Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 7:03 AM
350 online now:
granpa, jar, Meddle, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,788 Year: 25,394/21,208 Month: 1,021/2,338 Week: 142/450 Day: 14/52 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Phat
Member
Posts: 9888
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 286 of 365 (821807)
10-12-2017 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
10-12-2017 10:03 AM


I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
Im still coming to grips with the whole idea of Fallen Minds and Regenerated Minds.

When I first got saved, I had no doubt that the doctrine was sound. Thats how it was taught to me. There were too many loose ends, however.

  • If my mind was indeed regenerated, and became stronger through Bible reading and prayer, why did I need human teachers at all?

  • If people such as the members of EvC all had fallen minds, why were their arguments--not to mention their empathy, patience, and altruistic behavior better in many ways than the self proclaimed Christians at this forum?

  • If a mind was regenerated, why would such a mind shy away from evidence and reasoning so as to teach others?

    ringo writes:

    How can you know whether the Bible is true or not if you don't understand it?

    Its not so much the book itself being true...except in context. Its about the God within the book being more than simply a character in the book. Granted there is no easy way to objectively test this.
    ringo writes:

    You can't look at anything honestly without doubting that it's true.

    Supposedly this regeneration that Faith talks about removes all doubt. Personally, I prefer the word "questioning" rather than "doubting" because I wouldnt bother reading the book at all if I doubted it.

    Percy,to Faith writes:

    But you can't substantiate your premise that the Bible is God's word.

    What we could do as individuals is to start with the observation that our mind had in fact been regenerated. I recall when I felt this way, but it may well have been a subjective experience which I recall observing. It most definitely felt real, however.
    You can't even substantiate your premise that God exists.
    Good point. All I know is that He exists when I'm in trouble...at least in my mind and heart. He is nearly impossible to objectively substantiate for teaching others, however. The best way that I can attempt to do this is to model my own behavior as if he lives within me so as to teach by example. At best, this simply reflects my character, however...not so much His character.

    Percy writes:

    If you have a fallen mind, how can you know whether any judgment you make is true, including the judgment that the Bible is inerrant?


    Faith writes:

    I have a regenerated mind, or what is sometimes called a "sanctified" mind, which is given to believers by God and permits us through the Holy Spirit to ascertain divine truths.

    ...I'm going to leave that one alone.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 281 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 10:03 AM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 288 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 11:25 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 291 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2017 1:53 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 298 by ringo, posted 10-13-2017 11:46 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
  • GDR
    Member
    Posts: 4303
    From: Sidney, BC, Canada
    Joined: 05-22-2005
    Member Rating: 2.5


    (1)
    Message 287 of 365 (821808)
    10-12-2017 9:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 264 by Percy
    10-11-2017 8:06 AM


    Re: One More Thing For The Record
    Percy writes:

    Many religious people believe they are on a path to improved belief. You think what you believe now an improvement over what you believed before. But to any non-religious person or person of another religion or even a person of your religion who looks at things differently from you, you've only exchanged one set of false beliefs for another. The more recent beliefs might be more detailed and complex and nuanced, but they're false nonetheless.

    The trouble is Percy you are confusing theology with basic forms of theism and Christianity. Essentially theism from a Christian perspective is that God is always loving, and wants us to replicate that in this world. Christianity is based on the historic claim that God resurrected Jesus.

    After that it is working with reason, tradition and scripture to sort out our theological beliefs. We can see that is the Bible with the disagreements that Paul and Peter had for example. These theological differences do not negate the basic message of the Christianity of the last paragraph.

    So yes, as I study I find that I do essentially change my theological views, but so what. I used to believe that God was able to see the future like He does the past, but after studying people like John Polkinghorne I have come to the conclusion that God relates to us in time as we experience it. I don't believe that He has any better idea than what I have of what I’ll have for dinner on Apr 11 next year. Changing my theological views does not change my basic or fundamental views that I mentioned earlier.

    Percy writes:

    Many religious people believe they are on a path to improved belief. You think what you believe now an improvement over what you believed before. But to any non-religious person or person of another religion or even a person of your religion who looks at things differently from you, you've only exchanged one set of false beliefs for another. The more recent beliefs might be more detailed and complex and nuanced, but they're false nonetheless.

    How do you know their false? You're just applying your beliefs to mine and finding them different. Maybe one of us is right and maybe both of us are wrong. We can't know in the scientific sense.

