Posted on 09/05/2010 9:48:24 AM PDT by marshmallow
SANGIN, Afghanistan—They say there are no atheists in foxholes. There's one on the front lines here, though, and the chaplain isn't thrilled about it.
Navy Chaplain Terry Moran is steeped in the Bible and believes all of it. His assistant, Religious Programs Specialist 2nd Class Philip Chute, is steeped in the Bible and having none of it.
Together they roam this town in Taliban country, comforting the grunts while crossing swords with each other over everything from the power of angels to the wisdom of standing in clear view of enemy snipers. Lt. Moran, 48 years old, preaches about divine protection while 25-year-old RP2 Chute covers the chaplain's back and wishes he were more attentive to the dangers of the here and now.
It's a match made in, well, the Pentagon.
"He trusts God to keep him safe," says RP2 Chute. "And I'm here just in case that doesn't work out."
The 460 Army, Navy and Air Force chaplains deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are prohibited from carrying weapons, counting on their assistants and the troops around them for protection. It can be a perilous calling. On Monday, Chaplain Dale Goetz, 43, of White, S.D., and four other soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb near Kandahar. Capt. Goetz is the first Army chaplain killed in action since the Vietnam War.
Army chaplains represent 130 religions and denominations, including Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. The military says it's common for assistants to be of different faiths from the chaplains they support, or of no faith at all.
"They don't have to be religious," says retired Navy Capt. Randy Cash, who served 30 years in the Chaplain Corps and now is its historian. "They have to be able to shoot straight."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Why is the chaplain’s assistant an atheist? Seems a little odd.
I read the entire article, and the assistant seems to have his head on straight. The chaplain on the other hand, seems a bit, er, squirrely.
Did you read the article?
>”We’re here for security,” says RP2 Chute. “We’re not junior chaplains.”<
Then why is his title Religious Programs Specialist 2nd Class? Is that the unit he is him, like being in the 82nd or 1st Cav? If he is just a bodyguard, why is he called an assistant?
No idea to your questions.
His rate is Religious Programs Specialist (old Chaplain’s Assistant.) That’s his specialty. He’s a Petty Officer Second Class (E-5).
Ok. I wasnt sure of the terminology.
There is no requirement that a Chaplain’s Assistant be of any faith.
They protect the Chaplain on the battefield
They carry out various administrative duties for the Chaplain
They set up the chapel before worship service
etc
No squirrel here. Quotes attributed to MacArthur include:
* Build me a son, O Lord, who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid, one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory.
* The United States is a pre-eminently Christian and conservative nation. It is far less militaristic than most nations. It is not especially open to the charge of imperialism. Yet one would fancy that Americans were the most brutally blood-thirsty people in the world to judge by the frantic efforts that are being made to disarm them both physically and morally...The effect of all this unabashed and unsound propaganda is not so much to convert America to a holy horror of war as it is to confuse the public mind and lead to muddled thinking in international affairs.[12]
* egain the religious base which in times past assured general integrity in public and private life.[21][22]
* ...The spiritual impulse is strong in many American hearts and constitutes a rugged bulwark in the defense of religious morality against the advance of any atheistic immorality.[23][24]
* Our great strength rests in those high-minded Americans whose faith in God and love of country transcends all selfishness and self-serving instincts.[25]
Are we going to preserve the religious base to our origin, our growth and our progress, or yield to the devious assaults of atheistic or other anti-religious forces?[19][20]
* There can be no compromise with atheistic Communism - no half-way in the preservation of freedom and religion.[27][28]
* We all dream of of the day when human conduct will be governed by the Decalogue and the Sermon and the Mount.[29][30]
http://conservapedia.com/Douglas_MacArthur#Quotes
Yep. He is squirrel fodder.
Why in the world would he find that puzzling? It doesn't sound like he's had much experience outside his theological comfort zone.
"Hey, sir, don't get out of the vehicle until I lay down a sniper screen," Gunnery Sgt. Mark Shawhan, an agnostic with a suspicion of organized religion, instructed Chaplain Moran before the patrol. "That's where he's been getting us, and when you cross the bridge—RUN."
Lt. Moran wasn't troubled. "I believe the Lord is going to protect us," he said. But he wondered aloud whether to finish his Meal, Ready-to-Eat packaged lunch before heading to the armored vehicle.
Gunny Shawhan shook his head in disbelief.
