What You Have to Do First Before You Can Agree or Disagree with Someone - Justin Taylor

[Posted by Justin Taylor]

Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book:

You must be able to say, with reasonable certainty,

“I understand,”

before you can say any one of the following things:

“I agree,” or

“I disagree,” or

“I suspend judgment.”

For those who don’t do this, he says:

There is actually no point in answering critics of this sort.

The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position for you, the position they claim to be challenging.

If they cannot do it satisfactorily, if they cannot repeat what you have said in their own words, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms.

Alder goes on:

When you find the rare person who shows that he understands what you are saying as well as you do, then you can delight in his agreement or be seriously disturbed by his dissent.

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

My Train Wreck Conversion

As a leftist lesbian professor, I despised Christians. Then I somehow became one.

The word Jesus stuck in my throat like an elephant tusk; no matter how hard I choked, I couldn't hack it out. Those who professed the name commanded my pity and wrath. As a university professor, I tired of students who seemed to believe that "knowing Jesus" meant knowing little else. Christians in particular were bad readers, always seizing opportunities to insert a Bible verse into a conversation with the same point as a punctuation mark: to end it rather than deepen it.

Stupid. Pointless. Menacing. That's what I thought of Christians and their god Jesus, who in paintings looked as powerful as a Breck Shampoo commercial model.

To read more click HERE!  

________________________________________________________________________

For more interviews go to http://rosariabutterfield.com/

Dr. Butterfields book is available on Amazon.ca. Click on the book to go to Amazon.

Confusing General with Universal Statements

This except from Dr. Norman L. Geisler’s article Bible, Alleged Errors in, from his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, explains the difference between general and universal statements:

Confusing General with Universal Statements. 

Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point with glee to obvious exceptions. Such statements are only intended to be generalizations.

The Book of Proverbs has many of these. Proverbial sayings, by their very nature, offer general guidance, not universal assurance. They are rules for life, but rules that admit of exceptions. Proverbs 16:7 affirms that “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” This obviously was not intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to the Lord and his enemies stoned him (Acts 14:19). Jesus was pleasing the Lord, and his enemies crucified him. Nonetheless, it is a general truth that one who acts in a way pleasing to God can minimize his enemies’ antagonism.

Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” However, other Scripture passages and experience show that this is not always true. Indeed, some godly persons in the Bible (including Job, Eli, and David) had wayward children. This proverb does not contradict experience because it is a general principle that applies in a general way, but allows for individual exceptions. Proverbs are not designed to be absolute guarantees. Rather, they express truths that provide helpful advice and guidance by which the individual should conduct his daily life.

Proverbs are wisdom (general guides), not law (universally binding imperatives). When the Bible declares “You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:45), then there are no exceptions. Holiness, goodness, love, truth, and justice are rooted in the very nature of an unchanging God. But wisdom literature applies God’s universal truths to life’s changing circumstances. The results will not always be the same. Nonetheless, they are helpful guides.

The Eclipse of Athletic Achievement - James A. E. MacLellan

Well I have had months and months of various things that Rob Ford has done that strike me as foolish to downright immoral.  But here is one issue I will stand beside him on -- even at an arm's length. 

When it comes to the fight over the flag, he is right.  “This about the Olympics, this about being patriotic to your country,” Ford said.

Any thinking, objective person can see that this is about the LBGT movement getting press and being grossly opportunistic.  Where will we draw the line in future Olympic locations?   Is it the role of the international community to ascertain every issue in the host country and make a statement about it? Of course not.  So why pick this one?  

"According to international human rights organizations as well as domestic press, violations of human rights in Russia include widespread and systematic torture of persons in custody by police, dedovshchina in Russian Army, neglect and cruelty in Russian orphanages, violations of children's rights. According to Amnesty International there is discrimination, racism, and murders of members of ethnic minorities.  Since 1992 at least 50 journalists have been killed across the country." [1]

So why this one?  Why gay rights?   

The issue isn't even whether one agrees or disagrees with gay and lesbian issues.  

The issue is, "Who gets to decide what we protest?"

Rob Ford is right. Let's support sport; let's support Canada.  Unfortunately this Olympics will go down in history as advancing the cause of the LBGT movement and less will be known about fast times, tenacious endurance and the amazing skill of gifted athletes.  

That's sad.

______________________________________________

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia