Creationists Take Another Called Strike - and run to dugout

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 3322 - 3341 of total 4794 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Dec 20, 2009 - 02:21am PT

It really does seem blasphemous when somebody tries to tell you that God condemns perfectly sincere people of integrity to billions of years of suffering with no possibility of respite for the crime of lack of blind faith in a doctrine.

It would be less insulting to suggest that Jesus sexually molested children than to posit such a monster deity.

I can see how such thinking helped missionaries scare converts into signing up but the evidence is thin enough in the book to call this sort of fire and brimstone heresy to lovers of God.

Peace

Karl

illusiondweller

Trad climber

San Diego, CA

Dec 20, 2009 - 02:30am PT

I'm not judging you at all Jan...I just said I'd pray for you for it appeared by your responses that you weren't saved from going to hell. I am saved, wouldn't you want to be? That's all that was intended. Here's where I got some motivation among many others in the Bible...

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all mannner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matt 5:11

Based on this scripture alone, look at what responses I've already generated and what further responses it'll generate and what God promises to me for doing so. Again, my intention is not to judge you Jan. You know, as well as I do, that it is very difficult to express your real intentions through text and this is an obvious example. I need so much help myself, I'd hope to hear that you'd pray for me if I asked or even if I didn't and I wouldn't take it as a judgement but a sincere act of compassion. If you would do this I sure could use it. Thanks Jan. And if you don't mind, I'll keep you in my prayers too. In closing check out this biblical definition:

Love - "The willing, sacrificial, giving of oneself, for the benefit of another, with no thought of return." So, if that person retorts back at me with wrath or an intent to do harm when my intent was to help, it doesn't matter or offend me for I was willing to sacrifice my reputation for the benefit of you, Jan, with no thought of return or gain. This is not about me Jan, but to those that might perish, for:

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Stay in touch,
Gary

Jan

Mountain climber

Okinawa, Japan

Dec 20, 2009 - 08:45am PT

illusiondweller-

The problem with religious people is that they tend to hang out with other religious people who think like they do and then they presume that their reality is everyone else's.

If you can't see that it's more than a little presumptuous to think that you can know the state of my mind and the mind of an infinite God and are sure that you are "saved" and I am damned for eternity, then of course you won't perceive yourself as arrogant and judgmental.

Instead, you see yourself as the victim, misunderstood and persecuted for speaking the "truth".

I could of course, retaliate by threatening to pray for you, that you become more open minded?!

Gobee

Trad climber

Los Angeles

Dec 20, 2009 - 09:39am PT

"Blasphemy"

John 3:17-18, For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Jesus is the sure way otherwise your on your own!

Me and Thee

The Christmas Story is not
at Baby Jesus birth
but at Calvary

Where He took are sin's
and nailed them to a tree

Their debt was paid (in-full)
in Christ's atoning death

In His Resurrection
we are freed to live in
God's Glorious Presence
(for all eternity)

God so loved the world
Jesus died for you and me
Christ lives for me and thee!

Gobee

Klimmer

Mountain climber

San Diego

Dec 20, 2009 - 10:38am PT

Hugs everybody.

C'mon get along.

:-))

Jaybro

Social climber

Wolf City, Wyoming

Dec 20, 2009 - 10:51am PT

The Holy Spirit tells it like it is;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZF5uQfpbDs

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 20, 2009 - 02:56pm PT

well interesting seeing how all this has developed since I last posted here.

I haven't posted largely because I felt that it was useless to argue against what everyone "knows" to be true. An article in today's NYTimes Magazine got me thinking again.

It really points out, as this thread also exemplifies, that there are two largely different ways of thinking, and that the arguments are actually centuries old and not likely to end based on logical confrontation because their foundations are based on very different beliefs, which are fundamentally incompatible.

There is a classic belief that human logic alone provides the basis understanding the human condition. It is essentially the viewpoint of the religious, spiritual, mystical, and classical humanities schools of study. The point being that we can logically understand what is "natural law," and a set of ethics based on that natural law which defines morality. Not only that, but the origin of that natural law may not be accessible empirically.