When their turn came, the chaplain and his assistant bolted across the bridge and pivoted into a cornfield, where the minister stood upright. RP2 Chute shouted at Lt. Moran to get down. "Take a knee," he yelled.
The patrol zigzagged through fields and waded through ditches, the only sounds the rustling of corn leaves, the muted crackle of a radio and the distant thup-thup of a helicopter flying sentry above.
During a pause to allow the minesweepers to check for booby-traps on the path ahead, the chaplain, wearing his prescription eyeglasses instead of anti-shrapnel goggles, sat down on the bank of an irrigation ditch, dropped his backpack on the ground and snapped a few pictures. RP2 Chute grimaced when he noticed. Insurgents have seeded the entire town with powerful explosives, and Marines step in the exact footprints of the man ahead to minimize the risk.
Lt. Moran says he follows the Marines' safety instruction and wears a helmet, despite his confidence in the divine. But the way he glides blithely through battle is a constant source of worry for his assistant.
"All my training and experience doesn't always help when the man I'm protecting isn't afraid of being hurt," says RP2 Chute.
...
At the end of the foot patrol in Sangin, the Marines sprinted back over the metal bridge and jumped into the armored vehicles that waited on the far side. Lt. Moran crossed and then stood for many long seconds in the open, clearly visible from the compounds where the Marines suspected the insurgent sniper had his nest.
On the near side of the bridge, Gunny Shawhan got out of his own vehicle to yell at the chaplain to take cover, but Lt. Moran didn't seem to hear over the noise of the engines. "Tell the [expletive] chaplain to get behind the goddamn vehicle," Gunny Shawhan yelled into the radio.
"Like bullets aren't going to kill the goddamn chaplain," he muttered to the men near him.
Any number of McArthur quotes don't take away from the fact that this chaplain is putting himself (and possible others) in unnecessary danger.
Doug is to military officers what the Kennedy's are to politicians. A charlatan with a great PR team.
Outside a naturalistic world view, valid objections would be that he is disobeying military protocol, including endangering others and or that he has no personally valid claim to the faith which he profess, or that the Bible does not promise protection from any and all hurt at all times to anyone.
That God does evidence protection and providential care is beyond dispute for me, but presumptuously, needlessly placing oneself in danger is not Scriptural, but trusting in God for help as one obeys His will is, and insomuch as that chaplain is doing the latter and not the former, he is to be admired.
I certainly hope that our military is looking at things from a naturalistic world view!
That God does evidence protection and providential care is beyond dispute for me, but presumptuously, needlessly placing oneself in danger is not Scriptural, but trusting in God for help as one obeys His will is, and insomuch as that chaplain is doing the latter and not the former, he is to be admired.
I will grant that he seems to have the strength of his convictions; as they manifest themselves in the real world, they seem to be a liability (at least in the context of this article).
I certainly hope it is not limited to the naturalistic, any more than George Washington was or many others which contrasted us with Communism, etc.
Having chaplains in the army (of all faiths, of course) does no harm and arguably is good for the morale of many of the troops. As such, I support it. That having been said, I wouldn't want tactical or strategic decisions to be based on anything but a secular/naturalistic viewpoint.
As Napoleon said, "God is on the side with the biggest battalions".
The faith of such men as Washington did not reject seeking the best, most prudent and wise tactical or strategic decisions, but they recognized Divine superintendence, and sought His aid, realizing the finite nature of men in both planning and ordering events.
In addition is the moral aspects by which a war may be considered just. Many overall recognized that the “golden compass” of men and its objectively baseless moral reasoning easily points south, and that the Bible, under the New Testament, was the supreme moral guide, though men abuse it.
As for Napoleon,
“Jesus does not hold to any criticism, his prudent manner so delighted admiration by a mixture of strength and gentleness.” - Sentiment de Napoléon sur la divinité de Jésus-Christ (1841), p. 59
Of course, he also admired Muhammad.
Insofar as such faith doesn't interfere with sound decision making, it's harmless enough.
As for Napoleon,
“Jesus does not hold to any criticism, his prudent manner so delighted admiration by a mixture of strength and gentleness.” - Sentiment de Napoléon sur la divinité de Jésus-Christ (1841), p. 59
Bear in mind he also said (when addressing Catholic clergy in 1810) "I am a monarch of God's creation, and you reptiles of the earth dare not oppose me. I render an account of my government to none save God and Jesus Christ."
