Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Childlike Faith Message-ID: <582@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 18:49:07 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.582 Posted: Sun Feb 24 18:49:07 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 06:16:06 EST References: <576@pyuxd.UUCP> <345@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 129 [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