    Percy writes:

    Morality is subjective, and its origin is buried in our evolutionary history. If morality came from religion then wouldn't our jails be filled with atheists instead of Christians?

    You mean they aren't.

    Percy writes:

    I'm not saying the issues and questions you raised aren't important ones, they are, but that is independent of the truth of the narratives of any particular religion.

    Well, as Bob Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody" and I find that Christianity makes sense of the world I live in better than any other philosophy including atheism that I know of. I am not saying that you can't live a good or even godly life following other philosophies. However, as I am firmly convinced of the historic account that God resurrected Jesus I believe that, although I admit that I probably have some theological beliefs that aren't correct, (just ask Faith ), that my life is roughly on the track that God would have me on.


    He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

    Micah 6:8


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 264 by Percy, posted 10-11-2017 8:06 AM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 292 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2017 2:54 AM GDR has not yet responded
     Message 297 by Percy, posted 10-13-2017 10:09 AM GDR has responded

        
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 288 of 365 (821809)
    10-12-2017 11:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 286 by Phat
    10-12-2017 9:31 PM


    Re: I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
    A regenerated mind is how you apprehend the truths about God and Christ, and of course the inerrancy of the Bible. As I also said we can err nevertheless, and that's why God gives us teachers.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 286 by Phat, posted 10-12-2017 9:31 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 289 by Paboss, posted 10-13-2017 12:27 AM Faith has responded

      
    Paboss
    Junior Member
    Posts: 7
    Joined: 10-01-2017


    Message 289 of 365 (821812)
    10-13-2017 12:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
    10-12-2017 11:25 PM


    Re: I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
    Do you have a regenerated mind that gives you God's insight to answer sensible questions about the Bible? I'd like to tell you some questions I have:

    Why does the bible 'look' contradictory?
    Why does it 'look' homophobic?
    Why does it 'look' misogynist?
    Why does it 'seem' to endorse slavery?
    Why the genocides and deaths of innocent infants and animals?
    Why does the god of the Old Testament 'seem' to have the character of an spoiled little child looking for attention?
    Why was it necessary to invent hell?

    These are just I few questions I don't really think you can answer, but I wanted to show you some reasons why one may not assume, like you do, that the Bible is the word of a good, all powerful and loving being. Don't you think these are good reasons? Don't you wonder why the things you don't like about the bible are that way?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 288 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 11:25 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 294 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 7:22 AM Paboss has responded

        
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13227
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 290 of 365 (821814)
    10-13-2017 1:50 AM
    Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
    10-12-2017 6:33 PM


    Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
    quote:

    Since the word "almah" is translated by all traditional Christians to mean "virgin" it must refer to the Messiah, and the New Testament affirms that. If it referred to the time of Ahaz it would refer to an adulterous (unmarried) woman, which would not be possible in the context of a prophecy since a "young woman" which usually means an unmarried woman, could not have conceived a child that would be recognized as legitimate.

    Your mind is thoroughly fallen if you think this irrational nonsense is an answer.

    The biggest problem is that it does not address the real issue at all. The child's birth is a sign that the attacks from Aram and Israel will cease because the Assyrians will conquer those nations. Obviously the sign has to come before the fulfilment - which occurred in the reign of Ahaz.

    To list the other errors in your argument

    First, the "traditional Christian translation" is probably an error in the first place.

    Second, even if it isn't it doesn't make the child the Messiah

    Third, just because the word usually refers to an unmarried woman, it doesn't mean it has to

    Fourth, why would it have to be adultery?

    Fifth since the child is simply a sign, legitimacy would not seem to be a big issue

    quote:

    That in fact is the clue to readers of the OT that it IS a messianic prophecy and does not refer to the present time

    These would be "readers of the OT" who can't read it - how else would they miss the context so badly ?

    quote:

    Although there may be messianic prophecies that that have a double reference, both to the present time and to the Messiah to come later, in this case because it is about a virgin that is not probable.

    Then please explain to me how Jesus can be any use as a sign that the Assyrians are going to conquer Aram and Israel.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 285 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 6:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 305 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2017 2:50 PM PaulK has not yet responded

        
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 13227
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 291 of 365 (821815)
    10-13-2017 1:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 286 by Phat
    10-12-2017 9:31 PM


    Re: I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
    quote:

    Im still coming to grips with the whole idea of Fallen Minds and Regenerated Minds.

    When used as arguments, both are excuses for exalting the self and denying the truth. Doing so is obviously unChristian.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 286 by Phat, posted 10-12-2017 9:31 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

        
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 5098
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 292 of 365 (821818)
    10-13-2017 2:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 287 by GDR
    10-12-2017 9:48 PM


    Re: One More Thing For The Record
    GDR writes:

    I used to believe that God was able to see the future like He does the past, but after studying people like John Polkinghorne I have come to the conclusion that God relates to us in time as we experience it.

    Pokinghome has no more information about god than you or I do, when you're reading people like him and Lewis you're simply choosing the god fiction you prefer.

    You mean they aren't.

    No they're not. Atheists are under-represented in US prisons.

    quote:
    When religious individuals accuse atheists of having no morals, one fact atheists frequently cite is the miniscule percentage of atheists in US prisons. However, getting accurate, reliable data on the religious identities of US federal prisoners is often difficult because the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not release that information unless someone requests it through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A few weeks ago, the editor of the Friendly Atheist blog, Hemant Mehta, did just that, and he published the data he received.

    Unsurprisingly, at 0.10 percent, atheism still represents a tiny percentage of the religious identities of inmates in federal prison, though that number has risen slightly since 2013, when atheists made up 0.07 percent of the federal prison population.


    Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


    Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

    "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

    "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
    - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 287 by GDR, posted 10-12-2017 9:48 PM GDR has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 293 by Pressie, posted 10-13-2017 5:29 AM Tangle has not yet responded

      
    Pressie
    Member
    Posts: 1798
    From: Pretoria, SA
    Joined: 06-18-2010
    Member Rating: 2.2


    Message 293 of 365 (821820)
    10-13-2017 5:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 292 by Tangle
    10-13-2017 2:54 AM


    Re: One More Thing For The Record
    All this reminds me of are the "types" of inspiration the Bible writers got from Spooks. This was when I did Biblical studies at Uni. Mechanical, Partial and Plenary Inspiration...

    The lecturers were Calvinists and the Catholics were supposedly devil posessed. They didn't even recognise that Muslims could also be religious. . Muslims are not supposed to exist.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 292 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2017 2:54 AM Tangle has not yet responded

        
    Faith
    Inactive Member


    Message 294 of 365 (821825)
    10-13-2017 7:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 289 by Paboss
    10-13-2017 12:27 AM


    Re: I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
    Do you have a regenerated mind that gives you God's insight to answer sensible questions about the Bible?

    All believers have a regenerated mind.

    I'd like to tell you some questions I have:

    Why does the bible 'look' contradictory?

    Probably mostly because it's ancient, cultures were different then, and we have a bad habit of imposing our own assumptions on it instead of learning about its frame of reference. Another answer is that the fallen mind misreads things.

    Why does it 'look' homophobic?

    Homophobia is a bogus concept invented in the last half century. The Bible says homosexual acts are sin and that was the common understanding in cultures around the world until very recently.

    Why does it 'look' misogynist?

    Because the world was corrupted by the Fall, which put women under subjection to their husbands as part of Eve's punishment for disobeying God, and you can see this played out in all cultures across the world until quite recently, though it still is the case in most places. Christ treated women humanely, which offended his disciples, but His example became the basis for more and more humane treatment of women in Christian countries. Our fallen nature dies hard nevertheless.

    Why does it 'seem' to endorse slavery?

    Because you are imposing your modern view on it. When it was written slavery was universal and the main way for debts to be paid off. The Bible gave laws to protect the slaves from abuse which otherwise was common, and also required the Israelites to free their slaves after a certain time. But when Christ came the general idea of emancipating slaves came with Him, as Paul wrote to one slave owner; but it didn't become culturally acceptable until recent times, and still predominantly in Christian societies. It still exists in more places than you are probably aware of.

    Why the genocides and deaths of innocent infants and animals?

    Animals are innocent but for our sake God put them under the curse brought about by the Fall, our first parents' disobedience of God. Infants, however, aren't innocent, as we all are born in sin because of the Fall. I don't think we are going to fully understand all that until Jesus comes again, but it must be something along the lines of God's understanding that we inherit sin from our parents and all the way back to Adam and Eve, so that to let infants live is to invite them to grow up and repeat the sins for which their parents are being punished. It would have to be a pretty horrible sin for that to be decreed of course. God knows things we don't know, although we could learn it from the Bible, which clearly says we inherit sin.

    Why does the god of the Old Testament 'seem' to have the character of an spoiled little child looking for attention?

    He doesn't. That's an evil idea concocted by corrupted modern man who interprets everything psychologically so that there is not much left of the Moral Law and true Justice. Actually it's such an evil idea it must have been Satan's invention originally.

    Why was it necessary to invent hell?

    It was invented for the fallen angels, Satan's hordes, but human beings who follow the lead of Satan by rebelling against God are going to share it with them. Would you really want to live in a unverse in which horrible sins and crimes were not to be punished?

    These are just I few questions I don't really think you can answer, but I wanted to show you some reasons why one may not assume, like you do, that the Bible is the word of a good, all powerful and loving being. Don't you think these are good reasons? Don't you wonder why the things you don't like about the bible are that way?

    No, because I know God's character and I know that even very severe Justice is a kindness in this fallen world; and you are just being an arrogant modern person who refuses to respect justice and genuine authority. In a word you are culture-bound in a corrupted society that puts man above God.

    Lots of modern concepts were invented by the devil for the express purpose of discrediting God, which is of course the devil's normal business anyway: it's what he did to Eve after all, and it worked well in your case too.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 289 by Paboss, posted 10-13-2017 12:27 AM Paboss has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 328 by Paboss, posted 10-14-2017 5:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 16022
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.1


    (1)
    Message 295 of 365 (821827)
    10-13-2017 7:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 282 by kbertsche
    10-12-2017 4:39 PM


    Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
    kbertsche writes:

    Percy and Ringo,

    You are asking good questions about biblical authority, inerrancy, etc. These are excellent questions for the "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" section of the "Science" forums. But I believe they are out of place in the "Bible Study" forums, where we discuss "What does the Bible really mean?"

    Well, there are several significant problems with this. First, you've addressed your message to the wrong people. If Faith had been talking about what the Bible really means then that's what Ringo and I would have been responding about, simply because we both have a discussion style of "quote something from a message, then respond to it", but that's not what Faith was talking about. This subdiscussion began when Faith said this in her Message 158:

    Faith in Message 158 writes:

    Once you know the Bible is God's word and MUST be God's word because otherwise we really are at the mercy of our fallen minds and the "helpfulness" of demons who love to trip us up, once you know that how can you question it?

    Faith cannot expect declarations like this to go unchallenged simply because this is a "Bible Study" forum.

    But that brings us to the second point: this isn't a "Bible Study" forum. There *is* a Bible Study forum, but this isn't it. This is the Faith and Belief forum.

    Also, this thread is titled The Tension of Faith - it is not a thread about the meaning of the Bible that has simply been accidentally dropped into the wrong forum. It's in exactly the right forum, and it's not about the meaning of the Bible. Faith's opening post doesn't even contain the word "Bible".

    Third, Faith has made very clear that to her faith does not mean not having evidence for what you believe but believing anyway. She says her faith is backed by hard evidence. It does not go unnoticed when Faith changes her arguments as convenience demands. She can't slip undetected from (sic) "The Bible is God's Word and I can prove it" in one thread to "Substantiating [that the Bible is God's Word] to unbelievers is not possible" in another.

    So how does a discussion deal with a request to just accept that, (sic) "The Bible is the Word of God and is literally inerrant and there are demons trying to trip us up and we have fallen minds except that mine is regurgitated (oops, sorry, the correct term is apparently regenerated) and so I know things that you're just going to have to accept, and that's that"? Demanding a response along the lines of "Oh, okay" is not a discussion.

    In science, for example, we can ask important epistemological questions, such as "why should I trust experiment?" or "why should I believe that nature is repeatable?". We cannot PROVE that experiment is trustworthy or that nature is repeatable. But if we allow this to stop us, we will never discuss the RESULTS of the scientific experiments or what they mean.

    Yes, of course, but accepting that nature is consistent is not a valid analog to accepting Biblical inerrancy. The valid analog to Biblical inerrancy would be something more like, "My experimental equipment is perfect," when the reality is that the data provided by your equipment depends a great deal on the quality of its design, construction and working condition.

    We should still be able to discuss what the Bible MEANS.

