tjhuguen@uok.UUCP (02/18/85)
Matthew 18:1-5 (KJV) :
1 At that time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying,
Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set
him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be con-
verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter
the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this
little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of
heaven.
5 And whoso shall recieve one such little child in my
name recieveth me.
To accuse one who believes in Jesus Christ of being
immature and childlike in his thinking is the highest of
compliments, as ( if the accusation is true ) the one who
is being accused is reassured of his trust in the Lord.
In fact, it takes childlike faith to beieve the things
taught by Jesus Christ. It is the very maturity of your
argument that is your downfall. Nevertheless, It is bet-
ter to be "cold" (anti-Christ) or "hot" ( Christian) than
to be "lukewarm" (i.e. hypocritical, pharisaical ).
Thank for your unintentional compliment, Mr. Rosen.
Tom Huguenard
ctvax!uokvax!uok!tjhuguen
". . . And when Peter was come down out of the ship,
he walked on the water, to go to Jesus."
Matt 14:29brlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/22/85)
> To accuse one who believes in Jesus Christ of being immature and childlike > in his thinking is the highest of compliments, as (if the accusation is true) > the one who is being accused is reassured of his trust in the Lord. In fact, > it takes childlike faith to beieve the things taught by Jesus Christ. It is > the very maturity of your argument that is your downfall. Nevertheless, it is > better to be "cold" (anti-Christ) or "hot" (Christian) than to be "lukewarm" > (i.e. hypocritical, pharisaical ). > Thank for your unintentional compliment, Mr. Rosen. > Tom Huguenard ctvax!uokvax!uok!tjhuguen If you truly believe what you've said, you wouldn't at all mind letting your own children run your household, make your decisions, be the "parents" in your home. I doubt that you would actually do so. Is the child's faith in the child molester's offer of candy what you are seeking? To be childlike in one's wonder of the universe is something none of us should lose. But life teaches us that the faith that the child has in the universe, that all things are taken care of and turn out all right, is as erroneous as the child's belief in fairies and monsters. And gods. Life is not what the child might perceive it to be. It is a beautiful rhetorical device, to compare faith in god to the faith of a child in the universe, because we may have fond memories of the innocence of childhood, and wish for those wishes to come true. But experience shows us that the faith of the child is not a given, by any means. As the child who has faith in parents who are incompetent or malevolent in parenting. As the child who has faith in the support of the thin ice he/she walks upon on the pond. I'm not painting a pretty picture. I'm saying that something that some might like to believe to be a great and true thing, the faith of an innocent child, is not what it is wished to be. My claims are borne out by the evidence. Life and the set of pretty pictures one might claim as "the way it is" don't always intersect. No matter how hard you may close your eyes and wish it to be so. It wasn't intended as a "compliment". It still isn't. "Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see whether the seeds move. Think first. Be unique." [thanks to Jon Stumpf, rochester!jss] -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester) (02/22/85)
>> To accuse one who believes in Jesus Christ of being immature and childlike >> in his thinking is the highest of compliments, as (if the accusation is true) >> the one who is being accused is reassured of his trust in the Lord. In fact, >> it takes childlike faith to beieve the things taught by Jesus Christ. It is >> the very maturity of your argument that is your downfall. Nevertheless, it is >> better to be "cold" (anti-Christ) or "hot" (Christian) than to be "lukewarm" >> (i.e. hypocritical, pharisaical ). >> Thank for your unintentional compliment, Mr. Rosen. >> Tom Huguenard ctvax!uokvax!uok!tjhuguen > > ... To be childlike >in one's wonder of the universe is something none of us should lose. But life >teaches us that the faith that the child has in the universe, that all >things are taken care of and turn out all right, is as erroneous as the child's >belief in fairies and monsters. And gods.... [RLR] Where did you see him say anything about childlike faith in the universe? The metaphor compares a child's faith in his parent with a believer's faith in his God, not a blind belief that " everything will turn out okay". Scott Deerwester Graduate Library School University of Chicago
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/23/85)
> > To accuse one who believes in Jesus Christ of being immature and childlike > > in his thinking is the highest of compliments, as (if the accusation is true) > > the one who is being accused is reassured of his trust in the Lord. In fact, > > it takes childlike faith to beieve the things taught by Jesus Christ. It is > > the very maturity of your argument that is your downfall. Nevertheless, it is > > better to be "cold" (anti-Christ) or "hot" (Christian) than to be "lukewarm" > > (i.e. hypocritical, pharisaical ). > > Thank for your unintentional compliment, Mr. Rosen. > > Tom Huguenard ctvax!uokvax!uok!tjhuguen > > If you truly believe what you've said, you wouldn't at all mind letting your > own children run your household, make your decisions, be the "parents" in You missed the point Rich. You called us immature and childlike in having a faith that did not meet your mature standards. That is what makes what you said such a compliment. > your home. I doubt that you would actually do so. Is the child's faith in > the child molester's offer of candy what you are seeking? To be childlike You're digressing into an emotional value judgement here. > in one's wonder of the universe is something none of us should lose. But life > teaches us that the faith that the child has in the universe, that all > things are taken care of and turn out all right, is as erroneous as the child's > belief in fairies and monsters. And gods. Life is not what the child might You're making a value judgement on what life teaches Rich Rosen; do you think it just might teach other people other things? > perceive it to be. It is a beautiful rhetorical device, to compare faith in > god to the faith of a child in the universe, because we may have fond memories > of the innocence of childhood, and wish for those wishes to come true. But > experience shows us that the faith of the child is not a given, by any means. > As the child who has faith in parents who are incompetent or malevolent in > parenting. As the child who has faith in the support of the thin ice he/she > walks upon on the pond. Who said God is incompetent or malevolent? If you said it, does this mean that Rich Rosen believes that God doesn't exist because he doesn't come up to your expectations of him? Hey, Rich. Come, on! The important thing in life is not that everything is great and hunky-dory. This life is nothing when compared to eternity(my value judgement). We just try to do the best we can, trusting in God that though some people follow Satan, and do evil things, in the end(literally), all will be for the triumph of good. Not that we shouldn't do anything on this earth to make it bearable; but as a Christian I do everything for the greater glory of God. > I'm not painting a pretty picture. I'm saying that something that some might > like to believe to be a great and true thing, the faith of an innocent child, > is not what it is wished to be. My claims are borne out by the evidence. Life > and the set of pretty pictures one might claim as "the way it is" don't always > intersect. No matter how hard you may close your eyes and wish it to be so. > > It wasn't intended as a "compliment". It still isn't. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Not that you're necessarily going there. But, I digress. > > "Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic > without looking to see whether the seeds move. Think first. Be unique." In this so called rational world, being unique means having faith. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr The best thing I can say Rich is that in the end you and I will disagree; you have a faith based on rationality; I have a faith based on trust. Sincerely yours, DAVE BROWN
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/25/85)
[I'll get to two rebuttals at once, if possible] >>>To accuse one who believes in Jesus Christ of being immature and childlike >>>in his thinking is the highest of compliments, as (if the accusation is true) >>>the one who is being accused is reassured of his trust in the Lord. In fact, >>>it takes childlike faith to beieve the things taught by Jesus Christ. It is >>>the very maturity of your argument that is your downfall. Nevertheless, it's >>>better to be "cold" (anti-Christ) or "hot" (Christian) than to be "lukewarm" >>>(i.e. hypocritical, pharisaical ). >>> Thank for your unintentional compliment, Mr. Rosen. >>> Tom Huguenard ctvax!uokvax!uok!tjhuguen >> ... To be childlike >>in one's wonder of the universe is something none of us should lose. But life >>teaches us that the faith that the child has in the universe, that all >>things are taken care of and turn out all right, is as erroneous as the >>child's belief in fairies and monsters. And gods.... [RLR] > Where did you see him say anything about childlike faith in the > universe? The metaphor compares a child's faith in his parent > with a believer's faith in his God, not a blind belief that " > everything will turn out okay". [DEERWESTER] Funny, I spent a good deal of the rest of the article discussing exactly what you described. Why wasn't THAT part quoted? >>If you truly believe what you've said, you wouldn't at all mind letting your >>own children run your household, make your decisions, be the "parents" in > You missed the point Rich. You called us immature and childlike in > having a faith that did not meet your mature standards. That is what makes > what you said such a compliment. [DAVE BROWN] And I