Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is belief in God madness in a modern world?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 46 of 90 (373018)
12-30-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
12-30-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Johnny Be Good
I asked you a question: How many times does the word "absolute" appear in the Bible?
depends on the translation...
New International Version - 1 Verse:
The Holman Christian Standard Bible - 2 Verses:
The Complete Jewish Bible - 2 Verses:
The New Living Translation - 4 Verses:
The New Revised Standard Version - 1 Verse:
The Good News Translation - 3 Verses:
The Douay-Rheims Bible - 1 Verse:
GOD'S WORD - 2 Verses:
The Message - 9 Verses:
Weymouth New Testament - 4 Verses:
Today's New International Version - 1 Verse:
First we must agree as to what the meaning of the Word is.
Websters: 1: free from imperfection or mixture 2:
The Word of God is by definition, Absolute.
We can then insert the word absolute in the english as a synonym to describe what is ultimately a Biblical concept.
Your question is nonesense. How many times does the word 'absolute' appear in Russian?
The Russians do not use the word 'absolute', so the concept must not be in the vanacular.
Utter nonesense!
Why would you even play such game? Just to give me a rise?
That's the only reason can relate to. And please accept my apologies for doing so in the past...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 12:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 1:39 PM Rob has replied
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 1:49 PM Rob has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 47 of 90 (373020)
12-30-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
12-30-2006 1:31 PM


scottness writes:
The Russians do not use the word 'absolute', so the concept must not be in the vanacular.
Unless, of course they are ordering vodka ; free of imperfecton or mixture = Absolut.
Before any one catches this...Absolut is actually Swedish, but Russians do use the word 'absolute' also. They have many words from the Latin as we do.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 1:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 1:45 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 55 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 2:55 PM anastasia has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 90 (373022)
12-30-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by anastasia
12-30-2006 1:39 PM


Except of course Absolut is Swedish, not Russian.
But that makes as much sense as many of the other assertions in this thread, assertions like "The word of God is Absolute."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 1:39 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 1:55 PM jar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 90 (373024)
12-30-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rob
12-30-2006 1:31 PM


scottness writes:
The Word of God is by definition, Absolute.
Empty assertion.
We can then insert the word absolute in the english as a synonym to describe what is ultimately a Biblical concept.
Non sequitur.
How many times does the word 'absolute' appear in Russian?
Silly question. I asked how many times the word appears in a specific book because you claim that the whole concept of the book involves that word. Is it unreasonable to expect an English book about absolutes to use the word "absolute"?
Why would you even play such game?
It's not a game. It's an oppurtunity for you to demonstrate that your beliefs are rational.
The obsession with absolutes in every thread doesn't seem rational, especially since you are unable to substantiate your claims of absolutes in any thread. The next rational step might be to demonstrate that your counted instances of "absolute" do constitute the whole concept of the Bible.
Regurgitating Sunday School rhetoric is not a good demonstration of sanity.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 1:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 2:34 PM ringo has replied
 Message 56 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 2:59 PM ringo has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 50 of 90 (373025)
12-30-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rob
12-29-2006 10:03 AM


Re: tally of world morality: too big to say
scottness:
Archer, I want to share a few things... You make up your own mind. I only ask that you try to see my point.
I saw your point before you made it.
When I posted my comments about the limits of human knowledge, I knew you would view that as an opportunity to announce that God has no such limits, then segue into a Jesus commercial.
Of course God has no such limits. He's God.
I discussed human beings because human beings are the creatures having this discussion. This includes you. It is reasonable to take into account the limitations that come with that.
And none of what I offer below is preaching. It is simply the defense of the sanity of belief in Christ as per the Biblical cannon.
You are defending yourself against a charge I never made. And the spelling you want is canon.
Sanity is perfectly compatible with Christian belief. Sanity is also perfectly compatible with any number of non-Christian beliefs. And no belief system innoculates a person against the possibility of insanity.
Whatever beliefs we hold, we do well to recognize our limitations.
On our knees in humility and realizing the utter failure of ourselves to handle what little power we have?
It's silly to call yourself an 'utter failure' just because human beings don't know everything.
Here below lies a sewer of madness if what you say is true Archer (that we cannot know).
It's silly to call the world 'a sewer of madness' just because human beings don't know everything.
It's all-or-nothing with you, isn't it? Extremes. Either we possess all the answers (omniscience) or we possess none (insanity).
You recognize no states in the middle. Certainly none that might be of any worth.
That's a very bipolar way of looking at things.
No, scottness, religious belief does not equal insanity. But extreme bipolarity does.
Consider making a place in your thoughts for moderation. Any kind at all.
It's healthier.
__
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 12-29-2006 10:03 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 2:52 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 51 of 90 (373026)
12-30-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
12-30-2006 1:45 PM


jar writes:
Except of course Absolut is Swedish, not Russian.
Yeah, thanks, I caught that...I get all the vodkas mixed up.
The question is, what does one do with all those pesky different flavors of Absolut?
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 1:45 PM jar has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 52 of 90 (373032)
12-30-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
12-30-2006 1:49 PM