    That would make sense except that what the Bible means often depends upon whether you accept the Bible as inerrant. For example, if the Bible is inerrant then one of the messages of the Bible is that there was a global Flood around 4500 years ago that covered even the highest mountains. But if the Bible is not inerrant then we can understand that there never was any global Flood while at the same time taking away some meaning from the story, perhaps that God will punish evil.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 282 by kbertsche, posted 10-12-2017 4:39 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

        
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 16022
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.1


    (1)
    Message 296 of 365 (821829)
    10-13-2017 8:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
    10-12-2017 10:03 AM


    Re: This is not the time to question the premise
    Faith writes:

    I gave you the premise held by "Bible believers," and how we draw from that premise the conclusions we do. It is a sufficient answer to the point I was answering.

    Actually it's not a sufficient answer. Here's your original point from Message 278:

    Faith in Message 278 writes:

    Starting from the premise that the Bible is God's word, we may not understand a lot of it, or may be very uncomfortable with some of the things it says, and yet not doubt that it is the truth. We recognize that the problem is in us rather than in the Bible, a very different perspective than the attitude here that our own judgments are true and the Bible is at fault.

    And you reiterate this point in your current message:

    The simple fact is that we make this judgment and the consequences of that judgment are that we accept it as true whether we like it or understand it.

    Ringo's question remain's unanswered (as does his Message 279). I'll rephrase his question this way: It is your judgment that the Bible is God's inerrant Word, but how do you know your judgment about the Bible is true, especially since you've conceded that your judgment can be false when it differs from Bible, which is only deemed God's inerrant Word by your own (by your own admission) flawed judgment and is not something the Bible says about itself, which would be a circular argument anyway.

    First you should acknowledge the logic of what I said: we don't have to doubt the truth of the Bible just because we don't understand some of it, or even because some of it contradicts our usual assumptions, because we regard it as God's word.

    I can't acknowledge the logic, because there is none there. The errancy of the Bible is self-evident, it's author as God is assumed with no evidence, there isn't even an argument for why books by God must be inerrant, and human judgment is flawed in all things, including about whether a book is God's inerrant Word.

    No, I have a regenerated mind, or what is sometimes called a "sanctified" mind,...

    Yes, we know you think you're born again.

    "Faith is the evidence of things unseen."

    A paraphrase of Hebrews 11:1, which descends into nonsense by 11:3 ("...things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."). This would seem to run counter to your statements that your faith is backed by evidence.

    ...which is given to believers by God and permits us through the Holy Spirit to ascertain divine truths.

    So your flawed judgment isn't flawed anymore? You address that next:

    Believers are also subject to following the old fallen mind if we are not careful to rely on God's guidance,...

    Then you must spend a lot of time in your "old fallen mind" because your behavior here much of the time can not in any way be seen as relying "on God's guidance." Anyway, I believe you believe this, but even you appear to understand that these are things accepted on faith.

    This is not something that can be proved to anyone and I wasn't trying to prove it,...

    So in other words this is something you accept on faith for which there is no evidence. As opposed to the things you accept on faith for which you somehow think there *is* evidence, like the Flood. Two different kinds of faith almost opposite to each other but all part of the same belief system. No wonder your beliefs have The Tension of Faith.

    I merely stated the fact that we believe the Bible is God's word which means that we do not treat it the way we would treat any other book, the way you and other unbelievers do, and the way we used to before we became believers.

    Yes, I understand the statement of belief, but...

    Again, it was a simple logical point.

    There is nothing simple or logical about it. It is belief that you accept on faith, the kind that has no evidence. And I think few if any of us here have any problems with belief based upon that kind of faith, but it's very hard to accept this statement of your belief based upon unevidenced faith given how extensively and often you've written the opposite.

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 281 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 10:03 AM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 299 by Phat, posted 10-13-2017 12:12 PM Percy has responded
     Message 304 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 2:40 PM Percy has responded

        
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 16022
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 3.1


    (1)
    Message 297 of 365 (821832)
    10-13-2017 10:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 287 by GDR
    10-12-2017 9:48 PM


    Re: One More Thing For The Record
    GDR writes:

    Percy writes:

    Many religious people believe they are on a path to improved belief. You think what you believe now an improvement over what you believed before. But to any non-religious person or person of another religion or even a person of your religion who looks at things differently from you, you've only exchanged one set of false beliefs for another. The more recent beliefs might be more detailed and complex and nuanced, but they're false nonetheless.

    How do you know their false? You're just applying your beliefs to mine and finding them different. Maybe one of us is right and maybe both of us are wrong.