The second competing school believes that human logic is flawed and that for it so be useful it must adhere to two constraints: rigorous mathematical logic and empirical testing. These constraints ensure that we are not lead astray by logical arguments which cannot be resolved.

The classical example is the "proof of god" arguments. Simply put, one can make a logical construction of god that avoids all empirical tests. Oddly enough, mathematics is structurally agnostic and its logical foundations are used by both sides of the debate. So constructed, one cannot disprove god. Similarly it is easy to provide an empirical model of the universe which does not require god. It is more difficult to demonstrate those empirical models are correct in every instance, the basis for provisionalism of empirical models.

Most people are unconcerned with the extreme points of view of either of these two competing intellectual view points. And people who strongly believe in one, often discount the other as being obviously irrelevant. When pushed into argument, both sides will often use extremes in logic to underscore their debating points.

Both sides of this argument do believe that there is a "truth" out there. Both camps of scholars believe that their pathway to that "truth" is the correct one, and they both chafe under the burden of proof demanded by the other.

The NYTimes article, to me, brought home the fact that this is not an idle academic exercise, but one that influences our lives directly.

The "enlightenment" period of European history took up "science" because it moved the authority of argument from people to nature, by demanding those two previously stated constraints. They, the enlightenment, appropriated the term "natural law" from the "scholastics," who meant it to be about what we "know" to be true, not what we could demonstrate to be true.

The problem with "people based authority" in these matters opens up the problem of establishing a person who is the authority. As hundreds of posts to this thread have shown, since I last posted, there is no accepted authority. Even within the Christian belief there are major disagreements on doctrine. When one expands even slightly to Judaism and Islamism the disagreements are much much larger. Now try to take it to even a larger group of religious, spiritual, mystical set of beliefs and there is no resolution. Yet they all believe that there exists a realm beyond the mere physical realm that explains the human condition.

So who is the authority, and who decides, and how do we know it?

WBraun

climber

Dec 20, 2009 - 03:03pm PT

Ed

Excellent analysis with an excellent last sentence.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Dec 20, 2009 - 03:41pm PT

Ed writes

There is a classic belief that human logic alone provides the basis understanding the human condition. It is essentially the viewpoint of the religious, spiritual, mystical, and classical humanities schools of study. The point being that we can logically understand what is "natural law," and a set of ethics based on that natural law which defines morality. Not only that, but the origin of that natural law may not be accessible empirically.

I would thoroughly deny that the mystical or spiritual schools would have that belief in logic. There are other forms of knowledge and perception.

then

"...Now try to take it to even a larger group of religious, spiritual, mystical set of beliefs and there is no resolution. Yet they all believe that there exists a realm beyond the mere physical realm that explains the human condition.

So who is the authority, and who decides, and how do we know it?..

In some ways the bottom line is this: Life is a great mystery and adventure. You're not going to be able to be fulfilled by any else's answers, even if they have good ones, because the ultimate things in life need to be experienced within yourself. We each have to evolve and grow ourselves.

Take unconditional Love. Do you know it exists? How logical is it and how do we apply math to it? If somebody could prove it is real, that still wouldn't mean you have access to its benefits.

We all have to find out for ourselves. We all have to ask ourselves how to live, what our values are, what our standards of truth are.

Scientific method? I'd love to hear about this, because it escapes me... Let's propose that certain mystical analogies are correct and that this universe is basically the persistent dream of the ultimate Being. Let's also assume this Being sees no reason to contradict nor interfere in the actions of it's own laws in this dream universe. What are some experiments and mathematics that we can bring to bear on testing this?

PEace

Karl

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 20, 2009 - 03:51pm PT

I think you missed the point of my post, Karl...
it is not about the answers to these questions.

... I believe what you are saying: follow what you feel to be true and ask for no more than that. Essentially you are saying the authority to determine truth rests with each individual's experience, that there is no other authority, nor is one needed.

