PDA

View Full Version : Man is god!



Pages : 1 2 [3]

shurale
28-06-2010, 00:14
Well, if you have two wives and you are not a bishop or a deacon, then it is not a sin to think about sex with them. Actually you can even think about sex with three women.



awww someone needs a hug.

firstly, you don't know what I believe and you have already admitted you don't care to know about what we believe.

No it is not a sin to think about having sex with two women at the same as such(not that i was even remotely thinking that gee- i have no idea what they even look like).

it is much simpler than that:

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

James 1:15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

so you have to look upon/gaze upon someone(which i havent) then you have to think about it and dwell upon it to give rise to sin(which i haven't). Ans all such sins are considered equally bad in God's eyes and of course i do sin- i have never pretended i didn't. Infact it is quite impossible not to-hence why Jesus was on the cross in the first place and we aren't trying to follow 613 laws of the old testament. sinners go to heaven, just not every sinner.

shurale
28-06-2010, 00:50
0

Stoning is it good or bad? Well, it depends. Rape is it good or bad? Again, it depends. Abortion is it good or bad? It depends. Incest is it good or bad? The same, it depends. Everything depends on when and where.

shurale
28-06-2010, 01:11
Infanticide is bad

Although keeping parrots and curlews, the [pagans] do not adopt the orphan child. Rather, they expose children who are born at home. Yet, they take up young birds. So they prefer irrational creatures to rational ones!
Clement of Alexandria

Infanticide is good

'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' 1 Samuel 15:3

yakspeare
28-06-2010, 02:46
stoning is always bad...read the new testament it is free online.

tsarski
28-06-2010, 07:45
So it was good for Jews to stone people (for pre-marital sex or for gathering sticks on Saturday) because God told them so, but it is bad for Christians to do the same?

Where did you ever read that it was "good" for the Jews to stone people? Why do you ask the same question again (reworded) when I only just answered in my last post to you? Are you just having a joke with me?

rusmeister
28-06-2010, 08:12
I generally abandon threads when they devolve to a number of parallel conversations, as this one has - which should be separate threads - and certainly when those responding are fundamentally irrational and fail to adequately respond to what I am saying, as has happened here. It's a waste of time.

Still, I'd like to have conversations with the polite and interesting posters here who DO respond and think about what I say (as I try to return that complement). There were a few posts buried somewhere in this mess that I wanted to respond to and now don't even want to look for.

AstroNoodle
28-06-2010, 09:21
I generally abandon threads when they devolve to a number of parallel conversations, as this one has - which should be separate threads - and certainly when those responding are fundamentally irrational and fail to adequately respond to what I am saying, as has happened here. It's a waste of time.

Still, I'd like to have conversations with the polite and interesting posters here who DO respond and think about what I say (as I try to return that complement). There were a few posts buried somewhere in this mess that I wanted to respond to and now don't even want to look for.

I quit posting in the religion section, because the threads disappeared, and sometimes I wanted to go back and re-read them. What a waste in my opinion.

shurale
28-06-2010, 16:29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Do you want to tell me that the Jews disobeyed God when they stoned damsels "who cried not, being the in the city"?
Or that part of the Bible was not inspired by God?


Where did you ever read that it was "good" for the Jews to stone people? Why do you ask the same question again (reworded) when I only just answered in my last post to you? Are you just having a joke with me?

shurale
28-06-2010, 16:36
stoning is always bad...read the new testament it is free online.

If stoning is always bad, then why did they stone Achan the son of Zerah?
Did the Jews disobey God and did a bad thing or they obeyed His will and did the right thing? Or they did the bad right thing?
By the way, how about sons and daughters of Achan?

JOSHUA 7:24-26 NKJ
24 Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, the silver, the garment, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his donkeys, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had, and they brought them to the Valley of Achor.
25 And Joshua said, "Why have you troubled us? The Lord will trouble you this day." So all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones.
26 Then they raised over him a great heap of stones, still there to this day. So the Lord turned from the fierceness of His anger. ....

shurale
28-06-2010, 16:39
stoning is always bad...read the new testament it is free online.

How about infanticide?

tsarski
28-06-2010, 18:22
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Do you want to tell me that the Jews disobeyed God when they stoned damsels "who cried not, being the in the city"?
Or that part of the Bible was not inspired by God?

It's quite clear that you have no understanding of Christianity. You can certainly read but it is very much without understanding. Yakspeare and I have tried to help you. Read Titus 3:9-11.

shurale
28-06-2010, 22:24
KJV: But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

All the same, Old Testament is part and parcel of the Bible and God told His Chosen people to stone and kill infants and toddlers.


It's quite clear that you have no understanding of Christianity. You can certainly read but it is very much without understanding. Yakspeare and I have tried to help you. Read Titus 3:9-11.

Willy
03-07-2010, 01:25
Listen to George,


YouTube- George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

Russian Lad
03-07-2010, 09:03
Even if you, believers, cannot come to terms as to what you believe in, how can we, mere and sound-minded observers, believe that even a yota of what you are saying would withstand the scrutiny of even a seven years old boy? Think about it and do notice that we, atheists and agnostics alike, don't argue between ourselves regarding this subject.

yakspeare
03-07-2010, 11:49
but you do...it is one thing to say there is no God but people cant leave it at that....so we invent theories and even commit scientific fraud to suggest we come from monkeys...before that we were a soup of proteins n the worlds oceans...on a planetoid which by random chance had the atmosphere to support life AND within the life zone of a healthy mid sized sun in the prime of its cycle and that gravity here is neither to strong or weak.....atheism requires far more imagination...far more 'faith' and far more suspension of disbelief than religion.

even a 7 year old can tell you that :p

agnostics i have no argument with but those who ridicule our beliefs will find logic is in fact on our side.

yakspeare
03-07-2010, 11:56
and i notice you still have that stupid quote from shurale who we have long established is not a christian but an anti-religious troll....so naturally we disagree with him!

MickeyTong
03-07-2010, 13:34
.....logic is in fact on our side.



http://i44.tinypic.com/rbjtc4.jpg


....you really can't argue with logic like that.....

Willy
03-07-2010, 13:58
http://i44.tinypic.com/rbjtc4.jpg


....you really can't argue with logic like that.....




I can't wait for he's reply, I think I'm gonna pee me pant)

yakspeare
03-07-2010, 15:26
original sin is a church concept and not especially a biblical one....the jews believe man is born good but just is likely to sin...i tend to agree with them as christianity is supposed to be the fulfilment ofthe jewish faith.

it is a bit like the church saying earth is flat when the book of Job(oldest book in the bible) says it is a sphere and long before the greeks.

and God didnt "create" sin...sin is to turn away from him.....to show obedience to him a symbolic sacrifice is made in the temple....but this was only a stopgap measure....by turning away we are unholy and God cannot stand anythjng unholy....so he took that sin upon himself and took the place of the animal sacrifice so we can be made holy again and our relationship can be restored to the state we were before we sinned in the beginning....basically we screwed up and this our way to come home.

thanks for playing..

rusmeister
03-07-2010, 16:09
original sin is a church concept and not especially a biblical one....the jews believe man is born good but just is likely to sin...i tend to agree with them as christianity is supposed to be the fulfilment ofthe jewish faith.

it is a bit like the church saying earth is flat when the book of Job(oldest book in the bible) says it is a sphere and long before the greeks.

and God didnt "create" sin...sin is to turn away from him.....to show obedience to him a symbolic sacrifice is made in the temple....but this was only a stopgap measure....by turning away we are unholy and God cannot stand anythjng unholy....so he took that sin upon himself and took the place of the animal sacrifice so we can be made holy again and our relationship can be restored to the state we were before we sinned in the beginning....basically we screwed up and this our way to come home.

thanks for playing..
Mostly agree.
I'd just point out that understandings of what exactly is "Biblical" and what exactly "the Church" is may vary. Orthodoxy teaches "ancestral sin" as opposed to "original sin", so we acknowledge that we inherit the effects without being personally responsible for Adam's sin - and I don't believe the Catholic teaching is so different. Certainly the Orthodox teaching is "Biblical"

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
About as Biblical as it gets.

But the general thrust of your post is quite Orthodox.

MickeyTong
03-07-2010, 16:22
it is a bit like the church saying earth is flat when the book of Job(oldest book in the bible) says it is a sphere and long before the greeks.

and God didnt "create" sin...sin is to turn away from him.....to show obedience to him a symbolic sacrifice is made in the temple....but this was only a stopgap measure....by turning away we are unholy and God cannot stand anythjng unholy....so he took that sin upon himself and took the place of the animal sacrifice so we can be made holy again and our relationship can be restored to the state we were before we sinned in the beginning....basically we screwed up and this our way to come home.

thanks for playing..

Well, Yak.....you're a doubleplusgood bellyfeel duckspeaker, and you and Big Brother truly love each other.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word would not have been made flesh in Jesus if humankind didn't need redemption....so the Fall was necessary for the script to be followed.... I certainly don't think the Church is the final authority on these matters (sorry Mr Pope and Mr Patriarch), but you Protestants still follow the Book which has been authorised by the Church.

Christianity is the fulfilment of the Jewish faith? How come they don't see the logic of that? Must be that 3000 years of monotheism made it hard to accept when a carpenter's son said "hey! there's 3 of us, we were just teasing you until now".

Not that I think that logic is the be-all-and-end-all of a human being. I really do recommend that you go to a place where you are immersed in Nature, take a potent dose of psilosybin and dissolve a few boundaries. You'll realise that words are "meaningless", including the one made flesh.

I always enjoy playing :11157:

MickeyTong
03-07-2010, 16:27
Hello Rus :-) Long time, no see....

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Since death is experienced by all biological organisms, are we to believe that this is all a consequence of Adam's sin?

yakspeare
03-07-2010, 17:13
mickey i wasnt really having go at you-just willy jumping on the bandwagon.....i am happy to debate with anyone who is tolerant ,polite and with open mind even if they disagree......russianlad and in particularly is4fun are of the strong opinion we should be in the nutfarm(under your care) just because we believe in a god and that no sane person does...this is patently false..they mock our beliefs which isnt exactly helpful.

and when i was talking logic i was referring to how life occurred on this planet to reflect an evolutionist requires just as much faith.

as for Jesus all but a few learned people accept he walked the earth...whoever he was, and thus we need to form an opinion of who or what he was.

i also point out he was a jew,so were his disciples and so was those he preached to....so for a great many jews the concept of 3 in1 wasnt difficult...and christianity is monotheistic.

1 John 5:7 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

and our bibles doesnt really originate under catholicism...

"The Vaudois
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. "

MickeyTong
03-07-2010, 17:30
mickey i wasnt really having go at you....


Never mind............

.........enjoy this (from one of your compatriots)

YouTube- Lisa Gerrard "Redemption" 2009 HD

MickeyTong
03-07-2010, 17:39
Here they are again :-)

YouTube- Dead Can Dance - The Host Of Seraphim

rusmeister
03-07-2010, 22:38
Hello Rus :-) Long time, no see....

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Since death is experienced by all biological organisms, are we to believe that this is all a consequence of Adam's sin?
Actually, yes, we are.
As long as you understand the word "sin" properly, without emotional knee-jerk reactions. (Try "violation of owner's manual instructions". It's pretty easy to understand how something can be objectively screwed up by misuse of a device.)
If Adam did something that introduced a permanent and universal self-perpetuating virus into the system, guaranteeing the eventual failure of all programs, you'd see it as something pretty heinous, and not something to sneer at.

shurale
05-07-2010, 12:42
Last March I guess I met a chess player who has an uncommon disease. It is like opposite of AIDS. He doesn't have deficit of immune but excess and so his body attacks itself.
When I was going home from the club, I was thinking about it and I thought that this is amazing how many diseases there are. You would think that ten could be enough but there are so many.
It is all the fault of Adam of course. When I met any Adam, I will kick his balls.

shurale
05-07-2010, 14:09
It should be a modern idea that shit happens because God allows shit to happen.
In the OT (with the exception of Job) shit happens because God causes shit to happen.



RL, he gaves us autonomy and the ability to think for ourselves and is not a micro-manager of our daily lives. He does not deny us personal responsibility either. planes crash because pilot error or mechanical error and of course God putting mountains in the way long ago. If he was throwing fireballs at jetliners then your argument holds water but otherwise a plane crash generally has very little to do with God. We are taught that the world is in a broken state(the fall) so we get sick and die on our own. we shoot and kill each on our own and all such things....you can't say why did God let that happen and still allow the concept of free-will.

God CAN and DOES intervene in certain circumstances, I have had one clear experience of that when i was 19. It is something that i don't really choose to have mocked on this forum but their was about 500 witnesses to it, most were christians but some weren't, including the emergency crews and volunteers and they all became christians afterwards. Thing is, despite having this very clear miracle(and therefore not even requiring and ounce of faith any more) later my mind wanted to reject it as unreal or even a dream etc. our tiny brains cannot really cope with the concept of God or miracles. Indeed, like the bible said, that even if someone was raised from the dead and visited you and told you the truth...i sincerely believe you would reject it as mass hysteria, delusion, mental illness or the like. And this is quite a normal and rational response even if it isn't true.

Willy
05-07-2010, 20:58
Actually, yes, we are.
As long as you understand the word "sin" properly, without emotional knee-jerk reactions. (Try "violation of owner's manual instructions". It's pretty easy to understand how something can be objectively screwed up by misuse of a device.)
If Adam did something that introduced a permanent and universal self-perpetuating virus into the system, guaranteeing the eventual failure of all programs, you'd see it as something pretty heinous, and not something to sneer at.



Eve made him do it.

That's what I'm talking about.

MickeyTong
07-07-2010, 17:00
Actually, yes, we are.
As long as you understand the word "sin" properly, without emotional knee-jerk reactions. (Try "violation of owner's manual instructions". It's pretty easy to understand how something can be objectively screwed up by misuse of a device.)
If Adam did something that introduced a permanent and universal self-perpetuating virus into the system, guaranteeing the eventual failure of all programs, you'd see it as something pretty heinous, and not something to sneer at.

:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:

I do understand the concept of divine commandments being analogous to operational instructions for manufactured devices. Failure to follow instructions would certainly be remiss and may have negative consequences. What I find heinous (or would do if I believed the story) is that Adam was placed in an environment which he trusted 100%, he had no concept of even discomfort never mind distress, anguish, fear, pain, suffering.....no idea of what a negative consequence (of even mild intensity) might be. He and Eve were totally innocent, naive: no concept of evil, of deceit, no awareness that anything in their world felt malevolence towards them and would lie so as to harm them. They didn't know what lies, malevolence or harm are.

And what happens to Adam, Eve and their descendants (and all living things, so I am now informed) as a consequence of a first offence? Death, disease, suffering, despair, pain: the end of paradise and the beginning of horror. No mild rebuke to acquaint these naive people with the need to follow operating instructions.....and no forgiveness, either. As if their creator didn't know what they would do after they had met the serpent.

Sgt <temp name>
07-07-2010, 20:56
:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:

I do understand the concept of divine commandments being analogous to operational instructions for manufactured devices. Failure to follow instructions would certainly be remiss and may have negative consequences. What I find heinous (or would do if I believed the story) is that Adam was placed in an environment which he trusted 100%, he had no concept of even discomfort never mind distress, anguish, fear, pain, suffering.....no idea of what a negative consequence (of even mild intensity) might be. He and Eve were totally innocent, naive: no concept of evil, of deceit, no awareness that anything in their world felt malevolence towards them and would lie so as to harm them. They didn't know what lies, malevolence or harm are.

And what happens to Adam, Eve and their descendants (and all living things, so I am now informed) as a consequence of a first offence? Death, disease, suffering, despair, pain: the end of paradise and the beginning of horror. No mild rebuke to acquaint these naive people with the need to follow operating instructions.....and no forgiveness, either. As if their creator didn't know what they would do after they had met the serpent.

Very well put! You have saved me the bother of writing. This is probably the most damning question to ask and I have never heard it properly answered by those who are supposed to know these type of things. It appears that God put these innocent and naive creatures into a den of thieves and then was dismayed when it all went to shit! It is one of the reasons that I don't preach to people.

As far as "it all being Eve's fault" That's pure bunk! Eve is clearly described as being the "helpmate" of the man, Adam. It was HIS job to see that she was not unduly influenced. To protect her. But of course he failed in this because he was created naive of evil.
When it was all over and they were kicked out of the Garden, Eve, being woman felt let down by her man, Adam, and developed a resentment.

This resentment and accompanying emotions are inherited throughout the generations of women to the present time and is one of the leading causes of the problems and misunderstandings between the two sexes to this day.

yakspeare
07-07-2010, 21:12
it basically comes down to this....God is a Holy creature that hates sin....but he is also has full knowledge of the future and DESPITE everything that would happen- all the terrible situations we would find ourselves in...it was still worth it to create man and give him free will.

right from the very beginning measures were put in place , in his relationship with the Jews and those who were not Jews but followed the commandments of Noah- down to the ACTUAL event of bringing us back.

Jesus is called the second Adam for a reason....through the first Adam(not Eve) sin entered the world, through the second Adam we are as white as snow EVEN when we are what we are...we get a free pass and this is the whole aspect of grace...we just have to acknowledge that sacrifice and we get the promise of what Eden was and in Eternity this time now will be just a small dot and insignificant....it wasn't God's great desire to see man fall- but he knew it was going to happen and made us anyway.

it ISN'T about punishment and making these rules to condemn us...his very nature requires it and in the garden they chose to listen to another rather than listen to God. It was a mistake sure but Holiness is Holiness and we have to respect his very nature.

It is a bit like intent murder versus manslaughter....you accidentally kill someone you still go to jail for manslaughter even though there was no intention. There HAD to be punishment as it is in the criminal justice system "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But God immediately put plans in motions(actually many) too ensure we could come back.

certainly a God who kicked them out of paradise and condemned them forever isn't worth following but that ISN'T what this is about...it is about forgiveness and mercy and yet we need to respect God is Holy and Divine and Just too and can't naturally have sin in his sight..so he didn't forget us or abandon us to this fallen world and there is promise of new heaven and new earth for those who of his children who accept his rule willingly.

shurale
07-07-2010, 21:29
All terrible situations? How about that terrible situation when your daddy wants to slaughter you like a lamb?
Or when a man of God tells you to kill some infants and toddlers?



it basically comes down to this....God is a Holy creature that hates sin....but he is also has full knowledge of the future and DESPITE everything that would happen- all the terrible situations we would find ourselves in...it was still worth it to create man and give him free will.

right from the very beginning measures were put in place , in his relationship with the Jews and those who were not Jews but followed the commandments of Noah- down to the ACTUAL event of bringing us back.

Jesus is called the second Adam for a reason....through the first Adam(not Eve) sin entered the world, through the second Adam we are as white as snow EVEN when we are what we are...we get a free pass and this is the whole aspect of grace...we just have to acknowledge that sacrifice and we get the promise of what Eden was and in Eternity this time now will be just a small dot and insignificant....it wasn't God's great desire to see man fall- but he knew it was going to happen and made us anyway.

it ISN'T about punishment and making these rules to condemn us...his very nature requires it and in the garden they chose to listen to another rather than listen to God. It was a mistake sure but Holiness is Holiness and we have to respect his very nature.

It is a bit like intent murder versus manslaughter....you accidentally kill someone you still go to jail for manslaughter even though there was no intention. There HAD to be punishment as it is in the criminal justice system "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But God immediately put plans in motions(actually many) too ensure we could come back.

certainly a God who kicked them out of paradise and condemned them forever isn't worth following but that ISN'T what this is about...it is about forgiveness and mercy and yet we need to respect God is Holy and Divine and Just too and can't naturally have sin in his sight..so he didn't forget us or abandon us to this fallen world and there is promise of new heaven and new earth for those who of his children who accept his rule willingly.

yakspeare
07-07-2010, 22:01
Shurale i am not especially interested in your bigoted rantings, i find your posts highly offensive, at least is4fun and russian lad , mickey tong and many others have the guts to put down what they believe and what they don't-you are simply the worse kind of troll and i won't respond to your demented posts any longer.

shurale
07-07-2010, 22:51
Is it time for personal insults?

