Is this a wokesm?
For me it seems austere.
Is this a wokesm?
For me it seems austere.
Bold2013 (December 3rd, 2022)
"Wokesm?"
I like the term “woke mind virus’ better.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
dneal (December 3rd, 2022)
So 😂😂
I don’t think he’s a medically trained anything….lol!
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
dneal (December 3rd, 2022)
I try to read/understand the Bible as it was intended to be. I have many limitations but I am trying to grow in my understanding.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
That is a simple question but requires massive unpacking to explain my answer.
First you have to determine the credibility of the Bible itself. Then analyze the specific account in exodus. Then analyze what the rest of scripture has to say of this event (there is a lot and in both testaments).
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Just start with the thesis (answer to the question): Did Moses literally part the Red Sea at any point in human history on this planet? It's a yes, no, maybe answer....at least to start. Then I will ask about the "logic" and "reason" that you used to get to that answer. I was surprised to hear a person of likely literal belief in the Bible chastize someone else for lack of "logic" and "reason" and "critical thinking." But I am giving you a chance to explain (if you want).
Exodus 14 says that the LORD drove the sea back in a literal sense.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Why is this difficult to believe if your efforts are based in "logic" and "reason"? Or, is the problem that critical thinking obstructs this specific belief?
I’m sorry TS. I see that was confusing. I replied to the wrong post of yours.
I meant to convey that I have tried to grow in the knowledge/reasoning/logic for my beliefs more than feelings/experiences.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
TSherbs (December 4th, 2022)
As noted in the "definition of christian" thread, critical thinking usually leads one to Kierkegaard and his leap of faith. There is a chasm of the unknowable, and belief in religion or science/cosmology requires that leap - to accept something as true in spite of those unknowable things.
If that led Bold to Christ or a literal interpretation of scripture, or EoC to Buddhism, or anyone to anything that fills the "religion shaped hole"; who are we to judge? as long as they're not forcing their belief on us, or demanding that we make the same leap.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
kazoolaw (December 4th, 2022)
I am certainly not "judging" faith. But Bold criticized someone else (strongly) for not using "logic" and "reason" and "critical thinking." I wanted to point out that faith is, in the end, the precise movement (leap) beyond these things.
I actually recognize and accept this leap, and have done it myself, and do not fault myself for having done so. I also don't over-value "critical thinking," even though it was my job, in part, to teach it. But there are other ways of "knowing" and "understanding" and being "right."
Post #5 was too obvious.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
The smiley face was meant to convey my tone and spirit. I like analogies, and I loved the WMV idea (even though it was pointed at me, in part). I wanted to joke about phoney weapons of mass woke virus in Iraq, but I couldn't come up with anything. So this attempt was hobbled from the start.
Sincere faith I have great respect for.
Weaponized faith meant to belittle or castigate or harm others, I do not. It's all in what use it is put to.
Bookmarks