He was a political animal, and used religion to advance his cause accordingly.
Unless such praying men were going thru the motions, they would have sought God and the Bible as an aid in making sound decisions.
As for Napoleon, i was also aware of that quote, and only referenced him as you invoked him.
While some of them were (and are) undoubtedly going through the motions, many of them (such as Washington) did (and do) pray for guidance. Any answers they get to such prayers are (as far as I can tell) a product of their imagination, but I tend to look at it pragmatically; if it works for them, go for it.
As for Napoleon, i was also aware of that quote, and only referenced him as you invoked him.
Fair enough, I was more interested in the using the quote itself than invoking Napoleon as such.
Well, as far i can tell, and many others, including on this pro-God forum, “answered prayers” were not my imagination. Though the latter certainly is also often a reality, those who truly repent and believe on the Lord Jesus out of a poor and contrite heart realize effects in heart and life which correspond to claims of the Object of their faith, and are contingent upon obedience to Him. And to naturalistically explain all miracles away is an ideologically-driven overreach.
I would also venture to say that the supernatural is also evident in the world of the occult, though on the dark side, though fabrications would also abound there.
Your mileage may (well...does) vary.
THAT, i find to be a superficial analysis, or forced conclusions by persons just as much ideologically driven as extremists on the other side, who reject objective analysis. The latter sees the formally miraculous in most anything, while the latter end up attributing powers of deity to coincidence and nature.
THAT, i find to be a superficial analysis, or forced conclusions by persons just as much ideologically driven as extremists on the other side, who reject objective analysis. The latter sees the formally miraculous in most anything, while the former end up attributing powers of deity to coincidence and nature.
As far as I can tell, this applies to the supernatural in general. Either it exists or it doesn't...and if it doesn't, this is what the (lack of) results would look like.
And not fold under pressure, be willing to take a chance when the odds aren't good, and be willing to die for their country. Let's see how straight his head is screwed on when the bullets start flying and the odds of imminent death are around 90%. Personally I'd prefer to share a foxhole with a deeply religious person, and I'm not religious. And I'd prefer my enemy not be religious. They fold under pressure and are easier to kill.
The only men to walk on the moon were Christian men. There are good reasons NASA chose that.
Do you realize that you're casting aspersions on the bravery of a young man who has volunteered to put his life on the line to defend your freedom? Isn't that a rather low thing to do?
The only men to walk on the moon were Christian men. There are good reasons NASA chose that.
I wasn't aware that NASA disqualified non-Christians from the astronaut corps. Could you document that, please?
You can see the God advantage today in school sports teams. Teams from Catholic schools often outperform teams from secular schools of similar size, starting the game off with a prayer. Religion provides optimism and hope when the odds don't look good.
The moon landings were high risk and NASA didn't want astronauts that might lose it if things went badly and future death looked certain. Can you document any man that walked on the moon that wasn't a religious Christian at the time? This was no accident.
I'm not religious myself, but I recognize the irreplaceable value of it and support it. I likely would have been more successful in my life if I had the unflappable optimism that comes from religion. Joining a start-up or starting a high-risk business I would have been more motivated to work hard and optimistic in the face of bad numbers being on God's plan. Being religious wouldn't have changed the 90% failure probability, but 10% success is better than 0% from giving up.
It's not known if a God watching over us exists, however the God advantage itself is real and provable.
As for me, while there certainly are naturalistic explanations for many things which are claimed to be supernatural, these are insufficient to explain others, and attempts to do so amounts to attributing powers of deity to nature. For me, due to what i have experienced myself, i could not honestly, analytically, objectively reject the reality of Jesus Christ if i wanted to.
And amidst all the chaff, He is still showing himself alive, consistent with the Bible, thank God, but which also includes negative realities resulting from disobedience. And in the final analysis, i see the rejection of Him as being a heart problem and not an evidential one.
You made the assertion, so it's up to you to document it. I would point out that given the demographics of the astronaut corps at the time, it would be something of a statistical anomaly if any of the dozen men who walked on the moon weren't Christians, regardless of any screening by NASA.
Agree to disagree. I see no evidence of the supernatural, nor the need to invoke it to explain the universe.
And in the final analysis, i see the rejection of Him as being a heart problem and not an evidential one.
I don't take anything on faith...frankly, I never understood the mind-set of anyone who does. It simply doesn't make sense.
I remember reading about the astronaut selection process in a book written 40 years ago before the PC police arrived and one of the requirements was that they be religious. NASA feared an astronaut could do great damage to the program if he lost it on the radio while facing a certain death. Religious people are more brave because they believe God is watching out for them and heaven is waiting if they die. An atheist has only the numbers to believe in, and if the numbers don't look good they fold.
While the chaplain doesn't carry the gun, I hope he knows how to use it because his atheist guard will more likely lose his composure to fear under deadly attack.
And the name of this book is...?
While the chaplain doesn't carry the gun, I hope he knows how to use it because his atheist guard will more likely lose his composure to fear under deadly attack.
This makes two times that you've called into question the bravery of an American soldier who's volunteered to put his life in danger to protect the United States. Are you going to go for three?
These are red herrings. The book title is not important to my points, nor debating the amount of bravery of a single soldier. You're adding no intellectual content to the conversation and throwing off flares.
Here's a book you might skim: Supernatural selection: how religion evolved. I highlighted "The Religious Advantage" section, how a particular subset of the human population discovered religion and displaced all remaining hominin forms.
Scientific studies have found that religion increases hope, optimism, health, longevity, lower rates of depression, greater success all around. Given all these provable advantages, should atheists really be saying "Hey, look at me, I have all these advantages too!". No you don't, and you seem to be either wanting to know more and have your ideas challenged, or envious and wanting to destroy the religious beliefs of others.
Actually, we both take things on faith, but not unqualified faith. From driving down the highway with just a few feet separating us from speeding cars going in the opposite direction to undergoing surgery, we live in a world of uncertainty but place a certain amount of trust in things and people, based upon evidence. And contrary top charges, in the Bible you see God provide a degree evidence upon which men find warrant to taking a step of faith, and as that is confirmed, they take another.
Matter and an exceedingly complex creation cannot be adequately explained as having created and developed itself, by itself, regardless of the imaginations of men, who (like Dawkins) manifest naturalistic explanations by surmising about alien “space seeds. And if there is even allowed a bit of doubt about God-less evolution then the possibility of a Creator should be allowed. And i believe if you were to be so honestly open to that, wherever it might lead, as to sincerely pray that God reveal if He were real, again with sincere openness to that, then you would see evidence of Him.
As for me, i see not only Creation, but the cause and effect relationship between faith in the Lord Jesus, out of rightly disposed heart, and promised manifest effects that nature itself will fail of doing, either in violation of laws or in degree of consistency.
One could interview faithful members of a Calvary chapel type Bible church and their acquaintances from before and after their conversion, and judge the likelihood of natural causes versus a supernatural one. I think that itself would be most interesting.
Trust and faith, as I understand the terms, are not the same thing. If I undergo surgery to correct my vision, I recognize that there is a tiny (but real) chance that such surgery will result in making me blind. I make the rational choice to do it, recognizing that the likelihood is tiny compared to the probable benefit. This is not faith, qualified or otherwise.
And contrary top charges, in the Bible you see God provide a degree evidence upon which men find warrant to taking a step of faith, and as that is confirmed, they take another.
I don't see any such thing. I'll grant you that many men have, just as they have seen "evidence" in the Qur'an, the Vedas, Dianetics, etc.
To put it another way, you and I are both atheists...I just believe in one less god than you :-)
Matter and an exceedingly complex creation cannot be adequately explained as having created and developed itself, by itself, regardless of the imaginations of men, who (like Dawkins) manifest naturalistic explanations by surmising about alien “space seeds. And if there is even allowed a bit of doubt about God-less evolution then the possibility of a Creator should be allowed.
Actually I do allow the possibility of a Creator. After all, I can't prove a negative. I just don't believe in a Creator. Implicit atheism rather than explicit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
And i believe if you were to be so honestly open to that, wherever it might lead, as to sincerely pray that God reveal if He were real, again with sincere openness to that, then you would see evidence of Him.
At a number of points in my life I have done just that (I wasn't raised an atheist). I sincerely prayed for God to reveal Himself. Heck, when I was 10 I asked Christ into my heart. Let me assure you, I was completely sincere.
I felt nothing. I saw no evidence, nor have I since. Over the years, I went from childlike belief to skepticism to agnosticism to atheism.
And i believe if you were to be so honestly open to that, wherever it might lead, as to sincerely pray that God reveal if He were real, again with sincere openness to that, then you would see evidence of Him.
I have done so, without noticeable results of any kind.
As for me, i see not only Creation, but the cause and effect relationship between faith in the Lord Jesus, out of rightly disposed heart, and promised manifest effects that nature itself will fail of doing, either in violation of laws or in degree of consistency.
In contrast, I've never seen anything that leads me to believe in anything supernatural, be it divine or otherwise.
One could interview faithful members of a Calvary chapel type Bible church and their acquaintances from before and after their conversion, and judge the likelihood of natural causes versus a supernatural one. I think that itself would be most interesting.
1) I'm afraid I'm not that familiar the finer distinctions of the various denominations...being on the outside looking in, so to speak. Why would a Calvary chapel type Bible church be different from the rest? And for that matter, isn't "Bible church" redundant?
2) The natural vs. supernatural causes of what? It's not clear from context.
You tried to show evidence for you point by invoking an unnamed book. Unless you provide a proper cite, your point remains unsupported.
nor debating the amount of bravery of a single soldier.
You brought up his alleged lack of bravery, not me.
You're adding no intellectual content to the conversation and throwing off flares.
If you don't want the "flare" of the soldier's bravery to be part of the conversation, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
Here's a book you might skim: Supernatural selection: how religion evolved. I highlighted "The Religious Advantage" section, how a particular subset of the human population discovered religion and displaced all remaining hominin forms.
Scientific studies have found that religion increases hope, optimism, health, longevity, lower rates of depression, greater success all around.
In general, this may well be true.
Given all these provable advantages, should atheists really be saying "Hey, look at me, I have all these advantages too!".
Which atheists are doing this? Even if they are...so what?
No you don't, and you seem to be either wanting to know more and have your ideas challenged, or envious and wanting to destroy the religious beliefs of others.
What have I said that would lead you to believe that latter? Just for the record, as far as I'm concerned you can believe in Yahweh, Christ, Allah, L. Ron Hubbard, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster...knock yourself out.
To quote Thomas Jefferson: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.".
Wise words.
Putting the Flying Spaghetti Monster in there shows you're making fun of people's religious beliefs. Doing this can cause harm. What is your motivation? Why would you try to harm what many people value? Is it curiosity in how they can believe these things, or envy over their advantages? Do you feel competitive pressure to prove you are as good as them? The left despises dominate religions out of envy. They make fun of religious beliefs at every opportunity, as do you.
On the contrary. Please allow me to explain by way of an extremely close analogy. Suppose I was accused of wanting to destroy the political affiliations of others and I replied, "As far as I'm concerned you can belong to the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality...knock yourself out."
(CURE is a real party, their platform calls for more rights for zombies)
Does my including CURE in this statement cause harm to those who wish to be Republicans? Obviously not. On the contrary, it shows my commitment to political freedom, even if one wants to belong to a party as absurd as CURE.
Similarly, when I included the Flying Spaghetti Monster in my list of deities, it emphasizes how far I'm willing to defend religious freedom...even to the point of believing in deities that are explicitly satirical.
They make fun of religious beliefs at every opportunity, as do you.
Every opportunity? Hardly. Only when appropriate. When, for instance, someone defends a patent absurdity such as creationism. I'll mock that all day long, given that it has a negative impact on society (replacing science with mythology). On the other hand, if you want to discuss (just for example) premillennialism vs. postmillennialism vs. amillennialism...have at it! If asked about it, my reaction would be (to quote Kuzco in The Emperor's New Groove):
"Hm...don't know, don't care!"
Science has its fair share of absurdities and myths. One is the popular belief the trace gas CO2 increasing from 0.035% to 0.045% of Earth's atmosphere will cause runaway warming. The harm from this belief can do more damage to people's lives than the belief in creationism. If someone is an honest god-fearing plumber or electrician, earning more than a scientist, is it hurting anyone if they believe in creationism? If a harmful conflict arises, mocking them is not the way to go. Giving them respect and showing them contrary evidence is. Any real scientist must hold out the possibility that anything they believe could turn out to be completely wrong. They should retain a measure of humble respect. Mocking others is effective against the 7 deadly sins, but is counterproductive against religious beliefs.
I felt nothing. I saw no evidence, nor have I since. Over the years, I went from childlike belief to skepticism to agnosticism to atheism.