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.


Shurale i am not especially interested in your bigoted rantings, i find your posts highly offensive, at least is4fun and russian lad , mickey tong and many others have the guts to put down what they believe and what they don't-you are simply the worse kind of troll and i won't respond to your demented posts any longer.

rusmeister
08-07-2010, 05:52
:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:

I do understand the concept of divine commandments being analogous to operational instructions for manufactured devices. Failure to follow instructions would certainly be remiss and may have negative consequences. What I find heinous (or would do if I believed the story) is that Adam was placed in an environment which he trusted 100%, he had no concept of even discomfort never mind distress, anguish, fear, pain, suffering.....no idea of what a negative consequence (of even mild intensity) might be. He and Eve were totally innocent, naive: no concept of evil, of deceit, no awareness that anything in their world felt malevolence towards them and would lie so as to harm them. They didn't know what lies, malevolence or harm are.

And what happens to Adam, Eve and their descendants (and all living things, so I am now informed) as a consequence of a first offence? Death, disease, suffering, despair, pain: the end of paradise and the beginning of horror. No mild rebuke to acquaint these naive people with the need to follow operating instructions.....and no forgiveness, either. As if their creator didn't know what they would do after they had met the serpent.

To a great extent, what yakspeare said.

I see you making a lot of assumptions in the understanding of the nature of the Fall - it looks like you read the Genesis account and are filling in a lot of blanks not actually dealt with their from your own imagination. The assumptions would be reasonable if there were more details to justify them - but there aren't - not in the Biblical account, at any rate.

You also leave out the basic truth that God warned them. While He did allow freedom to disobey - that is what free will is - He told them honestly what would happen. If a parent tells a child (say, a 9 or 10-year-old) not to play in the street (and that he can get killed by a car) and he disobeys, and gets hit and killed, then the parent - who must let the child go by degrees and sooner or later give him enough freedom to disobey and risk bad things happening - is not wicked or evil. What we have is a completely avoidable tragedy, and the fault rests with the child - who disobeyed in spite of the parent's stern and frequent admonishments. The parent does his or her best - but at some point you have to let the child go and hope that they learned (the analogy admittedly has limitations, as all analogies do.

And forgiveness has nothing to do with it, as yakspeare said. It is an objective and irrevocable consequence that is a natural result of disobedience. In fact, to reverse the effects of this God Himself chose to become one of His own creatures (man) - imagine turning yourself into a caterpillar in order to save the race of caterpillars from extinction - never mind the part that if a caterpillar doesn't die, it is transformed into a thing of beauty and freedom - and He accepted humiliation, torture and death at the hands of those creatures in order to make it possible to reverse the effects.

Sgt <temp name>
08-07-2010, 06:08
You also leave out the basic truth that God warned them.

You call that a "warning" If you did that to your child, left something deadly in the house all bright, shiny and beautiful on the coffee table, even after telling them that it would kill them, and then left them to be lied to by strangers, which resulted in your children eating this stuff, you would be arrested and charged for reckless child endangerment.

yakspeare
08-07-2010, 07:32
rubbish....it wasnt like it was said in passing, like an off the cuff remark...it was a stern commandment from the almighty, that they were free to anything else but this one thing and they will die if they do it....if your parents say dont play in traffic you will be killed....do you still play in traffic? can you blame the parents then if some tragedy occurs? adam and eve were not toddlers.

tsarski
08-07-2010, 07:54
Is it time for personal insults?

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

If you are going to quote scripture then at least quote it correctly,

Matt 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

mmm wonder how long you have been misquoting it? Yakspeare certainly has a cause to be angry with you. You've just proved it.

shurale
08-07-2010, 11:06
Tsarski, thank you very much. My fault was that I was reading a heretical translation of the Bible.
Now KJV says
22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou ***** shall be in danger of hell fire.

However, this heretical version again says
22But I promise you that if you are angry with someone, [a] you will have to stand trial. If you call someone a ***** you will be taken to court. And if you say that someone is worthless, you will be in danger of the fires of hell.
It doesn't mention any cause of that anger.

shurale
08-07-2010, 12:05
I've read that some manuscripts say without a cause and some don't.
Is that without a cause important or not?
If yes, then why such descrepance? Did God permit it?

MickeyTong
08-07-2010, 12:53
To a great extent, what yakspeare said.

I see you making a lot of assumptions in the understanding of the nature of the Fall - it looks like you read the Genesis account and are filling in a lot of blanks not actually dealt with their from your own imagination. The assumptions would be reasonable if there were more details to justify them - but there aren't - not in the Biblical account, at any rate.

You also leave out the basic truth that God warned them. While He did allow freedom to disobey - that is what free will is - He told them honestly what would happen. If a parent tells a child (say, a 9 or 10-year-old) not to play in the street (and that he can get killed by a car) and he disobeys, and gets hit and killed, then the parent - who must let the child go by degrees and sooner or later give him enough freedom to disobey and risk bad things happening - is not wicked or evil. What we have is a completely avoidable tragedy, and the fault rests with the child - who disobeyed in spite of the parent's stern and frequent admonishments. The parent does his or her best - but at some point you have to let the child go and hope that they learned (the analogy admittedly has limitations, as all analogies do.

And forgiveness has nothing to do with it, as yakspeare said. It is an objective and irrevocable consequence that is a natural result of disobedience. In fact, to reverse the effects of this God Himself chose to become one of His own creatures (man) - imagine turning yourself into a caterpillar in order to save the race of caterpillars from extinction - never mind the part that if a caterpillar doesn't die, it is transformed into a thing of beauty and freedom - and He accepted humiliation, torture and death at the hands of those creatures in order to make it possible to reverse the effects.

Rusmeister.....I'm no match for your faithful jesuistry. I may even have been convinced, had I not had previous exposure to persuasive apologetics at a time when I questioned my "false consciousness", with its erroneous core premises and conceptual matrix.

Does Orthodox doctrine hold that faith is a personal achievement, or that it is gifted? Saul of Tarsus comes to mind.

rusmeister
08-07-2010, 14:11
Rusmeister.....I'm no match for your faithful jesuistry. I may even have been convinced, had I not had previous exposure to persuasive apologetics at a time when I questioned my "false consciousness", with its erroneous core premises and conceptual matrix.

Does Orthodox doctrine hold that faith is a personal achievement, or that it is gifted? Saul of Tarsus comes to mind.
Not sure of what your thoughts here mean.
I'm not even Catholic, so "Jesuistry" seems a little odd. Also not sure what your second sentence means.

Faith is a habit that needs to be trained, which is the result of a choice. The choice can overcome all appearances and arguments to the contrary if you make the simple choice to have faith.
I'd say it is both achievement and gift. You take whatever baby step you can take - that is the achievement part, and the rest is gift. The Gospel story of the desperate father whose son was possessed who said, "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!" illustrates this well. This can also be seen in "Miracle on 34th St when Natalie Wood (at the very end) is saying, "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..." It's something that even a child can do.

MickeyTong
08-07-2010, 14:56
Not sure of what your thoughts here mean.
I'm not even Catholic, so "Jesuistry" seems a little odd. Also not sure what your second sentence means.

Faith is a habit that needs to be trained, which is the result of a choice. The choice can overcome all appearances and arguments to the contrary if you make the simple choice to have faith.
I'd say it is both achievement and gift. You take whatever baby step you can take - that is the achievement part, and the rest is gift. The Gospel story of the desperate father whose son was possessed who said, "I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!" illustrates this well. This can also be seen in "Miracle on 34th St when Natalie Wood (at the very end) is saying, "I believe, I believe, it's silly but I believe..." It's something that even a child can do.


I know you're not Catholic, Rus. The word "jesuistry" (small 'j') is a neologism I encountered somewhere, cognate with "casuistry", which I thought was quite perspicacious given the Jesuits' educational role vis-a-vis Catholic dogma: "clever" arguments in defence of faith.

My 2nd sentence: I had a (quite lengthy) interlude of sincere, devout Islamic faith following a time when I questioned the validity of what my upbringing, education and personal predilections had led me to believe were "the truth about life". Accepting Islamic faith was not easy, and my subsequent apostasy was even less easy. But I am now well inoculated against clever pedlars of "The Truth".

yakspeare
08-07-2010, 15:13
mickey i commend you for trying and to be frank that is the most important thing...we may even have a beer outside the pearly gates-everything is up to God's grace.

I don't try to be clever with my words in apologetics- i simply say the christian faith can be logical(infact must be-even if it might seem foreign to our logic) and to NOT believe requires just as much faith as to believe...everyone has their human born right to believe what they want...i only seek to educate those under false assumptions about what we believe or those who question our sanity in choosing to believe. i am sure i come across as preachy at times but my religion and faith is being challenged and often mocked....if it was not for one annoying fact(that i do believe jesus was infact the son of God) i would actually be jewish as i have far more in common with their thinking than mainstream christianity-and they believe that man is born good and that all. not just jews, who follow some very basic commandments(not even the ten commandments) will be saved. they also focus on the here and now rather than what would be a reward in heaven and i think that is quite healthy in perspective. i am a big believer in the grace of God and i resist dogmatic arguments as much as possible(hence i won't bother with shurale) as i just don't think it is so important.

cheers and beers. a combination of an open mind and healthy scepticism is a blessing.

rusmeister
08-07-2010, 18:51
What yakspeare said.
Honestly, Mickey, I think yakspeare is Orthodox, and just doesn't know it yet.
:wink:
(PS - that is a complement to y/s AFAIC)

And yes, arguing dogma is useless - you accept it or you don't. Or you are aware of your own dogmas - or you aren't. (Usually it is non-religious people who are least aware that their own dogmas are dogmas.)

shurale
09-07-2010, 00:27
You should be hung up before the Lord against the sun
together with your scientists.

I think so much that I probably owe apology to some people that I cannot even concentrate my chess games as much as I would. So here goes...

I said that "You should be hung up before the Lord against the sun
together with your scientists" as a joke. Like the Russian saying goes "in every joke there is a little bit of a joke" (but more later about it). Is4fun took it so seriously that I wanted to play along a bit. And well, I got carried off a bit with it.
That is all for now. I am sorry. I am sorry that some of you are old, and that some of you are bold and I am sorry that America lost its way.