WBraun

climber

Dec 20, 2009 - 04:05pm PT

No he's not saying that.

You are describing relative authority.

Relative authority is already there.

And that's all there is, they say.

But why induce to go here and there if one gets in one place everything?

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 20, 2009 - 04:06pm PT

so Werner, what is the absolute authority, how do you know?

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Dec 20, 2009 - 04:16pm PT

Ed wrote

I believe what you are saying: follow what you feel to be true and ask for no more than that. Essentially you are saying the authority to determine truth rests with each individual's experience, that there is no other authority, nor is one needed.

Let me elaborate a bit.

First, scientists and believers both have to question their own assumptions and beliefs. Our minds have so many ways of fooling us. It's much better to nurture a caring heart and only half-believe anything, than embrace beliefs as if they solved very much. (particularly when those beliefs require judging or killing people to implement)

Also, there are different realms of knowledge, personal/spiritual and material. The scientific method works great for material knowledge and we make use of the increasing body of knowledge in our technology and lifestyle.

Science gives us no "out" though on the meaning of life and how to navigate this earth journey in our meat suit. Lots of teachers, books and beliefs claim to be authorities for us but how are we to know who do believe and how literally? Even if we believed, do we have correct understanding?

Ultimately, there is a spiritual place where this great game is not so easily solved and we have to live and evolve with answers from within that become more clear in time but sometimes at the expense of our previous expectations and beliefs.

And we should even question how important belief is. They are often ideas that come and go in our brains without touching our hearts. You might have to suspect that meditation might be a worthwhile endeavor to give it a chance but real change and experience don't come directly from beliefs. Most of us believed in Santa because some authority told us. We tell our kids other lies from our positions of authority based on their pleasure or own good. Sometime they misinterpret what we say. Can we prove that God wouldn't do so as well?

We want the comfort of having the answers. Not so easy, not so fast. Let's admit that there is a personal spiritual level of things that we all live in whether we choose to think about it or not. You can drop the word "spiritual" but we all live within ourselves. We have to deal with that or suffer from not dealing with it (not from God's punishment, but from our own twisted self-identity)

Peace

Karl

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 20, 2009 - 04:25pm PT

but you are saying, in brief, that the authority comes from within, "that which touches our heart"

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Dec 20, 2009 - 04:39pm PT

I don't mention authority because at a certain personal level...there isn't any!

Or even if there is, we can't absolutely know to trust it.

Imagine a 13 year old kid trying to figure out his goals, priorities and how to live.

Can he really trust his dad (who undoubtedly has his own strengths and weaknesses)? Mom?

How about the Bible? Should he go with the part about Loving his enemy or how to treat his slaves?

What's science say to the Kid? If he's unhappy, he'll get a prescription for depression meds that might have a side effect of suicidal tendencies.

We have to grow and evolve within our own process and no authority will solve it for us. They may guide us if we use their guidance with what wisdom we have. Do we really have to know for sure?

We grow up in time but there's always more. We are always faced with the eternal question of "who/what are we? and the evolving answers that come to us in that exploration. We can take subjective and objective data into account along with intuition, logic, and introspection.

That said, if a person prays to God for guidance and somehow, somewhere, I think they will get help if they are open to it. Somehow, it works. They better also pray that they won't add their own assumptions and prejudice to the answers they somehow get.

I'm not a big fan of authority. Werner mentions it a lot but I believe he still has to come to terms with the issues of how he interprets and acts of the authority he is willing to acknowledge.

Peace

Karl

WBraun

climber

Dec 20, 2009 - 05:03pm PT

I've said this many times that God is the Supreme Absolute Authority.

For the materialist the absolute authority is death, the desolation of the material body. This is an absolute fact.

One is kicked out of their body at the end of x amount of breaths which can be extended or shortened according to ones actions.

authority comes from within

It also comes from without. Other wise the material creation would be considered false. But it is not false, it is temporary.

In all cases authority is true.

The master in his own house is the final authority for the dog.