<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who Said It?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/</link>
	<description>Spreading the fame of God by reaching, building, and equipping people in the character and priorities of Jesus Christ.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:07:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Hugh Williams</title>
		<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4697</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugh Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forGodsFame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/#comment-4697</guid>
		<description>Who said it? The answer is...

&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzche&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Friedrich Nietzsche&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;, the German philosopher most famous for his pronouncement that &quot;God is dead, and we have killed him.&quot;

My $0.02... I agree with Nietzsche. I would much rather have people on &quot;my side&quot; remain silent rather than put forward a case that holds no water... it amounts to damage I have to undo before I can make my own case.

Thanks to all who commented. For what it&#039;s worth, Vicki, I was most intrigued by your comment. It reminds me of something Francis Schaeffer said about our lives being the ultimate apologetic for what we believe. If Schaeffer&#039;s right, our lives may be the most important &quot;argument&quot; we can make for the cause of Christ in a world where God&#039;s word is dismissed. If the way we live is inconsistent with our profession, then we damage the Gospel. So I think you&#039;re right -- but I also think what you say is consistent with the spirit of the quote!

Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/15/who-said-it-2/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the next quote&lt;/a&gt;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who said it? The answer is&#8230;</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzche" rel="nofollow">Friedrich Nietzsche</a></strong>, the German philosopher most famous for his pronouncement that &#8220;God is dead, and we have killed him.&#8221;</p>
<p>My $0.02&#8230; I agree with Nietzsche. I would much rather have people on &#8220;my side&#8221; remain silent rather than put forward a case that holds no water&#8230; it amounts to damage I have to undo before I can make my own case.</p>
<p>Thanks to all who commented. For what it&#8217;s worth, Vicki, I was most intrigued by your comment. It reminds me of something Francis Schaeffer said about our lives being the ultimate apologetic for what we believe. If Schaeffer&#8217;s right, our lives may be the most important &#8220;argument&#8221; we can make for the cause of Christ in a world where God&#8217;s word is dismissed. If the way we live is inconsistent with our profession, then we damage the Gospel. So I think you&#8217;re right &#8212; but I also think what you say is consistent with the spirit of the quote!</p>
<p>Check out <a href="http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/15/who-said-it-2/" rel="nofollow">the next quote</a>!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rose</title>
		<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4695</link>
		<dc:creator>Rose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forGodsFame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/#comment-4695</guid>
		<description>As a science teacher, I know this is done by scientists who are supposed to be objective observers of the physical world, but who in reality bring in their worldview in absolute insistence that we can only believe things that are physical.  In reality this viewpoint is philosophical in nature and cannot be supported by science, since science can only deal with the physical realm and not the spiritual.  Science will always be limited by the interpretation of man who is fallible.  We will always view what we observe based upon our own frame of reference, our worldview. 

The quote you presented, Hugh, speaks of those who deliberately defend a cause with faulty arguments, but it has been my experience that people on both sides of the creation vs. evolution debate ignorantly defend their viewpoint with faulty arguments.  Perhaps, it is because we are so sure that we (humans in general) are correct in our claims, that when a new ‘finding’ comes along that supports our viewpoint, we may not even checkout the validity of the claims… which goes back to your original post: we fail to check for truth (especially if we respect the person who said it, but more often if it confirms our own beliefs from our own perspective).  

Anyone can see truth in this statement whether or not they ascribe to the author’s beliefs, because most of us have heard people use unsound claims to substantiate their ideas.  These same people fail to realize how they are weakening the support for their idea, because they use arguments that are flawed.  So it would stand to reason that as Christians we need to be prepared to give sound reasons for the hope that we have in Christ Jesus in order that, though we stand on Truth, the Truth may be clearly presented not just in creation, but through consistent study and a transformed life – which only occur through the power of the Holy Spirit, the gift of God to those who place their hope of salvation in Christ Jesus alone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a science teacher, I know this is done by scientists who are supposed to be objective observers of the physical world, but who in reality bring in their worldview in absolute insistence that we can only believe things that are physical.  In reality this viewpoint is philosophical in nature and cannot be supported by science, since science can only deal with the physical realm and not the spiritual.  Science will always be limited by the interpretation of man who is fallible.  We will always view what we observe based upon our own frame of reference, our worldview. </p>
<p>The quote you presented, Hugh, speaks of those who deliberately defend a cause with faulty arguments, but it has been my experience that people on both sides of the creation vs. evolution debate ignorantly defend their viewpoint with faulty arguments.  Perhaps, it is because we are so sure that we (humans in general) are correct in our claims, that when a new ‘finding’ comes along that supports our viewpoint, we may not even checkout the validity of the claims… which goes back to your original post: we fail to check for truth (especially if we respect the person who said it, but more often if it confirms our own beliefs from our own perspective).  </p>
<p>Anyone can see truth in this statement whether or not they ascribe to the author’s beliefs, because most of us have heard people use unsound claims to substantiate their ideas.  These same people fail to realize how they are weakening the support for their idea, because they use arguments that are flawed.  So it would stand to reason that as Christians we need to be prepared to give sound reasons for the hope that we have in Christ Jesus in order that, though we stand on Truth, the Truth may be clearly presented not just in creation, but through consistent study and a transformed life – which only occur through the power of the Holy Spirit, the gift of God to those who place their hope of salvation in Christ Jesus alone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vicki Miller</title>
		<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4690</link>
		<dc:creator>Vicki Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forGodsFame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/#comment-4690</guid>
		<description>I chuckle at the picture of Donald saying &quot;Perfidious&quot; three times fast. There&#039;s a lot of spit there!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I chuckle at the picture of Donald saying &#8220;Perfidious&#8221; three times fast. There&#8217;s a lot of spit there!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Farr</title>
		<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4689</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Farr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:13:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forGodsFame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/#comment-4689</guid>
		<description>Nice answer Vicki. I think they are both good ways to undermine a cause. 

It&#039;s hard to guess who might have said it because anyone who values making a reasoned case for a cause or belief might say such a thing. This is one of those areas where I often feel more kinship with an honest atheist (who will at least argue on the merits of the case) than a pluralist or relativist for whom everything is utterly subjective.

So, I&#039;ll guess J.P. Moreland or Bertrand Russell. How&#039;s that for hedging? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice answer Vicki. I think they are both good ways to undermine a cause. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to guess who might have said it because anyone who values making a reasoned case for a cause or belief might say such a thing. This is one of those areas where I often feel more kinship with an honest atheist (who will at least argue on the merits of the case) than a pluralist or relativist for whom everything is utterly subjective.</p>
<p>So, I&#8217;ll guess J.P. Moreland or Bertrand Russell. How&#8217;s that for hedging? <img src='http://forgodsfame.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bulldawgy</title>
		<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4684</link>
		<dc:creator>Bulldawgy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forGodsFame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/#comment-4684</guid>
		<description>Them there words was uttered by none other than Donald Duck.  Yep.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Them there words was uttered by none other than Donald Duck.  Yep.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vicki Miller</title>
		<link>http://forgodsfame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/comment-page-1/#comment-4683</link>
		<dc:creator>Vicki Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://forGodsFame.org/2007/07/12/who-said-it/#comment-4683</guid>
		<description>Hugh,
While having a poor argument for your belief is tragic, I don&#039;t know if I would agree that that is the most perfidious way. In my opinion, I would say the most damaging way to defend a cause is to talk about it and in your character or actions not live it out. I guess, be a hypocrite. 

I&#039;m sure someone really noble made this quote and I am going to feel like a real fool when you reveal their identity (Smile).
-Vicki</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hugh,<br />
While having a poor argument for your belief is tragic, I don&#8217;t know if I would agree that that is the most perfidious way. In my opinion, I would say the most damaging way to defend a cause is to talk about it and in your character or actions not live it out. I guess, be a hypocrite. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure someone really noble made this quote and I am going to feel like a real fool when you reveal their identity (Smile).<br />
-Vicki</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
