Discussions with Bob, the rationalist

[reba]

The same applies to me. If I see that you are not addressing what I wrote I also have the freedom to say so as 'we choose to post as we choose as this is a public forum'.

exactly

I spoke of Bob, the rationalist and secularist. Would you please tell me how his worldview relates to John 3:3, to which you referred?

Oz

You will not like what i post but here it is ... The gospel is simple.. only man makes it complicated

 

[OzSpen]

Ask enough questions to lead him to see his own irrationality. He says the Bible has nothing to offer him. Ask him why. Based on what research has he come to this conclusion? If the Bible has nothing to offer, what writings do? etc.

My own experience is that most who wear the badge of rationality with great pride, never have really used it much.

Thanks Hospes. That is helpful. Asking pointed questions is a good way to uncover a person's worldview. As I'm finding, he also has a statement of faith (secularism) which he follows. One of the first statements of the '10 point plan for a secular Australia' is:

1. A secular, pluralistic and democratic Australia

• Government policies should be based on evidence, reason and compassion, and protect the human rights of all Australians.
• Everyone should be free to choose and hold their own religious or non-religious worldviews, provided they do not impose such views on others, and provided practices associated with such worldviews do no harm.

These are some of my questions for him.
a. From where does he get the idea that Australia should be secular, pluralistic & democratic. Where do those values come from?

b.

 

[OzSpen]

Ask enough questions to lead him to see his own irrationality. He says the Bible has nothing to offer him. Ask him why. Based on what research has he come to this conclusion? If the Bible has nothing to offer, what writings do? etc.

My own experience is that most who wear the badge of rationality with great pride, never have really used it much.

Thanks Hospes. That's helpful to expose any inconsistency (irrationality?) that might be in his world view. I've found over many years that interacting through questions is a great way to go. However, there has to be a point where one issues the challenges.

This could come in a way like this:

One of the points in the Rationalist Society of Australia's '10 point plan for a secular Australia' is:

1. A secular, pluralistic and democratic Australia

• Government policies should be based on evidence, reason and compassion, and protect the human rights of all Australians.
• Everyone should be free to choose and hold their own religious or non-religious worldviews, provided they do not impose such views on others, and provided practices associated with such worldviews do no harm.

My questions to him will include:

a. What evidence will he accept and reject? Will he accept personal experience? If not, why not? Why does he reject the evidence from the Bible? What determines which evidence is OK and which is not?

b. If 'reason' is one of the determining qualities, what reasons will he use for excluding/including certain ethical decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, murder and stealing?

c. How will he decide on the content of 'compassion'? Was it compassionate to protect the rights of Germans against the Jews in World War 2 by the Holocaust? Is it compassionate to kill a child in the womb?

d. If everyone is free to choose their own religious and non-religious world views, how is a world view determined?

e. Why add the condition 'provided they do not impose such views on others'? Isn't he promoting his views on what happens regarding religion in the state school system through his articles in the newspaper? He sure does push his views.

f. He says that one is free to choose a world view 'provided practices associated with such world views do no harm'. Who said so? Do practices of a moral, relativistic world view of sexual promiscuity, abortion, and euthanasia do NO harm? How can one be free to choose such a world view and guarantee no harm? How is harm defined.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Simple... Take a truth he already understands and build on that truth. Don't compete and don't argue. Build and grow on what he already knows.
Easy to say, but hard to implement.
Listen to him....

Excellent! One of his truths is the use of reason as the defining element of values and his world view. Why use reason and not experience? Have there been any failures with the use of reason?

 

[OzSpen]

-
Explain to him that Christianity is not a religion.
Its a relationship with God through Christ, that has been reestablished by God, based entirely on the Blood of Christ as what reconnects humanity to God.
Christianity is God loving us so much, that He came down to earth as a man to die on a Cross to bring us back into His family.////AND THAT is not religion.
Religion is man's effort to save himself, to reach God by his EFFORT, and to try to become like God through works- deeds.

Christianity is God coming down from Heaven to US to take us BACK HOME to Himself.

Christianity is a religion as James 1:26-27 (ESV) affirms:

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.​

 

[GodsGrace]

I just love d, e and f.
I like to talk about these.
There is such error in their beliefs in these areas. But they don't seem to understand it.
I hope you keep us posted...

d. Exactly. WHO determines ANYTHING? I touched on this in my post above. God is the ultimate authority. WHO is the ultimate authority on earth? There is none!

e. We are always imposing our views on others because each one of us feels he has the truth and the right way. Which brings us back to d.

f. As long as it harms no one. EVERYTHING has an effect on everyone. We're all hooked up together.
I've never heard of one situation that does not effect others, even though it might seem not to and to be between only a specific number of persons. Is it called Karma?? They believe in Karma - it could be explained like that. What goes out, comes back, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Excellent! One of his truths is the use of reason as the defining element of values and his world view. Why use reason and not experience? Have there been any failures with the use of reason?

Who's to say the reasoning is correct?
I really hate how they won't accept experience. They pencil it off to psychological needs or effects. Is reason more important than experience?

I could reason that a God must exist. But if I experience Him, isn't that stronger and more able to accompany me through life?

W

 

[stovebolts]

Excellent! One of his truths is the use of reason as the defining element of values and his world view. Why use reason and not experience? Have there been any failures with the use of reason?

How about moral truths such as honesty, integrity and commitment?
Christianity is not only a way of living, it is a relational way of living.
These are basic fundamental truths and would be a great entry point.

As far as experience, it can be subjective which in my opinion is ok, but you have to watch it. For example, the full moon does not bring. About more arrests but a police officer may be more aware of his arrests and hence perceive there are more.

Perception can often be more powerful than the actual truth, even through reason on occasion.

 

[OzSpen]

You will not like what i post but here it is ... The gospel is simple.. only man makes it complicated

If you read my OP, you'd know I was not discussing the simplicity or complexity of the Gospel. I said not a word about it. My post was to deal with conversation with a rationalist, secularist and how to pursue the discussion.

Doesn't seem like you want to go down that track. That's fine by me.

Oz

 

[Christ_empowered]

Maybe start by explaining the concept of Worldview and exploring his worldview and then do a compare and contrast with the Christian worldview. I think it helps to show that everyone has a way of looking at the world and then getting them to take a closer look at their own worldview before moving on to the Christian worldview.

 

[OzSpen]

Wondering,

I'd like to pick up on some of the excellent points you made:

I just love d, e and f.
I like to talk about these.
There is such error in their beliefs in these areas. But they don't seem to understand it.
I hope you keep us posted...

Since Bob is a journalist who writes biased and antagonistic articles against religious instruction (RI) in the state schools, I prepared an article last week and submitted to the editor. It was rejected and I was told to make comments on the various articles he writes. I have been doing that but 20-50 words in a comment is hardly enough space for the 500 words allowed for an article.

Nevertheless, I'll continue to challenge his secularism. That's why I asked CFnet posters in this thread to make suggestions. Imagine my saying to him, 'Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3 ESV), as Jesus said to Nicodemus? Bob is nowhere near ready to hear that. I'm dealing with issues of philosophy, world view, and apologetics to challenge his perspective.

d. Exactly. WHO determines ANYTHING? I touched on this in my post above. God is the ultimate authority. WHO is the ultimate authority on earth? There is none!

This gets back to Pilate's question, 'What is truth?' (John 18:38 NIV) We have a situation in Australia, because we are a British Commonwealth country, where our head of state, Queen Elizabeth II (represented here by the Governor-General) swore allegiance to the Christian faith in her coronation, 2 June 1953. The first fleet to arrive in Australia from England in 1788 had an evangelical Anglican chaplain, Richard Johnson. While there is a separation of church and State here, there is still opportunity in Queensland for one hour of RI per week to be conducted during curriculum time in the state schools (in govt. legislation). This allows for any faith group, including Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, JWs, Mormons, etc. It's an opt-in system where parents are invited to give permission for their children to attend the RI class.

This secular journalist has written several stinging articles so far this year against the RI curriculum content but he acknowledges that he is a member of the Rationalist Society and wants secular education, free of religion. He wants it free of that fairy tale Christianity.

The issue includes: How does he reach a reasonable decision that his view is right and the Christian's view is wrong? What standard is used to determine moral and government decisions in his philosophy?

e. We are always imposing our views on others because each one of us feels he has the truth and the right way. Which brings us back to d.

I'm not sure about 'imposing our views', but even posting our views on CFnet means that it is an endeavour to persuade others. If we don't promote the absolute standards of God himself, as revealed in Scripture, then we pick and choose our own views (even if they are a club's view such as the Rationalist Society). This means that anybody's view is authoritative for that person or group. It gets back to, 'I'll do what's right for me' or what I think is right for our country. Thus we have just voted (2 July) in a federal election where one Party thought it OK to have an advertising campaign that lied about our Medicare scheme. The Party has admitted that it created the Mediscare advertising in the last few days of the campaign.

When ethics are not governed by God's ultimate authority, Mediscare ethics will continue.

Then we have the challenge of interpreting Scripture carefully and in context. I've had it said to me by a few Christians, 'That's your interpretation'. Then I ask: 'Let's sit down together and determine what principles we use to interpret any document, including the Bible. Most don't wan to get that 'deep'.

f. As long as it harms no one. EVERYTHING has an effect on everyone. We're all hooked up together.

I agree that morality should harm nobody (a tall order) but that includes protecting the mother's health during pregnancy and refusing to kill the unborn child who is a human being from conception.

I've never heard of one situation that does not effect others, even though it might seem not to and to be between only a specific number of persons. Is it called Karma?? They believe in Karma - it could be explained like that. What goes out, comes back, etc.

I agree that all decisions affect somebody or something, even though at first this may not appear to be. That's why proclamation of God's absolute standards (the 10 Commandments of Exodus 20 ESV are an excellent starter) is critical in your country and mine.

Oz

 

[reba]

How did i know you would find fault.. .. so take the intellectual track ...

 

[OzSpen]

Who's to say the reasoning is correct?
I really hate how they won't accept experience. They pencil it off to psychological needs or effects. Is reason more important than experience?

I could reason that a God must exist. But if I experience Him, isn't that stronger and more able to accompany me through life?

W

I agree that we need a norm/standard for reasoning. Where do we find one that is correct? Is that based on the reasoning of the secularists? Why are the reasonings of the Christians not more correct? How do we decide?

The problem with accepting experience is that it can be unique to an individual and can't be generalised. Thus, experience is a poor guide for universal values. If I rely on experience, why was the experience of Mussolini right or wrong before and in World War 2?

My experience of tightening in the chest could be an indicator of the emergence of a heart attack but it could be a sign of a number of other things, including sitting too long at this computer preparing a sermon for this Sunday.

The reason vs experience realm is fraught with dangers because from a humanistic perspective none can be absolutely right. How do we determine absolute moral values? Bob may say that that is an impossible ask, stating that 'There are no such things as absolutes'. He fails to realise he has just established his own absolute by that statement if he means absolutely that 'there are no such things as absolutes'.

One of the things I watch for are ways to trip them up in their own statements. In other discussions this has led to profitable discussion.

As for experiencing God, how do I know it is God you are experiencing and not some other subjective manifestation? Who determines if it is not the devil or demons? Why not my own intuition? To say that I experience God cannot be tested objectively.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Maybe start by explaining the concept of Worldview and exploring his worldview and then do a compare and contrast with the Christian worldview. I think it helps to show that everyone has a way of looking at the world and then getting them to take a closer look at their own worldview before moving on to the Christian worldview.

That's an important dimension to examine a person's world view and how they arrived at that position. Comparing and contrasting with a Christian world view is a splendid way to pursue this discussion.

Well stated CE.

 

[Kidron]

Christianity is a religion as James 1:26-27 (ESV) affirms:

26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.​

-
OZ,

Lets try it like this..
Lets say that there is a definition of "religion" that reflects God's love", or, lets say we use that word as a way to understand what it means to do the work of Jesus,. and compare this to something scientific.. For example entropy, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics......and i think you would agree that "in a closed system" there are rules that regulate and apply within that system, but not outside of it.
In other words there are rules that operate and define a "system" that are unique regarding its operation and description.
See it?

Now, think of it like this...
A Football team has a huddle, and that is a specific type of huddle, WITHIN in a sporting event.
Whereas, You can huddle with one other person under a blanket if you are trying to prevent frostbite after your small plane just crashed into the Andes Mountains, and its -20 degrees F and the wind is blowing violently into the plane because all the windows in the plane were broken out upon impact .
So, its the same word, (huddle) but its not the same system as the football team huddling during a SuperBowl.
See it?

So, "religion" is a translation of a Koine Greek word, that is completely specific to defining acts within the "religious system" of = good works before the One True God.
But in the secular world system, which is its own "system", (completely different then Biblical Christianity) "world religion" means = IS man's self made effort to saved himself, to reach God by his own effort, and to try to become like God through works - deeds.

So, yes, "religion" is one word, but its a completely different meaning/definition depending on how you apply it, as "Bible Religion" is all about God and Christ and Us and Relationship with Him and good deeds following, ALL within God's Kingdom of God system.
Whereas "World Religion" is man's self made effort to saved himself, to reach God by his own effort, and to try to become like God through works - deeds, within a secularly religious system.
Same word, "religion" .... but 2 completely different systems, with completely differently rules and completely different meanings and end results.

 

[OzSpen]

-
OZ,

Lets try it like this..
Lets say that there is a definition of "religion" that reflects God's love", or, lets say we use that word as a way to understand what it means to do the work of Jesus,. and compare this to something scientific.. For example entropy, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics......and i think you would agree that "in a closed system" there are rules that regulate and apply within that system, but not outside of it.
In other words there are rules that operate and define a "system" that are unique regarding its operation and description.
See it?

Now, think of it like this...
A Football team has a huddle, and that is a specific type of huddle, WITHIN in a sporting event.
Whereas, You can huddle with one other person under a blanket if you are trying to prevent frostbite after your small plane just crashed into the Andes Mountains, and its -20 degrees F and the wind is blowing violently into the plane because all the windows in the plane were broken out upon impact .
So, its the same word, (huddle) but its not the same system as the football team huddling during a SuperBowl.
See it?

So, "religion" is a translation of a Koine Greek word, that is completely specific to defining acts within the "religious system" of = good works before the One True God.
But in the secular world system, which is its own "system", (completely different then Biblical Christianity) "world religion" means = IS man's self made effort to saved himself, to reach God by his own effort, and to try to become like God through works - deeds.

So, yes, "religion" is one word, but its a completely different meaning/definition depending on how you apply it, as "Bible Religion" is all about God and Christ and Us and Relationship with Him and good deeds following, ALL within God's Kingdom of God system.
Whereas "World Religion" is man's self made effort to saved himself, to reach God by his own effort, and to try to become like God through works - deeds, within a secularly religious system.
Same word, "religion" .... but 2 completely different systems, with completely differently rules and completely different meanings and end results.

Kidron,

I agree that there are several ways of defining religion, but it was you who stated in #17 that 'Explain to him that Christianity is not a religion'.

I showed from James 1:26-27 (ESV) that Christianity is a religion and there can be worthy and worthless religion.

I notice you didn't comment on the exegesis I provided to demonstrate that Christianity is a religion.

By the way, you may understand what 'huddle' means in American football but I live in Australia where that brand of football is not among the national football sports. Try rugby league, rugby union, soccer, Australian Rules Football for Down Under football sports. There are no huddles in them.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

How did i know you would find fault.. .. so take the intellectual track ...

So, are people with intelligence not welcome on this forum?

 

[reba]

So, are people with intelligence not welcome on this forum?

sounds a bit like a illogical fallacy

 

[OzSpen]

sounds a bit like a illogical fallacy

Please tell me what kind of 'illogical fallacy' it is. Please remember to give it a correct title.

By the way, what's the theme of this thread? Seems like you are going off topic.

Oz

 

[reba]

Nope dont care to.. it would be off topic to do so.. ..