explained why immaturity and childlike-ness, while they may be interesting precepts to your belief system, result in erroneous, and often dangerous views of the real world. Read the article again. >>your home. I doubt that you would actually do so. Is the child's faith in >>the child molester's offer of candy what you are seeking? To be childlike > You're digressing into an emotional value judgement here. [D. BROWN] Claiming that "being 'childlike' and 'immature' is beneficial" is NOT an emotional value judgment????? That was the whole point of the article (or one of them). It may be nice to think of oneself as childlike, of one's faith as based on childlike-ness, but as I pointed out the faith of a child, while you may like it and revel in it, is not something to be desired. Children get scooped up (literally) daily because of their childlike faith. Their trust in malevolent parents, or dangerous child molesters, is not beautiful by any means. It is a sad and frightening thing. > You're making a value judgement on what life teaches Rich Rosen; do you > think it just might teach other people other things? I'm making statements about the real world. Not about how you or I might choose to perceive it. You might see that faith as a wonderful thing. But would you agree that it's wonderful in the case of parents who have faith that their sick child will be cured through faith, when that child dies? Faith is just a nice word for "blind assumption", a not so nice set of words. They mean the same thing, but the word "faith" offers benign and beauteous connotations. If I came up with a beautiful word/phrase for "poison" (like "elixir of wondrous sleep") would it become any better? >>It is a beautiful rhetorical device, to compare faith in >>god to the faith of a child in the universe, because we may have fond memories >>of the innocence of childhood, and wish for those wishes to come true. But >>experience shows us that the faith of the child is not a given, by any means. >>As the child who has faith in parents who are incompetent or malevolent in >>parenting. As the child who has faith in the support of the thin ice he/she >>walks upon on the pond. > Who said God is incompetent or malevolent? If you said it, does this mean > that Rich Rosen believes that God doesn't exist because he doesn't > come up to your expectations of him? How far can you bend my words before they break? I claim that given the evidence (or lack thereof) there is no reason to assume the existence of god as a given, which is a prerequisite for your faith. I drew an analogy between the dangers of childlike faith (it isn't always as it seems to the eyes of a child) and the dangers of other blind faiths. If you saw from that that I was insinuating that a god whose existence I don't believe in is malevolent or imcompetent, you're very good at jumping to conclusions. > Hey, Rich. Come, on! The important > thing in life is not that everything is great and hunky-dory. This life is > nothing when compared to eternity(my value judgement). We just try to do > the best we can, trusting in God that though some people follow Satan, > and do evil things, in the end(literally), all will be for the triumph > of good. Not that we shouldn't do anything on this earth to make it > bearable; but as a Christian I do everything for the greater glory of > God. To reiterate what I've said before for those who apparently haven't read it but choose to respond to me anyway: 1) your basis for believing in god, satan, eternity, etc. all stem from your assumption of their existence first, which is an extremely flawed way of reasoning. If you like it, there's nothing to stop you from doing it. But don't then twist my words to make it seem like your statements then become more accurate. >>I'm not painting a pretty picture. I'm saying that something that some might >>like to believe to be a great and true thing, the faith of an innocent child, >>is not what it is wished to be. My claims are borne out by the evidence. Life >>and the set of pretty pictures one might claim as "the way it is" don't always >>intersect. No matter how hard you may close your eyes and wish it to be so. >> >>It wasn't intended as a "compliment". It still isn't. > "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Not that you're > necessarily going there. But, I digress. [DAVE BROWN] I'm not sure what the purpose of making this statement was. If you have nothing to say of substance (agreement, disagreement, counter-reasoning) in response to what I've said, then why bother saying anything? >>"Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic >> without looking to see whether the seeds move. Think first. Be unique." > In this so called rational world, being unique means having faith. 1) Which so-called rational world are you referring to? 2) Unique? Hardly. > The best thing I can say Rich is that in the end you and I will disagree; > you have a faith based on rationality; I have a faith based on trust. Ay, there's the rub. You trust in what you have faith in because you have faith that it exists, because you trust in it, because ... -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr