam. Something good does not hide in the darkness and that is why you are not allowed to bring the light in. If you did you would see that nothing is there. If you don't bring the light you can keep being in love with the glories of your imagination. Kreeft warns you not to read the best Christian novel ever, and he's right, because it is a light in that darkness and Ivan is the one with his eyes open. Aloysha pretends it is the church's fault, that the lord can't be seen.

 

Just what was it that you would have liked me to see in the lecture?

 

chef.

[Kay]

I think you will not regret the inconvenience of the download - even if you really don't agree with what is being said.

 

That's not the point. For the sake of convenience, if you do genuinely want these audios to be discussed, a transcript is good because it allows anyone to jump to any part of the audio, and everyone can find whatever quote necessary simply by scrolling.

 

Have you ever tried to transcribe something? I have. It's a long tedious process of having to constantly try to find the exact moment where you thought you heard the phrase, then uncountable times of rewinding and playback to make sure you've quoted the speech correctly.

 

I can't see how any serious discussion about said audio can ensure if everyone must slog through such unnecessary efforts.

[SOIL]

Kay,

 

Most of "these audios" are actually just discussions of books written by C.S. Lewis. I suppose it would not be a bad idea to begin by reading the original books. They contain something tangible that could be used as a base for discussion.

 

In this case - (the specific audio which prompted me to start this thread) - the original book is entitled: Till We Have Faces

 

Ideally I guess the participants in the discussion I would like to see happen, would all have a copy of the original book - and (as you have suggested) a full transcript of the talk by Peter Kreeft.

 

If anyone would like to purchase a new book - I have provided in an earlier post where I am planning to purchase my copy. Of course there are probably some used copies available from Ebay or other places which would be less expensive.

 

I suspect I will hang around (though probably less frequently) and attempt to give Chef an answer, etc...

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Oh, also :

 

to Fweethawt ,

 

When I referred to you as "Fweet" I didn't mean any disrespect - I had forgotten that you (or someone) had corrected my misunderstanding that you were thinking of "Free thought" rather than "Sweet tart" when you picked your handle.

 

If I wanted to shorten your handle - I probably should have just addressed you as "Free" - I'll try to remember to do that in the future - if that is OK with you?

 

............

 

And as to my intending to probably stay around longer :

 

Cerise,

 

By using the "run away" tool - you are may have hit home - more than I want to admit.

 

-Dennis

[Vixentrox]

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.....Heathen! We must burn these satanic books leading our children to practice witchcraft just like those demonic Harry Potter books. Mr. Lewis is gonna burn in HELL for promoting this satan worshiping amongst our children!

[Kay]

Most of "these audios" are actually just discussions of books written by C.S. Lewis. I suppose it would not be a bad idea to begin by reading the original books. They contain something tangible that could be used as a base for discussion.

 

That's still not the point. You wish to discuss both the book AND the points of discussion of the book provided for in the audios. We still can't properly and efficiently comment on the audio discussion even if we had the book.

 

So either you just want to discuss the book, without reference to audios you can't be bothered transcribing, or you want to include those audios into the discussion - in which case, merely possessing the book will not be enough.

 

Which is it going to be?

[Karl-777]

Why would something good hide in darkness?, justice that allows torture of children?

Actually, biblegod was quite good at it:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As we can see from verse 18, biblegod was also involved in the child sex-slave trade.

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Nice, huh? and.....there's nothing quite like like eating your own kids!

55 - So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates....57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

Of course, the deranged fundies will accuse the Pagans, atheists, etc of being "baby eaters". But it's OK if biblegod said it, isn't it?

 

.....if there are any who were interested in the thread with discussion about the idea of humans being able to speak with God - face to face.....

With regard to speaking with biblegod face to face:

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

VERSUS

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

It would appear from this incongruity/contradiction, that biblegod is at best confused, and or found it impossible to be clear while "inspiring" the writers of the "word"....but that would violate the passage from Luke which says that nothing shall be impossible with biblegod.

 

And that night the angel of the LORD went forth, and slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.

We're supposed to believe this, even after the Hebrews at Masada committed suicide in 67CE because neither biblegod, who claims to deliver his people in the day of trouble, nor the "angel of the lord" were anywhere to be found. After all, if one angel allegedly slew 185,000 Assyrians, the 15K troops of the Roman 10th legion shouldn't have been much of a problem for the "angel of the lord", should they?

 

I could go on and on here with biblical tripe.

 

But maybe if you can get us to listen to some audio, take in some sermons, read some transcripts, etc.we'll "see the light". We have seen the light Dennis. It's that big bright bulb that goes on when you realize that the errant, incongruous literalized myth, NT pseudepigraphy and fabrications of the bible can not possibly be the "word" of "perfect" biblegod, and that that the barbarism of the OT passages can not be the "word" of any deity. In which case, we don't care what it says, nor do we care about home-made "commandments" and dogmatic constructs.

 

You are well-liked here, Dennis. Religion (an external framework including tradition, dogma, etc) and Spirituality (an Inner Process) are two different things, Dennis. You need to understand that. We've already told you what we think of Xtianity and associated baseless exclusionist ("only way to be saved"/"only true religion") & legalistic dogma. If the bible is indefensible, IMO, it is irrelevant what Kreeft says about what C.S. Lewis says about what the bible says. etc.

 

Regards,

 

K

[SOIL]

Karl, let me see here ... does that mean you want to listen and discuss ... or no? <grin>

 

Yes I would like like to discuss with you and/or any here - about the content of those talks - where Kreeft explains what he thinks about what Lewis understood concerning what the Bible reveals about a God who hides as in darkness and teaches in parables.

 

I know what you think about the Bible - what concerns me is what you think I think about the teachings of the Bible.

 

Not everyone sees the Bible teachings in as simplistic a way as your characterization of the average Christian's thinking (or lack thereof). If you take the time to listen to what Kreeft has to say, you may actually learn something new (about people who think differently than you do - and/or who think differently than how you think they think). Then again, your mind may be closed to the matter, I don't know - maybe you already know everything there is to know - about how other people think about the Bible.

 

I'm thinking there may be some folks here, who are interested in this subject, given there is so much activity in this particular discussion area.

 

In Kreeft's audio talks, the exact same subject matter as is discussed here - is examined in more depth than I usually read here. I happen to think much of what is said in his talks, and in the following Q&A sessions, is just as worthy of your time, as reading the small amounts I, and some of the other relatively few Christians here, have to say in response to the legitimate subject matter you folks lay out for discussion.

 

If you prefer to be exposed only to responses (to your questions/assertions/allegations) from a relative lightweight like myself (compared to Peter Kreeft) - I suppose I can understand that - given I am so much easier to debunk. I certainly haven't given the issues as much educated thought as Peter Kreeft, (and I doubt I have nearly as good a mind), so I'm sure I serve as a much easier straw-man for you to tear apart.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

As we can see from verse 18, biblegod was also involved in the child sex-slave trade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Karl,

 

If you have read much of what I have written. especially on this new version of this site - I suspect you should have an idea that I don't approve of the "child sex-slave trade". If you think that "verse 18" is enough to prove that God does - than I certainly would not want to have you for my Sunday School teacher. Look, I don't like to see that scripture passage in the the Bible - it has caused me some major turmoil. But it is a long stretch from serving as some type of proof text for a hermeneutic presenting God as being "involved in the child sex-slave trade". That is, unless you claim that providing a home to a girl where all her meals and her shelter will be provided - and where only one man will be allowed to be her "husband" - is another definition for "sex-slave trade". Bear in mind, it was Moses who supposedly spoke those words in verse 18 - whether they came straight from God or not - is something I certainly wonder about. I am not the fundamental literalist who I may have been earlier in my life. I have often stated I no longer believe that every single word in scripture is either directly divinely inspired, and/or technically "infallible" - however, that doesn't mean - overall - I doubt God was involved in providing information about himself and humans (who he created) through the use of what we now call "the Bible".

 

Of course, the deranged fundies will accuse the Pagans, atheists, etc of being "baby eaters". But it's OK if biblegod said it, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have spoken about my thoughts regarding these types of passages (and even other ones like in the Psalms where people speak of throwing babies into the rocks) - maybe you didn't read those posts.

 

Just because God predicts something will happen (God's thoughts filtered through the words of the prophets) that doesn't mean he is encouraging everything he predicts and/or everything that is said by someone which gets written into various Bible passages. Come on Karl, I would think someone of your intelligence should know that - however, is it possible that you were just trying to humiliate people who you think fit into your broadbrushed approach to Christian thinking processes? - and is it possible you can conveniently forget what you know - in situations where that improves the effectiveness of your humiliating posts?

 

Karl, usually I respect what you say - but in that specific case - I've been honest enough with you to say what I really think about those specific words.

 

It would appear from this incongruity/contradiction, that biblegod is at best confused, and or found it impossible to be clear while "inspiring" the writers of the "word"....but that would violate the passage from Luke which says that nothing shall be impossible with biblegod. ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe a person needs to die to his or her own own selfishness before they can live through seeing God's face -- if we have not "died" (in that type of spiritual sense) already, then we will die if/when we see God's face while we are still living in our arrogance. I suspect something akin to what I just mentioned may be what Peter Kreeft is talking about (in the talk you don't feel has any relevance here) - but as of this point anyway - a lot of what he says, I just simply not smart enough to "get it" completely (perhaps you could help me out in this regard, that is - IF you ever bother to listen to what he says).

 

And that night the angel of the LORD went forth, and slew a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies.

We're supposed to believe this, even after the Hebrews at Masada committed suicide in 67CE because neither biblegod, who claims to deliver his people in the day of trouble, nor the "angel of the lord" were anywhere to be found. After all, if one angel allegedly slew 185,000 Assyrians, the 15K troops of the Roman 10th legion shouldn't have been much of a problem for the "angel of the lord", should they??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to say I can always figure out exactly when God will appear to "work a miracle" and intervene in situations where only his intervention can change the outcome of battles, etc... but I just can't seem to consistently figure God out (surprise, surprise!).

 

Regards,

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

I need to get some sleep now.