Thank you for your honest reply. However, sincerity is only one thing, though i cannot judge your heart regarding that or conviction. I have a very sold Christian friend who twice “prayed to be saved” with no consequential reality, as there was no real conviction of his need. But as he continued seeking he progressively realized this, and had a profound conversion at 1am in the morning, by himself, which resulted in a radically transformed heart and life, with a life which further attests to to faith in Jesus resulting in reality. Calvinism would relegate you to being one of the non-elect, but i do not concur with it as regards only the elect being able to positively respond, at least to some degree of salvific grace, which response leads to more.
Trust and faith, as I understand the terms, are not the same thing. If I undergo surgery to correct my vision, I recognize that there is a tiny (but real) chance that such surgery will result in making me blind. I make the rational choice to do it, recognizing that the likelihood is tiny compared to the probable benefit. This is not faith, qualified or otherwise.
Simply a matter of degrees of warrant, and in that regard I am sure you have taken greater risks than that, as sometimes we must. There is no distinction between trust and faith in the Bible, and upon the premise that some warrant is provided for such, and progressively so, with the promised benefit versus not acting upon it making it rationally worth any risk.
And contrary to charges, in the Bible you see God provide a degree evidence upon which men find warrant to taking a step of faith, and as that is confirmed, they take another.
I don't see any such thing. I'll grant you that many men have, just as they have seen "evidence" in the Qur'an, the Vedas, Dianetics, etc.
That you can see none is troubling , as in story after story in its historical genre we see God proving such warrant. Abraham was not given a telegram telling him to trust in a certain deity, but had Divine visitations with promises and instructions that resulted in reality. And believing that he would have a child in his old age did not constitute much of a risk, while moving to another locale was not unreasonable. Moses and the Israelites also were not simply given a book of doctrine to begin with, but saw abundant manifest miracles attesting to Divine origin. And with the resulting reality will provide warrant for more. Likewise the apostles, and who were challenged to make rational moral decisions as well as of belief, based upon evidence. The degree of the miraculous in the Bible is typically overlooked, and sets it apart from the Qur'an and many other such books, whether accepted or not.
Actually I do allow the possibility of a Creator. After all, I can't prove a negative. I just don't believe in a Creator. Implicit atheism rather than explicit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
Thanks for the distinction; it seems certain other atheists i have encountered cannot even allow themselves the possibility.
One could interview faithful members of a Calvary chapel type Bible church and their acquaintances from before and after their conversion, and judge the likelihood of natural causes versus a supernatural one. I think that itself would be most interesting.
1) I'm afraid I'm not that familiar the finer distinctions of the various denominations...being on the outside looking in, so to speak. Why would a Calvary chapel type Bible church be different from the rest? And for that matter, isn't "Bible church" redundant?
There is a profound and fundamental difference, with one basically being institutionalized, being mostly form with little real substance, in Biblical terms. In practice the Bible is not emphasized as the literal word of God, with a liberal, basically non-literal interpretive foundation employed in teaching it, and deference to church tradition predominates. They see little of the inner transformation of souls and its foundational faith which resulted in the growth of the New Testament church in the Bible. They thus tend to be morally liberal, even if some may officially state otherwise.
Most predominate among these is Roman Catholicism, in which, as is typical among cults, the Bible is at best a second tier authority, with the unwarranted but assuredly (when speaking in accordance with its infallibly declared formula) infallible magisterium effectively having supremacy (“sola ecclesia”), and a decidedly liberal hermeneutical interpretive basis (O.T. miracles being fables, etc.) And which thus allowed such unScriptural practices (1Cor. 5:11,12; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) as the Crusades and the Inquisitions, and upon which arm of the flesh it owed much of its growth. But which primarily to a gospel by which members are usually treated as being Christians from birth, (via infant baptism by proxy faith) and not in need of conversion, and which teaches than believers may finally merit eternal life by their works, done by God's grace (salvation by grace through merit) dispensed from the treasury of the church, and to the attraction people find in external show and static liturgy and perfunctory practices which said gospel fosters.
On the other side are churches, and which basically are part of a evangelical movement now in decline, which more strongly take the Bible the way it takes itself (Jonah, etc. was a real story, but allegory is also prevalent in Scripture), and in practice as the sole supreme authority on earth in doctrinal matters, (sola scriptura) — though other sources can help understand it . And that souls cannot merit salvation, but are destitute of any means whereby they may escape eternal damnation and gain eternal life, and thus must have a day of salvation wherein they personally turn to Christ and trust Him for salvation on His expense and merit.
By such preaching, and the transformed lives that result, the church principally depends upon its growth, and is the most religiously persecuted for it, and by the secular powers for the moral conservatism that is part of it. While such churches are grounded in core doctrines, in which they are most universally are united — with “cults”, in contrast, being typically manifest as those who reject them — they are more adaptable to culture in non-moral areas, including style of worship, but are also prone to division in secondary matters, paradoxically due to commitment to doctrine. However, the latter usually results in the growth of their Evangelical movement, while departure from the core doctrines and its morality has negative consequences, and for the country.
As for Calvary chapel, i have never formally been part of that church, but as a denomination it think it has much typified this, especially its early years, despite its faults. I think this non-preachy documentary “A Venture in Faith", (http://vimeo.com/6728377 ) partly illustrates this.
2) The natural vs. supernatural causes of what? It's not clear from context.
Born again changed lives and miracles, which can have the former cause, full or part, but i think to wholly attribute all cases and aspects to such is insufficient.
It's harmless enough...unless they influence their school board to replace science with superstition.
Any real scientist must hold out the possibility that anything they believe could turn out to be completely wrong.
In the abstract...yes. As a practical matter, though, how much time should real scientists give to consideration of Flat Earth Theory, astrology, Velikovskyism, ghost hunting, creationism, and faith healing?
They should retain a measure of humble respect. Mocking others is effective against the 7 deadly sins, but is counterproductive against religious beliefs.
So they should be humble in the face of the vast evidence for such absurdities as Bigfoot, perpetual motion machines, quantum mysticism, crystal healing, and phrenology?
Some things deserve to be mocked.
Conviction? Of what? As for my sincerity, there's obviously no way for you to know my thoughts at the time. All you can do is take me at my word...or not.
I have a very sold Christian friend who twice “prayed to be saved” with no consequential reality, as there was no real conviction of his need. But as he continued seeking he progressively realized this, and had a profound conversion at 1am in the morning, by himself, which resulted in a radically transformed heart and life, with a life which further attests to to faith in Jesus resulting in reality.
Hm...This seems to be variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Any time someone prays to be saved and it doesn't take, you simply assert that they weren't sincere, or it would have worked. Convenient, that!
Calvinism would relegate you to being one of the non-elect,
The who would relegate me to the what? (Checking wikipedia...)
Seems awfully predestination-ish. I've never been a fan of fatalism, myself.
Simply a matter of degrees of warrant, and in that regard I am sure you have taken greater risks than that, as sometimes we must. There is no distinction between trust and faith in the Bible, and upon the premise that some warrant is provided for such, and progressively so, with the promised benefit versus not acting upon it making it rationally worth any risk.
Only if there's reason to believe that the act has a realistic chance of providing said benefit. Virtually every religion argues that I must perform certain acts or believe certain things to attain Heaven, Nirvana, Valhalla, etc...they can't all be true. Since they're mutually contradictory, at most one of them can be true.
Or, as seems more likely, none of them.
That you can see none is troubling , as in story after story in its historical genre we see God proving such warrant. Abraham was not given a telegram telling him to trust in a certain deity, but had Divine visitations with promises and instructions that resulted in reality. And believing that he would have a child in his old age did not constitute much of a risk, while moving to another locale was not unreasonable. Moses and the Israelites also were not simply given a book of doctrine to begin with, but saw abundant manifest miracles attesting to Divine origin. And with the resulting reality will provide warrant for more. Likewise the apostles, and who were challenged to make rational moral decisions as well as of belief, based upon evidence. The degree of the miraculous in the Bible is typically overlooked, and sets it apart from the Qur'an and many other such books, whether accepted or not.
On the contrary, I don't dismiss the miraculous nature of the events in the Bible; they're obviously part of the overall story. I just don't believe in them, any more than I believe the mythology of any religious text.
There is a profound and fundamental difference, with one basically being institutionalized, being mostly form with little real substance, in Biblical terms. In practice the Bible is not emphasized as the literal word of God, with a liberal, basically non-literal interpretive foundation employed in teaching it, and deference to church tradition predominates. They see little of the inner transformation of souls and its foundational faith which resulted in the growth of the New Testament church in the Bible. They thus tend to be morally liberal, even if some may officially state otherwise.
In other words, fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalists denominations...or am I misusing the term?
Most predominate among these is Roman Catholicism, in which, as is typical among cults, the Bible is at best a second tier authority, with the unwarranted but assuredly (when speaking in accordance with its infallibly declared formula) infallible magisterium effectively having supremacy (“sola ecclesia”), and a decidedly liberal hermeneutical interpretive basis (O.T. miracles being fables, etc.) And which thus allowed such unScriptural practices (1Cor. 5:11,12; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) as the Crusades and the Inquisitions, and upon which arm of the flesh it owed much of its growth. But which primarily to a gospel by which members are usually treated as being Christians from birth, (via infant baptism by proxy faith) and not in need of conversion, and which teaches than believers may finally merit eternal life by their works, done by God's grace (salvation by grace through merit) dispensed from the treasury of the church, and to the attraction people find in external show and static liturgy and perfunctory practices which said gospel fosters.
I don't think you and I use the word "cult" the same way. A religion shouldn't be characterized as a cult simply because their doctrines aren't Biblical, but rather because of practices such as cutting off members from family, expecting members to devote inordinate amounts of time to group activities, being required to socialize only with group members, etc.
Born again changed lives and miracles, which can have the former cause, full or part, but i think to wholly attribute all cases and aspects to such is insufficient.
Changed lives? There's no question that converting to a religion of any sort, not necessarily a Christian one, can have a profound impact on one's life. There's no need to invoke the supernatural for an explanation. As for miracles, I have yet to see one, nor am I aware of any that have held up to scrutiny.
The latter was what i meant to acknowledge, and sorry for the misunderstanding. What i meant by the Biblically concept of “conviction” is a deep realization of need of heart, or soul if you will, resulting in continued seeking, which is met in opening the heart to Christ and receiving Him for salvation, and resulting in realization of promised effects.
This seems to be variation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Any time someone prays to be saved and it doesn't take, you simply assert that they weren't sincere, or it would have worked.
Not simply sincere, but not ready. But this critique has some validity, and dealing with intangible spiritual things, like love, and the condition of heart, resists being testable. But that for eons of time those with a certain basic predisposition of heart realized the same thing in Christ is a phenomenon, which can be simply rendered by some to natural causes, but i think a closer analysis shows certain aspects which make that insufficient for all cases, and offers some distinction from other religions.
Changed lives? There's no question that converting to a religion of any sort, not necessarily a Christian one, can have a profound impact on one's life. There's no need to invoke the supernatural for an explanation. As for miracles, I have yet to see one, nor am I aware of any that have held up to scrutiny.
The long answer to would be to examine thousands of testimonies, documented by acquaintances, or separated by class of conversions, with a deeper look at the type and depth of effects and as corresponds to case, and the degree of difficultly as regards attribution to natural causes, individually as well as a consistent transcendent phenomenon. The studies i have seen do not go into that depth. As for miracles, the like would apply, discounting known fabrications while examining evidence for others, as well as why some types are more common while others are more rare. While there are Christian sources of different kinds of testimonies which sometimes, to various degrees offer documentation, as well as other sources whose interest is to disallow the supernatural, an objective extensive examination would be needed.
I have neither the time or resources for such, and my only personal testimony in this regard is that i had a lower hernia which i got after straining in lifting some hickory wood (the wrong way). After that when i lifted things by bending over, even around 30lbs, the lump in my groin would extend, and i would have to lay down after to let it recede, and so i had to be careful about lifting things. I could shovel snow if careful, using my arms and legs well, and I was quite lean, which helped, and i never wore trusses or such. But after having it about 6 years (1995), i went forward in a evangelical church which offered prayer for healing. There was no fan fare, and no sensation after a humble couple prayed for me, but after that it never had a problem with it again, thanks be to God. And i have done things like carry an old heavy washing machine (with some water still it) from the basement to the second floor, with a strong friend (i am 5'5'', 130lbs) and refrigerators, with me on the hand truck lifting, and engaged in strenuous lifting without a problem. But as it cannot be proven that these do not heal themselves, or apart from special techniques, and as i lack formal medical proof, then this would not qualify for study, and i have greater reasons for my faith than this after 30 years,thank God.
In other words, fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalists denominations...or am I misusing the term?
It often is! Especially in it being equated to the Islamic brand as regards physical militancy endangering the West, while in reality to be a Fundamentalist as Jesus was precludes the use of the sword of men by the church to further the kingdom of God under the New Covenant, while it is overall characterized by committed patriotism. Good to be able to converse with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.