2ndWind
09-07-2010, 07:49
You'll realise that words are "meaningless", including the one made flesh.

Once upon a time in an English course (long after I left the Baptist college), I had an assignment to write a poem. I wrote two lines and, as I recall, got an "A" for the effort. I never did ask the professor about his religious beliefs.

"The Word"

Absurd is a word.
The Word is absurd.

by: H. D. Smith - 1968

shurale
12-07-2010, 16:33
Arthur Leonard Schawlow was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist known best for his work on lasers. "I'm a fairly orthodox Protestant. I've been in a lot of Protestant churches... Recently my son and I both joined the Methodist Church in Paradise, California, and that's the only one I go to now... I think the world is too wonderful to have just happened. And I think that orthodox Christianity is a good conduct for life, and I hope it's true. "
--
William D. Phillips, received a Nobel Prize for his contributions to laser cooling.
"...In 1979, shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience."
---
Antony Hewish is an influential radio astronomer who received the Nobel Prize for his work on pulsars
"I believe in God. It makes no sense to me to assume that the Universe and our existence is just a cosmic accident, that life emerged due to random physical processes in an environment which simply happened to have the right properties.

As a Christian I begin to comprehend what life is all about through belief in a Creator, some of whose nature was revealed by a man born about 2000 years ago."

is4fun
15-07-2010, 18:13
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
author unknown... :)

YouTube- Monty Python "Stoning" extremely amusing ^^

is4fun
15-07-2010, 21:00
mickey i wasnt really having go at you-just willy jumping on the bandwagon.....i am happy to debate with anyone who is tolerant ,polite and with open mind even if they disagree......russianlad and in particularly is4fun are of the strong opinion we should be in the nutfarm(under your care) just because we believe in a god and that no sane person does...this is patently false..they mock our beliefs which isnt exactly helpful.

and when i was talking logic i was referring to how life occurred on this planet to reflect an evolutionist requires just as much faith.

as for Jesus all but a few learned people accept he walked the earth...whoever he was, and thus we need to form an opinion of who or what he was.

i also point out he was a jew,so were his disciples and so was those he preached to....so for a great many jews the concept of 3 in1 wasnt difficult...and christianity is monotheistic.

1 John 5:7 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

and our bibles doesnt really originate under catholicism...

"The Vaudois
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. "

Please be mindful that I am following the rules as dictated in the forum thus anyone who does believe should be in a “nutfarm” and under the strict supervision of Mr. Tong. My instinct as a realist would also recommend sedation; as a cure for aberration has yet to be discovered.

Not a single iota of physical, historical or biological proof had been provided nor refuted in any post on neither this thread nor others of a superior entity. One poster had even quoted a contemporary story teller. LOL
All that was posted were profound psychological attachments to a few written words from an ancient text which was written, rewritten, edited, rewritten and re-edited providing only a personal interpretation based on their personal beliefs.

This is typical of religious fanaticism; “I believe because I am not comforted that I must take responsibility for my own actions and act accordingly.”

Man created a living cell able to replicate itself. Ok, he brought a living cell from the dead that was able to replicate itself. Whatever the scenario: Man is truly a god. :)

SV1973a
15-07-2010, 21:53
Man created a living cell able to replicate itself. Ok, he brought a living cell from the dead that was able to replicate itself. Whatever the scenario: Man is truly a god. :)

That is one of the great steps, and only just the beginning.
I hope to see the day when man will have created a `self-conscience` artificially. I believe that once we understand enough about our own self-conscience, we may try to imitate it.

is4fun
17-07-2010, 17:29
That is one of the great steps, and only just the beginning.
I hope to see the day when man will have created a `self-conscience` artificially. I believe that once we understand enough about our own self-conscience, we may try to imitate it.

You are waaaaay ahead of me. :) No problem, however, as science will eventually find that truth. I'm just living in the year 2010 and find it absolutely unreasonable to have to contend with people who feel a profound relationship with fantasy; especially those who nestle with dogmas which have always been tied to a simple text providing a few tales.

SV1973a
17-07-2010, 19:15
You are waaaaay ahead of me. :) No problem, however, as science will eventually find that truth. I'm just living in the year 2010 and find it absolutely unreasonable to have to contend with people who feel a profound relationship with fantasy; especially those who nestle with dogmas which have always been tied to a simple text providing a few tales.

To me, a very interesting issue is `self-conscience`. What makes a person (and probably some animals as well) aware of himself (itself) ?
I think it all takes place in the brain, where trillions of connections are made between brain cells.
Is there some kind of treshold that dictates that above a certain number of connections, the system becomes to realise that it exists ?
Is a brain, completely deprived of sensory organs `aware` of its existance ?
Why is a baby not aware that it exists ?
Are higher animals aware that they exist, and are they aware of their mortality ?
Will we be able to download the contents of a brain to a mechanical or electronical device ?
Imagine that this is possible, and you are now a mechanical brain (perhaps in a mechanical body). This is close to eternal life...
I hope that science will one day find the answers to these questions.

MickeyTong
17-07-2010, 19:50
To me, a very interesting issue is `self-conscience`. What makes a person (and probably some animals as well) aware of himself (itself) ?
I think it all takes place in the brain, where trillions of connections are made between brain cells.
Is there some kind of treshold that dictates that above a certain number of connections, the system becomes to realise that it exists ?
Is a brain, completely deprived of sensory organs `aware` of its existance ?
Why is a baby not aware that it exists ?
Are higher animals aware that they exist, and are they aware of their mortality ?
Will we be able to download the contents of a brain to a mechanical or electronical device ?
Imagine that this is possible, and you are now a mechanical brain (perhaps in a mechanical body). This is close to eternal life...
I hope that science will one day find the answers to these questions.

The BIG question!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html

MickeyTong
18-07-2010, 04:28
YouTube- larry david on religion

Jack17
18-07-2010, 09:17
YouTube- larry david on religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1yOckwMm_k)
Mickey, do they have on Scotish TV Larry David's sitcom, "Curb Your Enthusiasm?" To my taste, he is one of the funniest men alive. Not sure if his humor translates well in the UK?

As to the discussion at hand, I believe Luther maintained that "Faith" was decidedly a gift of God and not something that man could be taught or come to on his own. It sounds as though Rusmeister wants to have it both ways and truly, I have no idea what the Orthodox Church maintains. But, as a product of 12 years of Jesuit education and a true Jesuitical thinker, the Roman Catholic Church's view is: God invites man to believe, and (like all things involving free will) it is man's choice to accept this invitation. So, in short, rather than a gift that involves no real conscious decision (as Luther maintained) Faith is more an "act" of man, than God. Now, how do you feel about that distinction? Does that solve any of life's great misteries for you? I guess you could sum up the distinctions about Faith among Lutheran Reformation Theology, Catholocism and Orthodoxy then as follows: God's doing, Man's doing and . . .a little of both. Interesting, how does Islam view the subject of Faith? Anyway, my Faith has evolved into a simple Epicurean belief: If it feels good, do it. So, the way I see it, take your pick of whatever view makes you happiest.

Swordfish90293
18-07-2010, 09:33
Anyway, my Faith has evolved into a simple Epicurean belief: If it feels good, do it. So, the way I see it, take your pick of whatever view makes you happiest.

Good for you Jack. As long as everyone's thinking and decision making are as sound as yours seems to be, the world would be in great shape. Problem is there's too much divergent thought, even among Christians, Catholics and Lutherans, Jesuits and Franciscans.

This comes under the heading of 'no black and white solutions'. Especially today, there is more respect for divergent thought and solutions...

Is 'Jesuitical' a real word?

rusmeister
18-07-2010, 14:13
Just a general observation Jack, after having appreciated your distinctions on the attaining of faith :) :
"If it feels good, do it" works...until it doesn't work.
Screwing every girl you might feel really good (if you ignore the impact of your follow-up actions on them), and it works until someone leaves you with syphilis or AIDS.
It may feel good to keep eating or drinking until indigestion or hangovers catch up with you (and later things like cirrhosis).
Life may feel good, until death comes and breaks it up.

But in the end, it doesn't work. What then? Leaving aside the AIDS scenarios, what happens when you have built your house, planted your tree, had your children, and are ready to kick back and REALLY enjoy life when a doctor tells you this lump in your body seems like a malignant tumor? Or that your children were killed in a fiery car crash? Or anything from the Book of Job? What answer does your epicureanism offer then? Aside from despair, I don't see anything. The Romans already tried epicureanism to death, and it did lead to a dead end, to despair and the Colosseum. You were much closer to satisfying answers with the Catholics, even if you never found them (and despite my own objections to Catholicism).

Swordfish90293
18-07-2010, 16:45
Just a general observation Jack, after having appreciated your distinctions on the attaining of faith :) :
"If it feels good, do it" works...until it doesn't work.
Screwing every girl you might feel really good (if you ignore the impact of your follow-up actions on them), and it works until someone leaves you with syphilis or AIDS.
It may feel good to keep eating or drinking until indigestion or hangovers catch up with you (and later things like cirrhosis).
Life may feel good, until death comes and breaks it up.

But in the end, it doesn't work. What then? Leaving aside the AIDS scenarios, what happens when you have built your house, planted your tree, had your children, and are ready to kick back and REALLY enjoy life when a doctor tells you this lump in your body seems like a malignant tumor? Or that your children were killed in a fiery car crash? Or anything from the Book of Job? What answer does your epicureanism offer then? Aside from despair, I don't see anything. The Romans already tried epicureanism to death, and it did lead to a dead end, to despair and the Colosseum. You were much closer to satisfying answers with the Catholics, even if you never found them (and despite my own objections to Catholicism).

I think the qualifier to Jack's statement is that one needs to take responsibility for their actions, whether they're screwing, eating or making moral judgments...all's fair as long as nobody gets hurt. You can dish it out as long as you can take it. All's fair in love and war. Live by the sword, well, you get the idea, hopefully...

MickeyTong
18-07-2010, 18:34
Mickey, do they have on Scotish TV Larry David's sitcom, "Curb Your Enthusiasm?" To my taste, he is one of the funniest men alive. Not sure if his humor translates well in the UK?


