Who Or What We Worship Determines How We Act.

[bhibatsu]

"Nobody is more dangerous than he who imagines himself pure in heart, for his purity, by definition, is unassailable."~James Baldwin

[SeventhSun]

"or those opposed to the only true God"

Sorry, there are other divine entities in the cosmos that are purer and higher than God.

[annelisefrench]

how do you know that?

[stoleninfo]

wouldn't the fact he is called God kind of put that into context kind of? who is like the most high? JOB was asked that very simple question by GOD in JOB maybe you need a JOB like experience? can you hang the sun? can you make the birds sing? do you control the winds? do you? get ready, mr 7. to meet the real mr. 7

[ForGodAlone]

We become like what we spend our time in. People deny this so they can fulfill their own lusts and desires, but it's true. Even the world's studies have proven this. This message tells this truth with more authority.

[pajoh]

The rigor of Schaeffer's reasoning, his willingness to reason itself, is not shared by today's evangelical communities. Schaeffer may argue for the centrality of the scripture, but his willingness to engage history and philosophy in a respectful and detailed manner is what makes him interesting, even if you don't agree with his conclusions.

[LaneCh]

It's sad, indeed. Evangelicalism if fighting for its life, and many that are professing to be in the camp do more harm to it these days than they do good.

[RedBeetle]

ejsejsejs equivocates when he uses the word "think" to mean something other than "believe" (assent to a proposition(s). The second fallacy in ejsejsejs's remarks is his assumption of empirical thought. He asserts that some thought can be non-propositional, but of course he can not give an argument for this, for it would require propositions, thus proving him wrong. All thought is propositional, as Gordon H. Clark demonstrated.

[RedBeetle]

I've read the works of Francis Schaeffer. I think that the presuppositional apologetic method of Gordon H. Clark is far better, but ejsejsejs is clearly wrong in his comments. He has equivocated. The word "think" means "believe" in this discussion. If you believe the Gospel, then you act like a Christian. If you do not, then you do not.

[ejsejsejs]

This contains th ebasic fallacy of all Schaeffer's teachings, the notion that "what we think determines how we act".

A greater problem is the dichotomy between thought and action, the fact that we often do not act according to what we think.

[LaneCh]

I let your comment through, but I don't agree.

[ejsejsejs]

I should clarify that as someone who has read everything Schaeffer wrote, I do agree with your subject header regarding worship and action. I think he confuses discursive thought with "noetic" thoughts. The former, such as can be found in philosophy or in our "presuppositional grid" does not necessarily determine how we act. The latter, however, which is clearly distinct from propositonal thought, doesn't necessarily determine any action. That is a big philosophical mistake in my opinion.

[LaneCh]

I haven't read a lot of his. I've read one book and parts here and there of a few of his others. I've also seen How Should We Then Live?, and I don't think he confuses the two. That doesn't really make sense how you word it. In HSWTL?, he took the idea of humanism (putting man at the center instead of God) and showed it throughout the ages starting from the early church. (cont...)

[LaneCh]

I don't think he rambled on about it, but he showed how the problem was displayed in each age. If you presuppose that you're the center of the universe, you're going to act accordingly.

[littleredbirdy]

If only the unconscious did not exist.