    I wasn't comparing your beliefs to my beliefs. I was making an observation on what it looks like from the outside when someone says their beliefs are evolving over time. Let me state this in the most favorable way possible to your perspective by not describing your views as changing but as undergoing a process of refinement. You once viewed some theological aspect one way, now you view it in a more nuanced way, and you think the view you hold today a closer approximation to the truth than your former view. But that view may change again, and then you'll think that new view an even closer approximation to truth. But...

    We can't know in the scientific sense.

    There are not other objective ways of knowing than in the "scientific sense." I'm fine with claims of knowing things subjectively to be true for oneself, but that doesn't make them true for other people, nor does it make them true in any objective sense. But most critically, even the claim of knowing something subjectively to be true breaks down because opinions of what is true change, just as you described. Since all the different beliefs you've held over time can't all be true, likely none of them are true.

    So when you say, "Maybe one of us is right and maybe both of us are wrong," it isn't doesn't capture the actual situation. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I don't have a position on this to be wrong about, because my position is that those things claimed religiously are likely wrong, sometimes because they don't derive from evidence and observation, and sometimes because they differ with other religions in ways where they can't both be true, and sometimes for other reasons. Sure, I concede that it must be true that you're possibly right about some things, but that would be by chance or luck and not via any established path to knowledge.

    Percy writes:

    Morality is subjective, and its origin is buried in our evolutionary history. If morality came from religion then wouldn't our jails be filled with atheists instead of Christians?

    You mean they aren't.

    Not sure how to interpret the smilie. Is the joke that if they're in jail they're not true Christians? But that would be cold and ungenerous, so that can't be it. Is it that you're trying to be gentle about informing me it's not true what I said about jailhouse demographics? But it is true, so that can't be it. Sorry, don't know what you mean.

    Well, as Bob Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody" and I find that Christianity makes sense of the world I live in better than any other philosophy including atheism that I know of.

    I don't think many if any here have any problem with people declaring what path works best for them. Argument only arises when that path is the declared the one, right and true path for everyone, or, as you said in a different context, just ask Faith .

    --Percy


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 287 by GDR, posted 10-12-2017 9:48 PM GDR has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 336 by GDR, posted 10-15-2017 11:01 AM Percy has responded
     Message 338 by Phat, posted 10-15-2017 1:12 PM Percy has responded

        
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 13718
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 298 of 365 (821835)
    10-13-2017 11:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 286 by Phat
    10-12-2017 9:31 PM


    Re: I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
    Phat writes:

    Im still coming to grips with the whole idea of Fallen Minds and Regenerated Minds.


    The idea of "fallen minds" is the most grotesque lie in the pack of lies that is the Fall doctrine. It's a direct contradiction of what God said. Adam and Eve used their minds for the first time when they disobeyed God.

    The only way to have a "fallen mind" is to park it at the door.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 286 by Phat, posted 10-12-2017 9:31 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 300 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2017 12:29 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
     Message 303 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 2:39 PM ringo has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9888
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 299 of 365 (821836)
    10-13-2017 12:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 296 by Percy
    10-13-2017 8:48 AM


    Re: This is not the time to question the premise
    Percy writes:

    ...A paraphrase of Hebrews 11:1, which descends into nonsense by 11:3 ("...things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.")....

    I always thought this implied that material objects were made of atoms.. but that was simply my interpretation of that verse.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 296 by Percy, posted 10-13-2017 8:48 AM Percy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 301 by ringo, posted 10-13-2017 12:45 PM Phat has responded
     Message 312 by Percy, posted 10-13-2017 6:30 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Coyote
    Member
    Posts: 6012
    Joined: 01-12-2008
    Member Rating: 2.4


    Message 300 of 365 (821837)
    10-13-2017 12:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 298 by ringo
    10-13-2017 11:46 AM


    Re: I've Fallen And I Cant Get Up
    The idea of "fallen minds" is the most grotesque lie in the pack of lies that is the Fall doctrine. It's a direct contradiction of what God said. Adam and Eve used their minds for the first time when they disobeyed God.

    From Ayn Rand:
    https://campus.aynrand.org/lexicon/original-sin

    What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge — he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil — he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor — he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire — he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy — all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was — that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love — he was not man.

    Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

    But then the "fall" is a myth anyway.


    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

    Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

    In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

    It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

    If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

    If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

    "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

    Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 298 by ringo, posted 10-13-2017 11:46 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    1819
    20
    2122
    ...
    25Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017