Yes we do - he is brilliant!

2ndWind
18-07-2010, 19:49
Problem is there's too much divergent thought, ...

Isn't this something like the famous George W. Bush quote : "there ought to be limits to freedom."

Would you propose limits to the freedom to think?

[Emphasis mine.]

Jack17
18-07-2010, 20:33
Just a general observation Jack, after having appreciated your distinctions on the attaining of faith :) :
"If it feels good, do it" works...until it doesn't work.
Screwing every girl you might feel really good (if you ignore the impact of your follow-up actions on them), and it works until someone leaves you with syphilis or AIDS.
It may feel good to keep eating or drinking until indigestion or hangovers catch up with you (and later things like cirrhosis).
Life may feel good, until death comes and breaks it up.

But in the end, it doesn't work. What then? Leaving aside the AIDS scenarios, what happens when you have built your house, planted your tree, had your children, and are ready to kick back and REALLY enjoy life when a doctor tells you this lump in your body seems like a malignant tumor? Or that your children were killed in a fiery car crash? Or anything from the Book of Job? What answer does your epicureanism offer then? Aside from despair, I don't see anything. The Romans already tried epicureanism to death, and it did lead to a dead end, to despair and the Colosseum. You were much closer to satisfying answers with the Catholics, even if you never found them (and despite my own objections to Catholicism).
Rusmeister, whether bestowed by God or chosen by man, isn't the purpose of Faith for us to attain eternal life with our Father Who art in heaven? Or, is it to avoid AIDS/HIV and the fruits of the profligate life? Does your Faith make you less a sinner than I? Are you primarily a debator or devout Believer? If a Believer, as you profess, then I would stick to the high ground and focus on the ultimate reward of eternal life that comes to every true Believer; not Faith as a means to avoid suffering on this earth, which, we all know from the Manechean is a fallen state of existence anyway in which we all suffer. No, the Believer's true reward is not here, but there! Now, if you're primarily a debator, then you're on the right track. You've cleverly set me up, by implication, as a straw man lethario banging every cute skirt that passes by (would that that were true!) who has contracted AIDS, syphillis and probably clamydia and who soon will have a malignant tumor on his penis. Woe I say unto thee O Zion, Woe unto thee, unless ye repent of your sins - watch out!! Well, that's a tried and true debating device, but not especially Christian, do you think?

They said in the US that Seinfeld was the show about nothing; the same can be said for this thread. One thing that is certain, that the death both the Believer and non Believer face is the same. What happens after, is pure speculation.

Swordfish90293
18-07-2010, 21:08
Isn't this something like the famous George W. Bush quote : "there ought to be limits to freedom."

Would you propose limits to the freedom to think?

[Emphasis mine.]


Not at all #2...the statement refers to the situation. It means there is such a volume, such a variety of thought that it would be difficult to formulate a dogmatic solution. Any open mind is up for divergent thought. This leaves George out of the equation...

rusmeister
19-07-2010, 08:01
Rusmeister, whether bestowed by God or chosen by man, isn't the purpose of Faith for us to attain eternal life with our Father Who art in heaven? Or, is it to avoid AIDS/HIV and the fruits of the profligate life? Does your Faith make you less a sinner than I? Are you primarily a debator or devout Believer? If a Believer, as you profess, then I would stick to the high ground and focus on the ultimate reward of eternal life that comes to every true Believer; not Faith as a means to avoid suffering on this earth, which, we all know from the Manechean is a fallen state of existence anyway in which we all suffer. No, the Believer's true reward is not here, but there! Now, if you're primarily a debator, then you're on the right track. You've cleverly set me up, by implication, as a straw man lethario banging every cute skirt that passes by (would that that were true!) who has contracted AIDS, syphillis and probably clamydia and who soon will have a malignant tumor on his penis. Woe I say unto thee O Zion, Woe unto thee, unless ye repent of your sins - watch out!! Well, that's a tried and true debating device, but not especially Christian, do you think?

They said in the US that Seinfeld was the show about nothing; the same can be said for this thread. One thing that is certain, that the death both the Believer and non Believer face is the same. What happens after, is pure speculation.

Swordfish avoided my point altogether (an excellent debating tactic if you have no arguments to work from); you seem to merely have misread it.

I'm describing the chain of thinking that lead me inexorably to faith; the realization that no matter how much fun you have, success you experience, (even while 'making sure no one gets hurt'), that death ends it all, and by the philosophy you profess, makes it meaningless (ends the meaning, if you prefer; it's the same thing).

Leaving aside the images of heaven and hell that people from varying traditions hold, believers not only want to attain heaven; they also want to avoid, not only hell as some imagine it, but the meaninglessness that makes existence intolerable - not only as an emotional preference, but as something that logically nullifies the sense of every action that we take. I mean, if there is no God, then it really doesn't matter what I do - at all. I could kill myself right now, or I could do sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until my body falls apart, or I could take meticulous care of my body and still become worm food 30 years from now. Realizing that striving for the usual American dream was merely building a house of cards, one that not only could collapse at any minute, but WILL collapse no matter what I do, was what caused me to reject that hedonistic agnosticism I was living in. Whereas conversely, the Christian faith makes complete sense out of what would otherwise literally be meaningless. All of my desires are confirmed to be valid, and not merely wishful thinking. I am right to have desires, I am right to hate and fear death (but not to do so excessively), I am right in not wanting all that I have become to disappear for ever (ultimately) without a trace, and it is the dogmatic atheist who says that "it doesn't matter", all that matters is our lives (when logic has already shown the fallacy of that), that those desires are merely Freudian projections and we should just "face reality" are nonsense.

You say "What happens after, is pure speculation." I say that you cannot logically say that there can be no such thing as revelation from a divine being because you have no logical basis for such a universal negative. If revelation is possible, then any such revelation would not be speculation, but matter-of-fact reporting.

Oh, and it IS Christian to say "Woe unto you, O Zion". It just needs to be expressed in a format that modern readers/listeners would grasp as relating to them.

Finally, how we perceive death is already not the same. For the unbeliever, it is a final end, a curtain call at which the actor cannot appreciate any applause, and one which completely erases the actor from existence. For the believer, it is faith in the promises of that divine revelation.

Jack17
19-07-2010, 09:19
Swordfish avoided my point altogether (an excellent debating tactic if you have no arguments to work from); you seem to merely have misread it.

I'm describing the chain of thinking that lead me inexorably to faith; the realization that no matter how much fun you have, success you experience, (even while 'making sure no one gets hurt'), that death ends it all, and by the philosophy you profess, makes it meaningless (ends the meaning, if you prefer; it's the same thing).

Leaving aside the images of heaven and hell that people from varying traditions hold, believers not only want to attain heaven; they also want to avoid, not only hell as some imagine it, but the meaninglessness that makes existence intolerable - not only as an emotional preference, but as something that logically nullifies the sense of every action that we take. I mean, if there is no God, then it really doesn't matter what I do - at all. I could kill myself right now, or I could do sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until my body falls apart, or I could take meticulous care of my body and still become worm food 30 years from now. Realizing that striving for the usual American dream was merely building a house of cards, one that not only could collapse at any minute, but WILL collapse no matter what I do, was what caused me to reject that hedonistic agnosticism I was living in. Whereas conversely, the Christian faith makes complete sense out of what would otherwise literally be meaningless. All of my desires are confirmed to be valid, and not merely wishful thinking. I am right to have desires, I am right to hate and fear death (but not to do so excessively), I am right in not wanting all that I have become to disappear for ever (ultimately) without a trace, and it is the dogmatic atheist who says that "it doesn't matter", all that matters is our lives (when logic has already shown the fallacy of that), that those desires are merely Freudian projections and we should just "face reality" are nonsense.

You say "What happens after, is pure speculation." I say that you cannot logically say that there can be no such thing as revelation from a divine being because you have no logical basis for such a universal negative. If revelation is possible, then any such revelation would not be speculation, but matter-of-fact reporting.

Oh, and it IS Christian to say "Woe unto you, O Zion". It just needs to be expressed in a format that modern readers/listeners would grasp as relating to them.

Finally, how we perceive death is already not the same. For the unbeliever, it is a final end, a curtain call at which the actor cannot appreciate any applause, and one which completely erases the actor from existence. For the believer, it is faith in the promises of that divine revelation.
There's been entirely too much bad temper and ill will on this web site in recent weeks, maybe months, and I don't want to add to that negative tone. So let me say you are a highly respectable and intelligent man for whom I have nothing but admiration Rusmeister. Your posts are always well written and deeply felt. So please forgive my earlier tone.

Let me address your ideas then. You say that absent a Faith in Jesus Christ and the promise of eternal life that that Faith brings, all else in life, indeed life itself, is meaningless and casts all without that Faith into utter confusion and despair. So, why am I not despairing? Why do I ask no more to be happy than the things of this tangible world? My dear mother and father are gone from this world for many years. Because they are no more, do I value my memories of them any less? Of course not. Because I will be gone some day sooner or later, does that render my remaining days without meaning? Well, maybe they would be for you but not me. The absence of any belief in a life after death does not make me love this life or value its sanciaty any less. Why should it; because you say so? Your Faith gives you hope, confidence and a sense of purpose in life. I see nothing wrong with that. Remember my motto - if it feels good. . . and Faith in an eternal life with all the Saints and God your Father and Son gives you great happiness; that is a good thing, but not a necessary state of mind for everyone. One can value the beauty of this world, the love and warmth of people in this world without a need to believe that they continue (somewhere) forever. No flower blooms forever, no music lasts forever, and because all is so fleeting, my belief tells me it is all the more precious. As for some "life" after death, I would never presume to say you are wrong. I do believe this universe is so vast, so complex we are all little different than my beloved German Shepherd who is so smart and so loving. Yet, she has no idea of a universe, or stars or gravity; so we too, I believe, have little better understanding of the time, space continuum in which we live, that we call life. Unimmaginable vastness sinks into no space at all and then explodes again. That is but one tiny and unintelligible part of the life we see around us. Could the entire universe be but an extension of the Body of Christ? Yes, but for me that is only one of an infinite number of possibilities and I hope that at some point in time, if I come to put my fingers in His side like Thomas, the good Lord will not begrudge me my honest integrity. Until that time comes, I will continue to love and serve those around me and enjoy the music for as long as I can.

