Shari made the kind of comment that makes this blog worth while. I do not subscribe entirely to what she says, but it is a unique contribution. Besides, the one thing I hope we all know about Bob’s Blog by now is that it is NOT dedicated just to Bob’s opinions. We are a SEMINAR, not a lecture. That is the exact disctinction between a lecture and a seminar.
Reacting to my quote from Mark Tawin, “Faith is believing in what you know ain’t so” Shari tied in our themes here in rejecting it:
Well Twain’s definition of faith is just the opposite. It’s the definition of no faith. Faith is not closing your eyes tight and repeating I believe, I believe. It’s opening your eyes and taking alook. Certainly we can see that western civilization has been based on very different things than the ant heap. The notion of social distinctions was not based on me am the sun god and the rest of you are cattle. It was based on the notion that a leader serves his people. A very Christian notion, even if men failed. As for territory, it wasn’t called “fortress Europe” for nothing, we believed in defence, but not cannibalism. After taking a look, faith has the imagination to take the next step. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Twains definition is the one used by college professers, which is then followed by their antheap history with lies thrown in. This is the jewish problem, no faith.
Comment by Shari
Excellent work!
#1 by Mark on 07/31/2006 - 8:19 am
Not Spam Not Spam Not Spam
“It’s the definition of no faith. Faith is not closing your eyes tight and repeating I believe, I believe. It’s opening your eyes and taking alook.”
Bob, no disrespect to Sherri personally, but how can you call this excellent when the premise is false? Faith is very much closing your eyes and suspending belief in the rational. Sherri’s own example from the bible proves my point entirely — I’m surprised you did not catch it: “Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN.
I never saw a goose that laid golden eggs or an old woman who lived in a shoe. Perhaps I should have had more faith, eh?
#2 by Shari on 07/31/2006 - 1:04 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
I daresay that no one goes through life without accepting all kinds of things that they don’t see, but based on the evidence. I never saw OJ kill Nichole but I certainly believe that he did. As for mother goose, they were recited to children to teach a point, not literally. I can’t imagine a child being confused about that either.
#3 by mderpelding on 07/31/2006 - 5:21 pm
NOT SPAM
Have you ever noticed that when a Christian debates
a Liberal on a theological point the Christian will
invariably quote the “Old Testement” to
refute a Liberal premise?
The Liberal will then continue the dialogue with a
“New Testement” quote?
Absolute Moral Purity to a Christian is Perfect Sacrifice.
Absolute Moral Purity to a Liberal is Perfect Victimhood.
To a Christian, if you refuse to be a Sacrifice,
YOU ARE EVIL.
To a Liberal, if you refuse to be a Victim,
YOU ARE EVIL.
Hitler witnessed both Sacrifice and Victimhood in
WW1.
He rejected both for his people.
So both Christians and Liberals viewed Hitler as EVIL.
And destroyed him.
#4 by Dave on 07/31/2006 - 8:17 pm
NOT SPAM
God save us from BELIEF (Goethe). I say: Right On!
#5 by Shari on 07/31/2006 - 8:57 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Okay, so it’s all been a horrible antpile. So why are we worried about surviving anyway? I’m not going round and round. Afraid, I’m just not man enough. Ha!