More on Jesus camps

[apothanein kerdos]

we don't cry because we're supposed to, because it looks good, or because it feels right; we cry because we rationally understand . . .

Only a man would say something so clueless.

Crying having nothing to do with feelings. That really beats all!

The only absurd thing I see is your inability to actually respond to it. My point is that rationality begets feelings...think about it. You see a child suffering from AIDS and you are upset...why? Because you see the image of God suffering, you see the results of sin...which is a rational process that begets feelings and emotions.

Now, instead of tossing things to the side because you don't want to deal with it, could you at least have the respect and common courtesy to respond to the content?

[nebula]

That kid on the streets I mentioned is a real person. My brother is actually working with "problem kids" in the inner city of Baltimore. I am not speaking in theoreticals of what could and could not, may or may not work. I am speaking of what did work.

Again, this is a pragmatic approach to faith, which never works. Just because something works does not mean the method is correct. If I get someone "saved" by paying that person a million dollars to accept Christ, the end might look good but the method is wrong. Not once in scripture do we see an incomplete approach to faith or witnessing, there is always a whole approach, one tha tappeals to every level of man. Even when Jesus confronts Paul we see this.

Oh yes, he does need a severe re-education. (After all, he thought he could sell drugs to pay for the mission trip the boys were required to go on as a part of the program. rolleyes.gif You don't think I would be against sitting him with a Bible and doing some serious study to learn how to live right, do you?

This is what I mean you don't understand a rational approach to faith; it is more than just a bible study. It is supplying a rational basis for faith before coming to Christ. It means telling a person to do more than "try" Jesus or rely on an emotional conversion (emotions play a small part in our faith...read the Bible...they only come after a rational basis has been established).

Again, you are showing evidences of biased assumptions. I wish I could get my brother in here and let him share with you what they poured into their youth. Do you honestly believe he and the other leader did not pour into the lives of their kids the "rational basis for faith" as you call it? Do you really believe this particular kid didn't know what he was doing? That his life wasn't changed? That he was reacting on emotion?

I know I'm a bad relater of information, but yikes - you just painted a very weird interpretation of this. What you are retelling is nothing close to what my brother shared.

We tell the truth, that Jesus died on the cross, that they are sinners, they need to repent, etc...these are all rational things, not emotionally based. If they are experiencial or emotional then they are subjective and not really facts. If they are in time and space, if these events literally happened, they are rational. This is base level rationalism in coming to fait. Does it cause an emotional response? It better! A person who doesn't cry after he understands he's a sinner and has offended God doesn't really understand what is going on...but look at my original point...we don't cry because we're supposed to, because it looks good, or because it feels right; we cry because we rationally understand the implications of our sin. This is a base level rational approach to faith.

Sorry - this still cracks me up!

The words "cry" and "rational" in the same sentence....

My goodness, I've known people to try to use ration to get people to stop crying, but to use ration to make them cry?

Got help the male species!

[apothanein kerdos]

That kid on the streets I mentioned is a real person. My brother is actually working with "problem kids" in the inner city of Baltimore. I am not speaking in theoreticals of what could and could not, may or may not work. I am speaking of what did work.

Again, this is a pragmatic approach to faith, which never works. Just because something works does not mean the method is correct. If I get someone "saved" by paying that person a million dollars to accept Christ, the end might look good but the method is wrong. Not once in scripture do we see an incomplete approach to faith or witnessing, there is always a whole approach, one tha tappeals to every level of man. Even when Jesus confronts Paul we see this.

Oh yes, he does need a severe re-education. (After all, he thought he could sell drugs to pay for the mission trip the boys were required to go on as a part of the program. rolleyes.gif You don't think I would be against sitting him with a Bible and doing some serious study to learn how to live right, do you?

This is what I mean you don't understand a rational approach to faith; it is more than just a bible study. It is supplying a rational basis for faith before coming to Christ. It means telling a person to do more than "try" Jesus or rely on an emotional conversion (emotions play a small part in our faith...read the Bible...they only come after a rational basis has been established).

Again, you are showing evidences of biased assumptions. I wish I could get my brother in here and let him share with you what they poured into their youth. Do you honestly believe he and the other leader did not pour into the lives of their kids the "rational basis for faith" as you call it? Do you really believe this particular kid didn't know what he was doing? That his life wasn't changed? That he was reacting on emotion?

I know I'm a bad relater of information, but yikes - you just painted a very weird interpretation of this. What you are retelling is nothing close to what my brother shared.

We tell the truth, that Jesus died on the cross, that they are sinners, they need to repent, etc...these are all rational things, not emotionally based. If they are experiencial or emotional then they are subjective and not really facts. If they are in time and space, if these events literally happened, they are rational. This is base level rationalism in coming to fait. Does it cause an emotional response? It better! A person who doesn't cry after he understands he's a sinner and has offended God doesn't really understand what is going on...but look at my original point...we don't cry because we're supposed to, because it looks good, or because it feels right; we cry because we rationally understand the implications of our sin. This is a base level rational approach to faith.

Sorry - this still cracks me up!

The words "cry" and "rational" in the same sentence....

My goodness, I've known people to try to use ration to get people to stop crying, but to use ration to make them cry?

Got help the male species!

So other than saying, "Nu uh, I didn't mean that" and baseless conjecture without actually responding to anything, do you happen to have anythign else to offer?

I'm not going to put up with it Nebula, either respond to it with something other than, "hahah you have a Y chromosone so you're wrong!!!!!!!!" or just drop it.

[nebula]

The only absurd thing I see is your inability to actually respond to it. . . .

Now, instead of tossing things to the side because you don't want to deal with it, could you at least have the respect and common courtesy to respond to the content?

I did. You weren't patient enought. I'm still working on the rest.

My point is that rationality begets feelings...think about it. You see a child suffering from AIDS and you are upset...why? Because you see the image of God suffering, you see the results of sin...which is a rational process that begets feelings and emotions.

When I see a child suffering from AIDS and am upset, all I see is the pain. I don't think about why I am upset. I don't need to rationally explain the process that begets feelings and emotions. I just feel for the sake of feeling.

Do feelings, in your eyes, need a rational basis in order for them to be valid?

I feel pain, I cry. I see pain, I cry. Why? Because I am empathetic to pain. There is no ration in feeling. Feelings just are.

[apothanein kerdos]

When I see a child suffering from AIDS and am upset, all I see is the pain. I don't think about why I am upset. I don't need to rationally explain the process that begets feelings and emotions. I just feel for the sake of feeling.

It doesn't matter what you feel or see...what matters is that it occurs. Just because we don't sit there and think through something doesn't mean a rational process isn't taking place. This is the Biblical view of epistemology whereas you are accepting a very secularized view (which attempts to seperate the intellect from the emotion). The Bible teaches there is a reason for everything...though this reason can be irrational, an irrational reason/cause will always cause a negative effect.

Regardless, when you think through it, you realize why that child hurts. If an athiest were to ask you, "Why do you care" would you respond with "I just do"? If so, you have now lost this athiest and cannot witness to her. If, however, you give a rational explanation for your feelings, you can turn it on her and ask her why she cares...and show there is something inherent within us.

Do feelings, in your eyes, need a rational basis in order for them to be valid?

Absolutely, otherwise they are not genuine. I wrote an essay on this, it's in controversial issues.

I feel pain, I cry. I see pain, I cry. Why? Because I am empathetic to pain. There is no ration in feeling. Feelings just are.

If this is the case then they aren't from God...if they were then even God doesn't know why they occur, and if this is the case He does not know everything and is therefore limited. This is Christian epistemological despair...one of the saddest things that can occur to a Christian.

I would also add that God has emotional responses in the Bible...are these too irrational?

[apothanein kerdos]

If you read this book, this book, and this book you can get an idea of where I'm coming from.

[nebula]

Never heard of it.

In it Peter Fromm decides to attend a liberal seminary (U of Chicago's Divinity School) in order to conver them to Christ and prove their liberal theology wrong.

Well, that was his first mistake. But go on.

He is armed with experience and scripture...and in the end he believes the faith was completely wrong but still believes it even though he thinks there is no proof for it. He ends up in a very depressed state, shut down, and it's horrible. Though it is fiction and written to show that Christianity has no intellectual basis, the author based this character on students he saw, multiple students.

I saw this a lot at my Christian college. "Mr. Oxford" Bible teacher damaged a lot of students' faith with his intellectualism. He would have killed my faith, too, had not . . . .

I see it too, even at a conservative school. These kids have no intellectual backing, no reasoning, for their faith and they just get crushed. The problem is we take a very imbalanced approch to Christianity, where we go, "yeah, there can be reasoning, but experience is where it's at!" This leaves ignorant Christians who either get swallowed up or are ineffective to the world...either way it's not a good thing.

And I agree with the problem of no intellectual backing. There should definantly be intellectual backing. I never disagreed with that.