Perhaps I haven't read the Gospels as often as you; but to my mind, all those sayings and parables attributed to Jesus of Nazareth speak to me of a Kingdom of God that is inside each of us. It is not a millenial place brought about by some political/military saviour. Indeed, it is ours to find every day. We can debate endlessly the meaning of the Gospels; there is no definitive interpretation, if there were, there would be only one Christian Church. There is great beauty and wisdom in the bible; but it is not the only beauty, knowledge and wisdom in the world.

2ndWind
20-07-2010, 03:57
Not at all #2...the statement refers to the situation. It means there is such a volume, such a variety of thought that it would be difficult to formulate a dogmatic solution. Any open mind is up for divergent thought. This leaves George out of the equation...

Sorry Swordfish90293. I misunderstood.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you.

Swordfish90293
20-07-2010, 18:06
Swordfish avoided my point altogether (an excellent debating tactic if you have no arguments to work from); you seem to merely have misread it.

I'm describing the chain of thinking that lead me inexorably to faith; the realization that no matter how much fun you have, success you experience, (even while 'making sure no one gets hurt'), that death ends it all, and by the philosophy you profess, makes it meaningless (ends the meaning, if you prefer; it's the same thing).

Leaving aside the images of heaven and hell that people from varying traditions hold, believers not only want to attain heaven; they also want to avoid, not only hell as some imagine it, but the meaninglessness that makes existence intolerable - not only as an emotional preference, but as something that logically nullifies the sense of every action that we take. I mean, if there is no God, then it really doesn't matter what I do - at all. I could kill myself right now, or I could do sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until my body falls apart, or I could take meticulous care of my body and still become worm food 30 years from now. Realizing that striving for the usual American dream was merely building a house of cards, one that not only could collapse at any minute, but WILL collapse no matter what I do, was what caused me to reject that hedonistic agnosticism I was living in. Whereas conversely, the Christian faith makes complete sense out of what would otherwise literally be meaningless. All of my desires are confirmed to be valid, and not merely wishful thinking. I am right to have desires, I am right to hate and fear death (but not to do so excessively), I am right in not wanting all that I have become to disappear for ever (ultimately) without a trace, and it is the dogmatic atheist who says that "it doesn't matter", all that matters is our lives (when logic has already shown the fallacy of that), that those desires are merely Freudian projections and we should just "face reality" are nonsense.

You say "What happens after, is pure speculation." I say that you cannot logically say that there can be no such thing as revelation from a divine being because you have no logical basis for such a universal negative. If revelation is possible, then any such revelation would not be speculation, but matter-of-fact reporting.

Oh, and it IS Christian to say "Woe unto you, O Zion". It just needs to be expressed in a format that modern readers/listeners would grasp as relating to them.

Finally, how we perceive death is already not the same. For the unbeliever, it is a final end, a curtain call at which the actor cannot appreciate any applause, and one which completely erases the actor from existence. For the believer, it is faith in the promises of that divine revelation.

Hi R,
I did…I did in fact avoid several of your points as I was in a hedonistic hurry to plank my GF. Truth be told that it’s just some of your points and not others struck me as particularly parochial on what's supposed to be an open minded forum that I had to say something. So no offense.

Reminds me of one rainy SoCal night when there was a knock at the door. My brother answered it where he found a rain soaked Jehovah’s Witness. My brother didn’t let him in. But I remember clearly him interrupting the Witness’s evangelism by asking him “do you have a girlfriend?” to which the Witness answered “yes”. My brother then asked “do you believe in love?” to which the Witness also answered yes. My brother then asked while closing the door “If you have a girlfriend and you believe in LOVE, then why aren’t you with her instead of out here in the pouring rain?”

Why would your house collapse unless you yourself are weak? We are given what we have, and are held, if not by God, by ourselves, to account for ourselves. You lived, you suffered, you died and now you’re going to Hell just sounds so EST…there is no HOPE…watch Lars von Trier's 'Breaking the Waves'. Well, R, the absence of HOPE happens to be DESPAIR, which in Catholicism is a major, as in unforgivable, SIN. How’s that for believing in an afterlife, and for making the most of the here and now?

YouTube- Breaking the waves - Trailer


"You can observe a lot just by watching."
Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

MickeyTong
20-07-2010, 18:21
YouTube- "Being There" Movie Trailer starring Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine

rusmeister
20-07-2010, 20:54
Hi R,
I did…I did in fact avoid several of your points as I was in a hedonistic hurry to plank my GF. Truth be told that it’s just some of your points and not others struck me as particularly parochial on what's supposed to be an open minded forum that I had to say something. So no offense.

Reminds me of one rainy SoCal night when there was a knock at the door. My brother answered it where he found a rain soaked Jehovah’s Witness. My brother didn’t let him in. But I remember clearly him interrupting the Witness’s evangelism by asking him “do you have a girlfriend?” to which the Witness answered “yes”. My brother then asked “do you believe in love?” to which the Witness also answered yes. My brother then asked while closing the door “If you have a girlfriend and you believe in LOVE, then why aren’t you with her instead of out here in the pouring rain?”

Why would your house collapse unless you yourself are weak? We are given what we have, and are held, if not by God, by ourselves, to account for ourselves. You lived, you suffered, you died and now you’re going to Hell just sounds so EST…there is no HOPE…watch Lars von Trier's 'Breaking the Waves'. Well, R, the absence of HOPE happens to be DESPAIR, which in Catholicism is a major, as in unforgivable, SIN. How’s that for believing in an afterlife, and for making the most of the here and now?


Thanks, SF! (Which on Orthodox forums, means "spiritual father" (ie, advisor) :P
Frankly, I agree with your objections. (Plus, I'm not Catholic, and don't accept the western Christian view of sin as "crime and punishment".)

Despair is indeed a great danger, and the general cause of suicide. (I'm not sure what exactly you are objecting to, there.)

I don't buy the idea of accounting to ourselves. When we have died, who are we accountable to? From the unbeliever's standpoint, no one - so there's your license to behave however you like, as long as you don't get caught in this life. Once you die, it doesn't matter - there is no accountability - by that logic.

But the punishing God who wants to settle a score - I'm totally with you. In Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy) sin is illness and healing, not crime and punishment, and God is more of a doctor than a judge. All the stuff you've heard from Protestants shouting about "going to hell" (as if hell were a physical destination) and the Catholic juridical approach of weighing sins and good deeds on a scale are pretty alien to Orthodoxy. You object to those ideas - and so do I - and yet, I am a Christian.

What may strike you as parochial may simply be based on a lack of context - of "inside knowledge". Ask Mickey - he was deep on the inside of something and knows that there are things of value that are misunderstood by people who've never been there.

Jack17
20-07-2010, 21:30
I don't buy the idea of accounting to ourselves. When we have died, who are we accountable to? From the unbeliever's standpoint, no one - so there's your license to behave however you like, as long as you don't get caught in this life. Once you die, it doesn't matter - there is no accountability - by that logic.

But whose logic is that Rusmeister? Indeed, I will say your belief is unshakable, even if controverted by everyday observation.

You truly believe that all forms of mischief and maliciousness follow from an absence of faith in a hereafter; while, in reality, most people are not believers in the Western World today? Does it follow that all crime imminates from these non-believers? That is your logic and it's simply not borne out by reality. Your advocacy for your Faith seems to rest on the proposition that without a belief in God and the real potential for punishment after death, all sorts of iniquity follows.

I can only say that "doing the right thing" has its own reward. We all are what we do. Personally, I don't think most criminals are happy people. If we behave in a loving, fair, equitable and generous way to associates and loved ones, this is the kind of life we will enjoy in the here and now. That is the great reward of the golden rule; that's why most people behave in a fair way to one another regardless of their belief.

Fibre
21-07-2010, 12:30
YouTube- A MAN'S WORLD

Willy
21-07-2010, 14:47
YouTube- A MAN'S WORLD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8vZmWQPgwA&feature=related)





Should have put that in the God hates women thread.


Gawd I love James Brown!

Fibre
21-07-2010, 14:48
Should have put that in the God hates women thread.


Gawd I love James Brown!

Doesn`t matter, the same reason, the same sense

as a rule we`re your beautiful shadows and sometimes we like it

Swordfish90293
21-07-2010, 15:17
Thanks, SF! (Which on Orthodox forums, means "spiritual father" (ie, advisor) :P
Frankly, I agree with your objections. (Plus, I'm not Catholic, and don't accept the western Christian view of sin as "crime and punishment".)

Despair is indeed a great danger, and the general cause of suicide. (I'm not sure what exactly you are objecting to, there.)

I don't buy the idea of accounting to ourselves. When we have died, who are we accountable to? From the unbeliever's standpoint, no one - so there's your license to behave however you like, as long as you don't get caught in this life. Once you die, it doesn't matter - there is no accountability - by that logic.

But the punishing God who wants to settle a score - I'm totally with you. In Eastern Christianity (Orthodoxy) sin is illness and healing, not crime and punishment, and God is more of a doctor than a judge. All the stuff you've heard from Protestants shouting about "going to hell" (as if hell were a physical destination) and the Catholic juridical approach of weighing sins and good deeds on a scale are pretty alien to Orthodoxy. You object to those ideas - and so do I - and yet, I am a Christian.

What may strike you as parochial may simply be based on a lack of context - of "inside knowledge". Ask Mickey - he was deep on the inside of something and knows that there are things of value that are misunderstood by people who've never been there.

Thanks, R...the more I travel, the more I realize how little I know. Crime and punishment should more accurately be billed as Crime, Punishment and Forgiveness. In Catholicism God is also the healer, the source of salvation, which is always available...

“You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands. “
Hunter S. Thompson

rusmeister
22-07-2010, 11:18
Thanks, R...the more I travel, the more I realize how little I know. Crime and punishment should more accurately be billed as Crime, Punishment and Forgiveness. In Catholicism God is also the healer, the source of salvation, which is always available...

“You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands. “
Hunter S. Thompson
I quite agree, especially with the bolded part. It was my own experience of that (learning as I traveled) that led me to the conclusion that I (the individual) cannot possibly be the ultimate arbiter of truth -the one that knows everything, and this led me to reject the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura I had been raised on as a Baptist. Recognizing that I can only learn from something smarter than me, something that is right not only where I am right, but most especially where I am wrong, has enabled me to learn more than I ever knew (while still not thinking that I know everything or that I am sufficient unto myself).

rusmeister
22-07-2010, 11:29
But whose logic is that Rusmeister? Indeed, I will say your belief is unshakable, even if controverted by everyday observation.

You truly believe that all forms of mischief and maliciousness follow from an absence of faith in a hereafter; while, in reality, most people are not believers in the Western World today? Does it follow that all crime imminates from these non-believers? That is your logic and it's simply not borne out by reality. Your advocacy for your Faith seems to rest on the proposition that without a belief in God and the real potential for punishment after death, all sorts of iniquity follows.

I can only say that "doing the right thing" has its own reward. We all are what we do. Personally, I don't think most criminals are happy people. If we behave in a loving, fair, equitable and generous way to associates and loved ones, this is the kind of life we will enjoy in the here and now. That is the great reward of the golden rule; that's why most people behave in a fair way to one another regardless of their belief.

Hi, Jack,
To account for something means to answer to someone. To take responsibility. If your existence ends upon your death, who then are you answering to? (or "Why did Hitler shoot himself in a bunker?")

NO, I do NOT believe that sin results from a lack of faith in a hereafter!! You must be misconstruing something that I said.
I am saying that, no matter what kind of life you live, its meaning terminates on your death. The meaning is not transcendent, and is therefore ultimately meaningless, just as Flavius (say, a third century BC Roman slave) means nothing now. No one cares whether he lived a good life or bad, did the right thing or not, had fun and joy or not - and there is no one to whom that could mean anything now. It means that Flavius had a final end and now he is nothing. Dust. Project yourself a hundred years into the future and we are talking about Jack. Tell me what your life means after Jack is dead, gone and forgotten. My grasp of that is what lead me to reject materialism.

MickeyTong
22-07-2010, 12:27
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

rusmeister
22-07-2010, 14:56
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

That piece of Shelley's describes every single effort to establish secular power, democratic or not. The thing it does not describe is the major world religions, which have outlasted all nations, especially the ones that said it doesn't matter what you believe.

is4fun
22-07-2010, 17:22
The greatest aspect of life I feel is that we will never be able to predetermine our birth nor will we be able to predetermine our death. The most wonderful aspect of the aforementioned statement is we are now able to predetermine the life of another organism and eventually an organism with consciousness. The cells which have been created in a lab will eventually have this trait many call self-awareness. What then to the religious community? Again, control will play a significant role in their need to manipulate the population so as to maintain a grasp to feed their standard of living. Survival also plays a role to the religious elite as their work only consists of conjuring those who are weak-kneed to succumb to their wishes and maintain the life they were always accustomed to.

martpark
23-07-2010, 01:25
That piece of Shelley's describes every single effort to establish secular power, democratic or not. The thing it does not describe is the major world religions, which have outlasted all nations, especially the ones that said it doesn't matter what you believe.

Well, if you are destroying other nations in the name of religion than nations would disappear, just as the religions would fracture.

rusmeister
23-07-2010, 09:47
Well, if you are destroying other nations in the name of religion than nations would disappear, just as the religions would fracture.
But my point is that those major world religions are still here, two and three thousand years on. It is a far cry from "Ozymandias".

martpark
23-07-2010, 10:28
But my point is that those major world religions are still here, two and three thousand years on. It is a far cry from "Ozymandias".

In name only. There is no unity in any major religion. They all pray to different Gods who work in different ways, mostly human ways.

rusmeister
23-07-2010, 13:38
In name only. There is no unity in any major religion. They all pray to different Gods who work in different ways, mostly human ways.
I think there's some truth in what you say, although it is oversimplified.
Yet, if you look at the major denominations that do insist on unity within their denomination, and where people cannot simply start their own church or teach their own beliefs and call it by the same name - this goes for Catholics, Orthodox and used to go for Anglicans in Christianity (and for some parts it still does) there is a good deal of unity.I think Orthodox doctrinal unity is incredible and inexplicable without an extra-natural explanation - it shouldn't exist in face of national administrative divisions, but it does.
But for the largest 'sub-divisions' (if you will) of other religions, such as Shi'ite and Sunni Islam, you also find considerable unity, and it is difficult to claim that they are not praying to the same God. (With some, the differences are extreme enough that this could be suggested.)

As to "human ways", again, you'd have to define what you imagine non-human ways to be.

It's just tiresome to see standard and widespread assumptions of non-believers that faith and reason are incompatible, something which I know to be false. Anyone can hate a religion - it requires no knowledge whatsoever. Things like learning the history, theology and apologetics of a religion take a good deal of learning and, well, work.
For example, if Mickey says something about Islam, I'll listen to him, because he's been there as a serious adult adherent. I hope that people will do the same favor for me regarding Christianity. But someone who just rants on about crazy Muslims or Christians like is4fun without any inside knowledge (from an adult perspective) just doesn't know what they are railing against. They hate without knowing. (Not saying that's you - I don't know - just making a general observation.)

is4fun
25-07-2010, 20:20
Firstly, as to Mr. rusmeister and his continued adolescent contribution to this forum I would like to add that is was not long ago I was placed on his “Ignore List”. I prefer to be placed on this list in perpetuity thus not having to be even thought of by his manipulative and egocentric values. This is a simple reminder to Mr. Rusmeister, as it is apparent I still am perceived to strike a nerve of contention through third parties, to refrain from providing unsubstantiated claims without scientific proof.

The thread we have participated in provides documented evidence that man has created life, or to some; brought back cells from the dead. These cells are able to replicate themselves without the help of the human hand, not a fictitious creator’s hand but a human’s hand. Also, I would like to add further that this feat is able to be replicated by others.

A scientist provides evidence on which an experiment may be replicated by others prior to its acceptance throughout the scientific community; fantasists cannot as their fabrications are usually to provide control to sustain their role amongst a flock of people less than learned.

It has been Mr. Rusmeister’s intention from the start to coalesce a community based on his personal beliefs without any scientific foundations but only on a diatribe based on his own interpretations on an ancient story. This is not an attack but relies on information already posted in this thread.

I hope in the future Mr. rusmeister is able to provide a solid explanation through scientific observation that may be replicated by others rather than relying on a perpetual reliance on fantastic stories interpreted from his personal will and other’s whose stories fill a void to those who wish to simply feel better.

rusmeister
25-07-2010, 23:27
Having made a comment on you, is4fun, I thought it only fair to take the trouble to read your response.
Setting aside insults, and hoping that some day you may come to see that I am reasonable and not merely "adolescent", I would say that your insistence on "scientific evidence" as the basis of all truth thereby excludes metaphysics, a branch of learning acknowledged by all serious philosophers, from Aristotle on down.

A person can't even interpret scientific evidence without referencing his beliefs on ontology, for example. At some point the intelligent thinker has to grant that some knowledge must of necessity be outside of the realm of the physical sciences. (The unintelligent non-thinker, of course, is free to ignore the impact of philosophy on the interpretation of scientific evidence and speak as if the physical sciences were the measure of all things.)

2ndWind
26-07-2010, 09:27
[Within a response to is4fun] rusmeister said: I would say that your insistence on "scientific evidence" as the basis of all truth thereby excludes metaphysics, a branch of learning acknowledged by all serious philosophers, from Aristotle on down.

A person can't even interpret scientific evidence without referencing his beliefs on ontology, for example. At some point the intelligent thinker has to grant that some knowledge must of necessity be outside of the realm of the physical sciences.


There are several websites which provide definitions of "philosophy". This is one of the entries: "Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

Ontology
"Derived from the Greek word for being, but a 17th-century coinage for the branch of metaphysics (http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics) that concerns itself with what exists. Apart from the ontological argument (http://www.answers.com/topic/ontological-argument) itself there have existed many a priori (http://www.answers.com/topic/a-priori-a-posteriori) arguments that the world must contain things of one kind or another: simple things, unextended things, eternal substances, necessary beings, and so on.
.
.
Philosophers characteristically charge each other with reifying (http://www.answers.com/topic/reification-computer-science) things improperly, and in the history of philosophy every kind of thing will at one time or another have been thought to be the fictitious result of an ontological mistake." http://www.answers.com/topic/ontology

Metaphysics
One of the four meanings for "metaphysics" listed on this site is: "A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment." http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics

A Priori
A few sentences extracted from a page devoted to the philosophical term: "A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is supposed to mean knowledge (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Epistemology_Knowledge.html) that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence.
.
.
The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.
.
.

The consequences to accepting the claim that knowledge can be a priori is that it leads to faith (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html). When it is supposed that some knowledge exists and is valid without our need of deriving it from reality, it opens the door to pretending all knowledge can be like this. By denying the use of reason to form these abstract ideas, it claims there are alternative methods of gaining knowledge. By severing the tie to reality, it allows any idea to be accepted." http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

Faith
A short extract from a page on faith: "Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that there is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one's mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one's world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction." http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html

You probably will not read any of this since you have said that I am on your "ignore list". However, just in case your do.

You Said: "I would say that your insistence on "scientific evidence" as the basis of all truth thereby excludes metaphysics, a branch of learning acknowledged by all serious philosophers, from Aristotle on down."

Firstly, you throw the term "scientific evidence" around as though you think you know what it means.
From Wiki: "Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

Secondly, you bring up metaphysics as though it (or the fact that Aristotle was a "serious" philosopher) has some bearing on the important work of researchers who have created life in a laboratory.

Further you said: "At some point the intelligent thinker has to grant that some knowledge must of necessity be outside of the realm of the physical sciences"

Thirdly, You present the above statement as "fact" - while I, emphatically, disagree.
You don't even define:
1. the point at which the granting must take place
2. the level of intelligence required of an "intelligent thinker"
3. the "knowledge" which you say must of necessity be . . .
4. the realm of the physical sciences
[NOTE: The Wiki definition of "physical sciences" is: "Physical Science is an encompassing term for the branches of natural science and science that study non-living systems, in contrast to the biological sciences. ..." This thread is about living things.]
5. the realm/realms which you define to be outside the realm of the physical sciences

Knowledge related to physical sciences is, by definition, within the realm of physical science. Knowledge related to the other sciences is still related to science.
If you are referring to "religious knowledge" then you are right, religious knowledge does not relate to science or even reality. Religious fantasy, folklore, mythology, etc. is in a realm all its own and has no business intruding into the real world where real work is going on.

If creating life defines a god and man learns to create life then is man not a god?

I believe that I have seen a quotation/bumper sticker/poster which goes something like:
"Those who believe that a thing cannot be done will please refrain from interfering with those who are doing it."

rusmeister
26-07-2010, 17:43
Hi 2nd Wind!
No, you haven't yet made my "ignore" list, and as long as i4f or others show themselves to seriously consider arguments and opposing ideas, and not simply to indulge in name-calling, I will not ignore them. It takes consistent insulting behavior to make me use the "ignore" list.

I could just as easily post the definitions myself. And I can just as easily challenge the lack of definition of "reality" - which is something we cannot claim to be completely aware of the boundaries and definitions of. You yourself are (apparently) running with an assumption that "reality" means "that which we experience with our senses in the physical world.

Only that is not all reality is. Thinking is also reality. Emotions are also reality. We really experience them; they are not figments of our imagination. Things like emotions, further, are not subject to empirical experimentation. Even thought can reject the results of such methods and experiments. But the idea that empirical evidence is the only path to knowledge is not something that has ever had any coinage before the modern era.

Yes, as a matter of fact I DO think I know what "scientific evidence means". :) Further, I am willing to hold it to the narrowest definition of that knowledge achieved by experimentation via the scientific method. In that event, it DOES mean the exclusion of metaphysics, and pretty much all the rest of philosophy (and since there is no such thing as operating completely without philosophy, the de facto philosophy assumes materialism on a dogmatic level - not subject to questioning).

Metaphysics certainly has bearing on the creation of anything in a laboratory - our ability to interpret scientific evidence depends on it. Metaphysics could be argued to be a misnomer - perhaps metabiology, etc, ought to be coined, but the idea would be the same - that of the worldview contained, the understanding we get from what we see that enables us to come to any objective conclusions at all.

As I said, I was speaking of intelligent thinkers, who would be able to see that the points need not be defined, because any point at all would serve for the argument. The alternative would be for there to be no point, which is an equally dogmatic and far more irrational statement. Understanding of what the results of an investigation of a physical science is not itself by any means strictly the purview of the science itself. Biology can tell me that I need to breathe to live. It cannot tell me why I am alive at all, and how it is that my thoughts are not the random movements within the synapses of a bewildered ape, and therefore how I am to understand what I am looking at in my experiment.

Scientists, are no more reliable priests than priests are, yet they are treated as the priests of our time, because many people do indeed see science as the ultimate branch of knowledge. Our medieval ancestors knew better than we in calling theology the queen of sciences. They at least knew that science could not define itself and be the definition of all knowledge. What is the guidance of science in telling me when to come in out of the rain?

The assumption goes that the life is actually created. That can be challenged, of course - by asking what is meant by life and whether this can be fairly compared to what Christians mean when they speak of God creating life. The assumption continues that anything that is called life can only be created by a god, which would, if true, make man a god. In a certain sense this is true, even from my viewpoint. Man was initially created, in my worldview, that he might become like God. The Fall made this impossible. But we still see some of that authority in parental "creation" of children. On such levels I would see an element of truth in the idea. But that's pretty much where it ends.
If those assumptions are false- as I say they are, then the argument falls apart. They are not creating significant life - and certainly not ex nihilo, the very thing that makes God - God. It is only one more grandiose claim out of all the claims of scientists since the beginning of the so-called "Age of Reason", and is no newer than when Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein".

I was not referring to "religious knowledge", and setting aside your own dogma that it cannot (by definition) be related to "reality" (whatever you mean by that), I was referring to the basic questions that have always driven philosophy: Why are we here? What is the purpose of our existence? What can be known?

If you can set aside the most radical of your statements (such as that my worldview has no relation to reality - a ridiculous thing for me to read because I find that my worldview explains pretty much everything, like, for instance, why other drivers try to cut me off in traffic - and why I cut them off, or how it is that we want to do good, but actually do a lot more evil/selfish acts than good), we might be able to talk like intelligent people.

You strike me as much older and more experienced than a young ex-college hater of religion. I would be able to take your propositions (as opposed to your conclusions) much more seriously if you acknowledged a little dignity and intelligence in what you disagree with. I try to show you that courtesy, at any rate.

is4fun
28-07-2010, 23:32
Intelligence (idem quod only to satisfy our moderators) is a realm of which you and your followers have not yet realized. There happens to be a great division between those who are told to follow, those that follow and those who are able to decide what or who they follow. Categorically, and unfortunately for some, lesser by the moment, you and your followers happen to be cast in the first instance. Philosophers indeed played a role in the development of science as it is known today; however, their descendants were able to question their forefather’s findings as it was encouraged. Understanding was the ultimate goal; a truth that could be shared by everyone, not by a few unscrupulous individuals trying to suck the teat of the population. Things have changed for the better because of science. Religion has only impeded its progression, fortunately now to a lesser extent.

Metaphysics was only an erroneous branch of thought based on what was known at a time when understanding was limited. There are still branches of physics and mathematics which may not succeed in explaining the origins of our multi-verse, however, given the short time mankind has excelled in an explanation of physical life and many of the complexities of our universe within the recent 150 years; more truth will undoubtedly be uncovered even quicker. Religion had millennia to seek the right path only to be distracted by those who wish to gain an advantage for their own purposes for either power or material wealth. This is most evident historically and throughout this thread.

MickeyTong
30-07-2010, 03:05
YouTube- Roxy Music - Psalm

is4fun
31-07-2010, 18:26
Such is with any music, poetry or prose...

Leviticus 19:11

" 'Do not steal.
" 'Do not lie.
" 'Do not deceive one another.

A fictitious creator did not write that. Common sense really... :)

is4fun
03-08-2010, 20:49
One of the true triumphs of science over deceit.

Dr. Venter (creator of a synthetic living organism) told the Times:

"It is our final triumph. This is the first synthetic cell. It’s the first time we have started with information in a computer, used four bottles of chemicals to write up a million letters of DNA software, and actually got it to boot up in a living organism. Though this is a baby step, it enables a change in philosophy, a change in thinking, a change in the tools we have. This cell we’ve made is not a miracle cell that’s useful for anything, it is a proof of concept. But the proof of concept was key, otherwise it is just speculation and science fiction. This takes us across that border, into a new world.”

is4fun
12-08-2010, 22:16
Man is soooo creator that he can modify the genetic substance of what we eat.

An interesting topic, however, time will only tell if the competence of the scientists and big business would propagate an extinction of the species (most scientists look into that, one should know). Perhaps we may call upon a religious person or organization to provide the udders some insight in cloning?

i.e.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10951547

2ndWind
24-08-2010, 05:07
Hi 2nd Wind!
No, you haven't yet made my "ignore" list,


Hi Rus,

Sorry to have been so slow in responding to your post of last month. I had to ponder how to reply, if at all.

As I have stated in earlier posts, I have no incentive to debate religion since I have no personal religious questions remaining. I am at ease with my belief system and have no incentive to try to press it onto anyone else. I do admit to being dumbfounded, amazed, and occasionally amused by those who hold strong religious views. I am more than a little annoyed when some religious believers work to impede social and medical progress because the improvements conflict with their religious beliefs. I hate it when many "believers" work to use their religion for political and business gain - and, I must admit that now that I have seen the light, I see believers as being somewhat insane. However, this has nothing to do with you or the subject post. It is clear that you are comfortable with your new-found denomination and intend to defend it vigorously. Good luck.

I used to join atheist forums but they were barraged by believers who wanted to be spoilers. And in my case they succeeded. I didn't need it.

This being the "Religion" section and not the "without-religion" section I will politely butt-out rather than look like a spoiler.

is4fun
07-09-2010, 21:30
Hi, is4fun!
I don't respond to mindless hate of Christianity - it's just another form of fanaticism, but as I said, if you are ever willing to consider that my position could also be reasonable, and I get a hint of that, I'll be happy to hold a reasonable conversation. Until that time, it's the "ignore list".

That said, the title of your thread seems to prove the words of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Roman Christians:

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

(The bolded words seem to chime with your thread title)

Yes, crazy about sums it up. My hatred of religion and your profound hatred of religions other than that of yours.. LOL

http://news.ca.msn.com/world/cp-article.aspx?cp-documentid=25485938

Swordfish90293
08-09-2010, 13:17
Perhaps we may call upon a religious person or organization to provide the udders some insight...

Fanatics begin wars...

YouTube- lewis black explains religion

is4fun
10-09-2010, 22:51
Fanatics begin wars...

YouTube- lewis black explains religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWqtpqQjNug&feature=related)

Yes indeed, like all other religious fanatics.

is4fun
30-09-2010, 20:08
Having made a comment on you, is4fun, I thought it only fair to take the trouble to read your response.
Setting aside insults, and hoping that some day you may come to see that I am reasonable and not merely "adolescent", I would say that your insistence on "scientific evidence" as the basis of all truth thereby excludes metaphysics, a branch of learning acknowledged by all serious philosophers, from Aristotle on down.

philosophy as you know it had died long ago.




A person can't even interpret scientific evidence without referencing his beliefs on ontology, for example. At some point the intelligent thinker has to grant that some knowledge must of necessity be outside of the realm of the physical sciences. (The unintelligent non-thinker, of course, is free to ignore the impact of philosophy on the interpretation of scientific evidence and speak as if the physical sciences were the measure of all things.)

As for this ridiculous analogy of the meaning of existance. PROVE IT!

is4fun
30-09-2010, 20:12
Fanatics begin wars...

YouTube- lewis black explains religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWqtpqQjNug&feature=related)

Seems a little akward but is he not biased toward hiown religion?