theosophist

I found in Daniel's latest blog a good example of his (rather typical) lack of perceptiveness when it comes to issues of life and spirituality. He was talking about turning over a new leaf in his life, and he listed several categories where he was looking to make changes. The two I'm interested in are "God" and "Stuff." His first commitment is in the "God" category. He is committed, he says, to spending more time with God via daily reading of Scripture and learning to depend more on God. He says he wants to grow closer to God. Sounds fair enough, and if he would have ended it here, all w

Thanks Yorke. You are probably touching on a weakness in this aspect of my disquisition, although I fail to see why it is a tautology. I guess I don't see how it is denotatively redundant to say it even as you put it: "his being infinite means that he can only described by an infinite number of propositions." I do need to think more about what it means for God to be infinite. Does he possess an infinite amount of attributes or a limited amount of positive attributes to an infinite degree? Is his very being infinite, and what could that mean? That he is self-subsisiting, so that he is es

We must never confuse relationship with reason in the Christian life, even though both aspects of our walk are important. Like Alvin Plantinga, I see a need to distinguish between belief in God and belief that God exists. I will address the former concept as belief and the latter as acceptance. Acceptance depends upon logical propositions (which are valid) about God. Belief is being informed by the real presence of God (Holy Spirit). Nevertheless, acceptance of propositional declarations, doctrines and creeds is also at the core of Christian life and understanding of God. But accept

My argument makes no sense? "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important." - C.S. Lewis

It sounds to me like you don't love money so much as what it brings to you: shelter, food, entertainment, etc. Everyone wants these things - everyone wants to be able to live comfortably. This is no sin. Loving money itself though - loving riches, loving wealth, is definitely sinful. I've already dealt with the Scriptural foundations for it and I could add a plethora of early church fathers who say the same thing. Loving your wife is a false analogy here because your wife is a person (created in the image of God), and not just any person - she is your mate for life - the one with whom yo

Thanks Daniel! I appreciate you taking time to respond. To me, this is an indication that you really care about this issue and aren't trying to brush it off. I do believe you have other reasons why you think its okay to play poker while being a committed Christian. My big problem was with your argument from silence (see first post). I saw it twice in your blog and then in BLUFF and I couldn't take it anymore! . It seems to be one of your favourite responses when anyone asks you about being a Christian and playing poker. If I have at least begun to rid you of that one argument, I will ha

I'm not sure I care for the patronising tone in this, but let's be grown up about it and deal with each other's arguments rather than each other's alleged abilities to "get it" or not "get it." The love of money itself is not evil? I surely beg to differ. It's one of the seven deadly sins - they call it greed. I would say it is much more evil than skipping a day of church on Sunday to go play in the Protege tourney. The text you quote is 1 Tim. 6:10, but you only quote part of it. The whole verse runs as follows: "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Some peo

Tim, you said that "He [Daniel] doesn't say that there's no mention of it [gambling/poker] in the Bible." But that is exactly what he says. I would encourage you to read him again. Omaha junkie eh? I like Omaha (because I like to play hands) but I always lose in the long run when I play it. I would also say that I am no "superfan" of Daniel's, but I think he's got a charasmatic and friendly personality, unlike so many other professional poker players. Flack: I think you are quite right. We have to draw our conclusions from what the Bible does say about related areas. It is not as if the

Let me say first off that I genuinely like Daniel Negreanu and find him to be a personable, well-meaning and thoroughly genuine person. This being said, I don't presume to question his status as a Christian. He says he's a believer in Jesus Christ and I take his word for it. So, none of what follows is an attack on Daniel as a person or as a Christian. Daniel is outspoken about many issues, and I have to say that, overall, I applaud his "upfront" approach about tackling tough issues. But lately, I have noticed an argument of his that seems to me to be lacking sense. I first saw it on hi

I doubt it. Ask an ordinary Christian to name some "famous" young-earth creationist scientists, and they'll look at you funny. The only community that these Young-earth scientists (YECs) have any following in is the more conservative evangelical wing of Christianity. But, I guess your southern (eastern) states have quite a few of those. Okay, so I will concede that YECs are relatively famous within a relatively large, southern population of Christians in the United States... the question is: is this really being famous, and if it is, is it the reason why these people are pursuing YEC sc

To be honest, I don't think very many people (including Jesus) consider Jesus a philosopher, but we'll let that pass. Having read both men, I would say Nietzsche definitely wins out for most convicted since Jesus taught mostly in parables and analogies. I would also think it is safe to say that most Christians aren't philosophers, so you're appeal there doesn't work. You say Jesus is dead? Hmmm - it sounds like you're convicted about that. Does that mean you're wrong? I'm also not sure what you were getting at with the last part of your opinion in this post. I never said "taking a C

Well, I don't know many philosophers who held more serious convictions than Nietzsche. Peace.

crowTrobot: "have you ever stopped for just a minute and thought about the possibility that these leading literal creationists (whether they were former atheists or not has nothing to do with it) might just be twisting/selectively interpreting the facts in a biased matter to make them fit their pre-existing agenda? and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?and they might be doing this for fame, or to s