Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Hank | 177145 | ||
Hi, Parable - Each generation produces its crop of naysayers. If we mark off a generation by allotting it 20 years, I've been a part of three generations, and now am in the fourth. So I've been exposed to the psycho-babble of quite a few atheistic writers, the majority of them learned denizens of the halls of academe. These atheists sing the same tired old refrain. They have a way about them of using big words and a lot of them to say the same thing: I don't believe in God. They are those of whom the Psalmist spoke in Psalm 10:4: "The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, 'There is no God.'" Prominent among the current crop of naysayers are, in addition to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett -- fools all. The Bible says that the fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." ..... Consequently, Parable, I am in full agreement with BradK: Why should we listen to these naysayers? What indeed can we learn from a fool? Is it, indeed, worth the investment of precious time to bother with such blind guides as Sam Harris? No, I say, no, it is not. Whenever I feel inclined to read their books and expose myself to their godless evolutionary psychological and philosophical nonsense, I am reminded of what the Lord Jesus said to Peter when Peter impulsively tried to meddle in things that were none of his business: "What is that to thee? follow thou Me" (cf John 21:22). ...... Frankly, Parable, I believe the proper answer to the abbreviated version of your question, "How do we respond to Sam Harris?" is simply that we don't -- not, at any rate, on SBF which is designed for the study of God's word and not for arguments for God's existence. "The Bible begins with God, not with philosophic arguments for His existence." Thus spoke C. I. Scofield in his annotation of Genesis 1:1 (Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford). So I conclude with this: that we of Study Bible Forum should rivet our full attention upon God and His word and not upon responding to the atheistic arguments of Sam Harris or others of his stripe. I firmly believe that our Lord has not changed His mind one iota since He asked Peter, "What is that to thee? follow thou me." Such, I believe, would be His answer to us if we put our time to poor use by reading or paying the slightest attention to the worn-out, fatuous and inane arguments of fools. --Hank | ||||||
2 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177158 | ||
Hank, as always I respect your views and how graciously you express them. I agree that SBF is not the place to debate the existence of God, but none of my original questions were about this. I thank all those who have so far provided excellent examples from scripture in response to my first two and fourth questions about the nature of mystical faith as it may relate to Harris' concerns. However, I do believe my third question about what the bible says about religiosity being a problem is within the mission of SBF. Indeed, I feel that scripture agrees that religion is a burden to the world, and this is why Christ came, i.e. to clear the way for relationship instead. I look forward to any responses that speak to this point. Peace, Parable |
||||||
3 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177217 | ||
Hi Parable, I'm a bit confused. Could you explain how you, or Mr. Harris, are using the word "religion", in that it is considered a burden to the world? Do you mean the practice of works to become acceptable to God? Is this the same way Mr. Harris is using the word? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
4 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177219 | ||
You have a good point. It shows the truth of the statement "If you're not confused, you haven't been paying attention." :) "religion" to me is as you suggest. my understanding of what Mr. Harris means by this term is not so clear, but I suspect his meaning might include more than mine. given the meaning you suggest, how would you answer my question? |
||||||
5 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177221 | ||
Hi Parable, The Scripture that comes first to my mind in context to this discussion is: John 5:39-40 (39) You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me. (40) And you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. These people were trying to separate the Book from the Author. They wanted to set the terms, while even using the very Word of God itself! Jesus is saying, basically, "you can search this Book all you want, but if you don't come to Me you will not have life." And if that is true of the actual Word of God, how much more true is it of any writings, philosophies, or any practice of religion that is not from God? So I would agree that the "practice of religion", or "works to gain acceptance", leads mankind to think that they are OK with God, and is detrimental to them, because it disguises the fact that they are still dead in their sins. While I haven't read Mr. Harris's book, if seems from what you have said that he includes faith as a part of religion, as he attacks faith itself. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
6 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177223 | ||
yes, my understanding of Harris' argument is: faith in propositions that cannot be tested or for which there is no objective evidence, other than mystical writings, is inherently dangerous to mankind, and even more so now in an age when weapons of mass destruction are becoming more available to those who would use them to fulfill what they believe are written instructions from God to kill heretics or wage war on infidels, for example. My pastor this weekend delivered an excellent message that relates to this. About hating your enemies, he said "The more I hate to be wrong and the more I'm sure I'm right, the more I hate others who disagree with me, who are different. When I'm totally right and you're totally wrong, that could mean we're enemies. And we might have to kill each other for that." Harris says essentially the same thing, and adds that religious articles of faith, taken as divine revelation, leave no room for anything but absolute conviction in being right, because they come from God, who is truth, or so the faithful believe. Harris also argues that the benefits of religion are available by other means, so faith and religion are not necessary. However, instead of condemning faith, my pastor proceeds from this starting point to explain the deeper truth that God's power is made complete in weakness, that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world and that if we are to become more like Jesus, we must surrender our right to be right. Clearly, if people lived like this, the world would be much more peaceful. Furthermore, in contrast to Harris' idea that the benefits of religion are available by other means, I note that the truth of this teaching about weakenss can only be understood in light of the truth of Jesus. Otherwise, turning the other cheek and yielding to each other out of reverence for Christ are indeed foolish ways to live. |
||||||
7 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177225 | ||
Hi Parable, This last post helps me tremendously to understand what is being said. This first paragraph contains a presupposition which I do not agree with. This presupposes that the objects of all faiths are harmful. While that is true in many cases, it is not true in all cases. I would also take exception with your pastor's message. Hating to be wrong, and certainty of being right, do not automatically lead to hating those we disagree with. The problem with this is that, while it may be true in many instances, the Bible tells us to love others. This love, "agape", is "love which causes us to devote ourselves to the wellbeing of the object of that love." So tell me, how does that love lead us to kill the unsaved simply for being unsaved? (I am excluding the topic of capital punishment.) The terrorist "suicide/murderer" is not showing agape love towards others. And this proves that they are not living according to the Christian faith. Those who live according to the Christian faith are spending their lives helping others. The one who is growing in hatred is not growing in Christ. The one who is completely correct in Biblical doctrine knows that condemnation and vengeance are not for them to exact. The primary benefit of Christian Faith is only available through that faith - the salvation of our souls. We can only be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus - a mystical, supernatural faith that will not stand still for scrutiny in the lab. As far as "surrendering our right to be right" - I hardly know what to say to this! The Bible is true, and I will live and die on that belief. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Him. And if someone feels they must kill me because I believe that, and they have the power to do so, I will likely die, because I will not step down from that truth. We are not here to be at peace at the expense of truth. The truth MUST be proclaimed. And make no mistake, darkness will try to destroy the truth, although, ultimately, it can't. Christ didn't kill His enemies, but rather He died that they could have life. We are to do the same. So if Harris must disagree, let him disagree with a true Christian, who would not kill him for his disbelief, and let him not disagree with those who would. Because we are different. We serve a true and living God. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
8 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177226 | ||
I must qualify my use of my pastor's quote: I use it in a slightly different context than he did, so any disagreement you have is with my application, not his. If you wish to review his message, it will soon be available as a pod-cast at "www.wordofgrace.org" To clarify Harris' thesis, he contends that faith itself is the problem, because it leads people to act on the basis of what they believe without any rational support, and historically those beliefs have been harmful because of the atrocities they have inspired. He distinguishes faith from the object of faith, because without the first, the second is impotent. Regarding your comment "the terrorist "suicide/murderer" is not showing agape love towards others". I agree, but Harris might disagree because he explains that if you truly embrace the articles of faith of Islam, killing infidels is virtually the only logical conclusion you can reach, as it is for their own good because it separates them from their Godless beliefs. Such is the reasoning that Harris is challenging. Regarding your concerns about surrendering your right to be right, my pastor also said "the power of weakness is not the powerlessness of helplessness, giving up and giving in to life. No, the power of weakness means standing in the power of God released in me when I totally trust God because I'm totally helpless" and "even if I'm right, making that the issue can make me dead wrong". I submit that loving others sometimes means not asserting our right to be right, that's all. Your comment about the benefit of faith is on point. However, I note that in his doctoral work, Harris is studying the neuralogy of the brain in order to better understand how it behaves in various states of belief and disbelief. He is very much a laboratory experimentalist in this regard. |
||||||
9 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | mark d seyler | 177229 | ||
Hi Parable, Thank you for your clarifications. I agree completely with Harris's conclusions regarding Islam. I would contend that it is not the "faith" that is the problem, as Harris rightly concludes that faith connects us to it's object, but having faith in the wrong object - that's the problem! I think I understand what you are saying about "surrendering your right to be right", and "making that the issue". If it makes me arrogant, or I cease to act in love, I can be right, but how I then act because I know I am right can be wrong. About the power of God in weakness, I love the example of Moses. After his crushing failure in Egypt, he took up the shepherd's staff, but it was that staff that God used to perform mighty miracles. Hebrews directly contradicts Harris, in saying "without faith it is impossible to please God, because you must first believe that He exists, and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Harris would say "I don't have a problem with God, just with anyone believing in God." Regarding his neuralogical studies, we know that we who are born again are spiritual beings which cannot be seen contained in physical bodies which can be seen. But no matter how long you study how the electrical charges move through the circuits of a radio receiver, you will not hear the music through you schematics, and graphs. He wants to watch the oscilliscope, but he won't plug in a speaker, and knows nothing of the difference between Wagner and Bach! We know that cocaine mimics the physiology of accomplishment, and other drugs also mimic natural physiology, but as the scientists study those, they recognize that there is a "true", or "natural" physiology, and a conterfeit, which takes advantage of the true. There are many who believe in a false god, and they are liable to do anything. There are many who hold false beliefs about the true God, and they also are liable to do anything. But those that hold true beliefs about the true God, oh, but that the world were full of those! That would be heavenly! But I am afraid that Mr. Harris would no sooner differentiate between those, then he could tell whether a lightbulb is shining through a blue lens or a green lens by examining the electricity that flows through the filament. Love in Christ Mark |
||||||
10 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | 1 Pet 3:15 | Parable | 177230 | ||
I love your analogies! | ||||||