 

Plus, if I am going to type up a transcript of more than an hour of talking - I need to get busy doing that before too long as well!

 

(Maybe AUB can tell me about that voice recognition software he has used - if I can get that type of software to work - when "hearing" the voice on the MP3 files - that might make the transcribng process much easier.)

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

Come off it Dennis. God doesn't get a "get out of jail free card" or one day pass on anything that happens in this world, as per the bible, nothing can happen without his consent, his instruction, his will, and his knowledge. That includes children being fucked for money.

 

Somewhere a little girl is being raped. God is allowing this. Somewhere, some moronic person is trying to convince other moronic persons that God cured his hangnail and this little girl is getting raped.

 

That doesn't work Dennis. God can't be active when it comes to hangnails and inactive when it comes to child-abuse and still be the loving, caring, just god you keep trying to turn him into. Either god plays favourites like a capricious "pagan" god of the kind that so amuses and horrifies Kreeft, or there is no such thing as an active god. And in which case, he becomes rather irrelevant.

 

So don't get all huffy with Karl just because you can't bear to see the awful implications of his insight. Or what that might make you an accomplice to, as a worshipper. Humiliation might be the least of your worries.

 

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed that you never really engaged in any kind of discussion about the contentions I had with Kreeft's little speech. This makes me wonder if by "discussion" you meant heaping praise of Kreeft combined with a little Lewis worship. And you rightly saw that I would never provide you with such satisfaction.

[duderonomy]

'Soil',

You're an 'ass'.

Maybe 'you' are the 'ass' that Jesus 'rode' in on?

Or was it two donkeys? I guess it depends on 'whom' 'you' 'believe'!

Sorry for the ad-hominem (SP), dude, but you just make me sick.

Duder

[SOIL]

...

By the way, don't think I haven't noticed that you never really engaged in any kind of discussion about the contentions I had with Kreeft's little speech. ...

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cerise,

 

Yes you are right I did pretty much forget to respond to that post. Now that I look back to see why I avoided specific responses - I remember the way it effected me. If you want someone to respond to a point you are making - you may be more likely to encourage that, by avoiding preceding your point by something like "Ah yes...bullshit bullshit bullshit" - that did not automatically move your post to the top of my "todo list" of posts I most desire to dignify with a response. Look, I know you are emotional about this subject, perhaps in part because people like me claim you may find help in a place where you just refuse to go - and you desire to find hope so much. If that is the case, I can certainly understand that - as I too have "been there, done that", and I can still feel the pain.

 

... Now onto "why can't we speak to gods face to face".  And the answer is...

 

Ah yes...bullshit bullshit bullshit.

 

The old YOU CAN'T SEE GOD BECAUSE YOU ARE FULL OF SIN AND ARE JUST RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM YOU SILLY SILLY CHILD.  NOW BOW DOWN AND REPENT!!!111

(by the way, aren't pagans wonderful little savages since we can use all their symbolism to make our own points about Jeeeezus?)

 

Apparently things need to be complicated and mysterious otherwise they can't be true.  Like perhaps the best posts use the longest words.  Supercalifragalisticexpialidocious, eh?

 

I call this bullshit Dennis.

 

  Knowing a god should not have to be an obstacle course leading to a spike lined pit in order to be true.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also the intentional misspelling of the name 'Jesus' doesn't encourage me to respond.

 

I think you could have made your good points without using techniques that simply make me want to leave this place and never come back again.

 

For instance, the point about how pagan symbolism can be used to understand aspects of who Jesus claims to be - is very insightful, and I like to see such points - so I keep reading what you post. However, you can make it either hard or relatively easy for me to read and desire to respond to your posts. That particular post ended up more on the "hard" side - when with a little self-control you could have presented the same good points in a manner that would have rendered your points "easy" for me to want to respond to.

 

Job eventually heard God (I forget about whether he actually "saw" him) - and yes, he was not "full of sin" and/or necessarily "running away from him" - at least I don't think he was. Job had some pretty fiesty things to say to God - his so-called "friends" gave him a hard time about that - but God basically sided with Job rather than his friends.

 

I don't know if things need to be "complicated and mysterious" in order to be true - but I do think sometimes true things are that way.

 

Well again - I need to be doing other things.

 

I appreciate what you are going through Cerise - as I also have difficulty with why this world is the way it is. You have felt the pain much more personally than I have - and I respect that.

 

I want to be able to communicate with you without it taking so much emotional energy - I make this post so maybe you can see how - if you also want to communicate with me - you can reduce my initial gut reaction to just "leave".

 

-Dennis

 

P.S.

"Knowing a god should not have to be an obstacle course leading to a spike lined pit in order to be true." I don't think I would use the term "obstacle course" but even if I did, I would not say it leads to a "spike lined pit" - I think the effort extended to "know God" leads to heaven.

[Vixentrox]

God sided with Job? Was this before or after slaying his family and inflicting numerous miseries on Job? And before you EVEN say Satan did it, remember that God is the boss. He allowed it to happen. He is just as culpable in the murder and misery as the mafia crime lord that orders death and extortion even if he doesn't get his hands dirty.