Again, I am not against scholarship. I am against the rejection of emotions and experience being a part of the Christian walk. "They overcame the accuser by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death." (Rev. 12:1)

As pointed out, the word here refers to reasoning, so you almost defeat your own point. Experience, void of any rational basis, is subjective and therefore useless.

I'll have to look that up.

Again - Pentecost was not an intellectual excercise, was it?

It did have a rational basis

Which was what?

Now again, about The Chosen why did the Rabbi decide not to speak to his son his whole life?

It's irrelevant to the discussion He did it so his child woudl learn to care for others...so what?

No, AK, it is relevant to the discussion.

The reason goes deeper. His son had a brilliant mind. The father feared his son having little or no "heart." So, he would not speak to his son to teach his son pain that he might share in the pain of others.

This goes beyond just "caring" for.

A minister needs to be able to "mourn with those who mourn."

You can't do that with ration.

[apothanein kerdos]

I saw this a lot at my Christian college. "Mr. Oxford" Bible teacher damaged a lot of students' faith with his intellectualism. He would have killed my faith, too, had not . . . .

Whoa, I'm not preaching intellectualism, I'm preaching rational basis...there's a HUGE difference. Intellectualism seeks to deny emotions in all forms, or make them an "upper level" experience, that is, completely subjective and void of any rationality and therefore not mattering in life.

Secondly, God is the base of all wisdom/knowledge. The Bible COMMANDS us over 100 times to seek wisdom/knowledge and never once tells us to seek an experience void of a rational basis. Do you know why? So you don't end up being like that professor or like these kids in camps.

And I agree with the problem of no intellectual backing. There should definantly be intellectual backing. I never disagreed with that.

Then why do you continue in the discussion? To accept an intellectual backing is to acknowledge there is an intellectual backing to EVERYTHING.

Which was what?

7And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians--we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." 12And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."

14But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. 1

If there was no rational basis, why does Peter try to explain what is occuring? You can't explain something with authority and make it universal unless there is reasoning behind it.

No, AK, it is relevant to the discussion.

The reason goes deeper. His son had a brilliant mind. The father feared his son having little or no "heart." So, he would not speak to his son to teach his son pain that he might share in the pain of others.

This goes beyond just "caring" for.

A minister needs to be able to "mourn with those who mourn."

You can't do that with ration.

As I have proven in this thread and in my other thread in Controversial issues, you cannot have compassion or mourn with others unless you use reasoning at a base...even if you do not realize you are doing this, it is still done on a subconscience level.

[nebula]

Do you have a problem with the kids cheering back and forth at each other: "I love Jesus, yes I do! I love Jesus, how about you?"

Do you have a problem with the boy preaching?

Yes and yes. Both are the equivalent to brainwashing without providing a reason. I did both of those when I was 12...meant nothing because I didn't really know what I was saying.

You did both - that means your belief has a basis in your experience?

I cheered for Jesus when I was 7 - and I knew what I was doing - and why.

And I couldn't understand why my classmates at church did not.

Hmmm . . . did you know that a good hunk of the Bible is a collection of experiences? (Genesis, parts of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esther, Acts)

based upon rational foundations

The smile of reason.

(No, wait, that was the theme of the Enlightenment.)

Hmm . . . what intellectual wisdom did Elijah give to Israel and the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmal?

The entire story...it was observable, thus meeting one of the requirements of rational.

Very weird.

You have rejected every testimony I gave.

IS it because you couldn't observe it?

I guess I'll try to explain this way. If were a parent, and I had to chose between sending my children to a camp and I had to chose between one that increased their intellect and one that taught them how to live the Bible, I'd chose the one that taught them how to live the Bible.

This is why I keep saying you're wrong, you create a dualism between the two when no such dualism exists.

OK - you want to convince me?

Share your testimony with me. Don't tell me how your beleifs have changed. Tell me how your life has been changed.

[apothanein kerdos]

You did both - that means your belief has a basis in your experience?

In a way...I see it as an irrational experience that contradicts scripture. Thus, the experience is still compared to scripture and not left on its own.

Very weird.

You have rejected every testimony I gave.

IS it because you couldn't observe it?

emot-fail.gif

No, because it contradicted scripture

Share your testimony with me. Don't tell me how your beleifs have changed. Tell me how your life has been changed.

Why? How would this prove much? Where I am is where I am and I got here by God's guiding hand. Unlike you I like to keep some things private. If you can't accept the merits of scripture but will accept a subjective experience, I must question where you place your trust when it comes to authority.