Ringo writes:
Empty assertion.
If we use 'absolute' as an adjective -complete in itself, perfect, faultless- I would imagine the Word of God to be absolute.
Our understanding of it will not necessarily be.
But is the Bible absolute?
Is it complete in itself?
Does it require external interpretation to 'complete' it?
Is it perfect or faultless?
And in what ways does it differ from other books...like, hm, 'A Tale of Two Cities' which is 'complete in itself'?
Just questions, no answers supplied!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 1:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 2:38 PM anastasia has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 53 of 90 (373033)
12-30-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by anastasia
12-30-2006 2:34 PM


anastasia writes:
If we use 'absolute' as an adjective -complete in itself, perfect, faultless- I would imagine the Word of God to be absolute.
Are you conflating "word of God" with "Bible"? Which version of the Bible is the complete word of God?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 2:34 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 3:05 PM ringo has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 54 of 90 (373036)
12-30-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Archer Opteryx
12-30-2006 1:49 PM


Re: tally of world morality: too big to say
Alright Archer. That was very good. I think we can let down our gaurd now and have a reasonable discussion. Let's at least try. This ultimately is a massive theme. We must take our time.
No one likes to be clobbered by logic, but we must find a way to adapt to it. I'll try to be more sensitive, and not be so sensitive myself ok?
Your post in general was far more reasonable IMO than some of your other replies. And I will not address all of your points at this time. For now let's look at some.
You recognize no states in the middle. Certainly none that might be of any worth.
All worldviews have at least some worth. but God is ultimately the only one that is completely worthy. That is what we are all trying to find. There are overlapping truths in worldviews. But just because they have some things in common, does not mean they are equally worthy. To gain more truth, we all must be willing to let go of that which we posses, when we find it to be false. And that is always painful.
'Reasonable' does not mean we accept any point of view. In fact 'reason' means quite the opposite. We shouldn't confuse 'reason' with pluralism. Being reasonable, does not mean we accept all truth claims. That would be pluralism, where no worldview is dominant.
With pluralism, there is a loss of 'reason'.
For an example, I will borrow a point from a mentor of mine:
"Jesus is making a very reasonable statement when he said, 'I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.' It is more reasonable to say that all religions are wrong, than it is to say all religions are right! Did you understand that?"
"It is more reasonable that we are all deluded, but we cannot all be right, because the law of non contradiction is not Eastern or Western, it is that which best reflects reality. Bear that in mind, because this has died in the secular age with all the relativsm that has come about."
You said:
That's a very bipolar way of looking at things.
No, it is a philosophically dualist way of looking at things.
Wikipedia:
Like ditheism/bitheism (see below), moral dualism does not imply that such a religion is not monist, or even that such a religion is not monotheistic. Moral dualism simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and - unlike ditheism/bitheism - independent of how these may be represented.
No, scottness, religious belief does not equal insanity. But extreme bipolarity does.
Well then Jesus was insane, because He was a dualist in the monothestic sense! My first post on EVC was an article intending to show that Jesus was a dualist in the philosophical sense defined above. http://EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll -->EvC Forum: What are you? EvC poll
Nosy gave me my first introduction to the rules by spanking me for such a long post. It wasn't long before I was suspended. Boy did I have a lot to learn...
That article has since been edited extensively. Here is an excerpt:
...Christ spoke no doubletalk about being all inclusive. We cannot have it both ways. 1+1 cannot = both 2 and 3 and 5 and 8 etc. To attempt such is to eat the fruit of ”the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Jesus said, ”Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division’ (Luke 12:51). A monist cannot say this for their concept of deity only works to unite. The truth always divides and separates reality from subjection, which is why Monism cannot be true.
John 9:16 Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But others asked, "How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?" So they were divided.
Acts 23:7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Psalm 78:13 He divided the sea and led them through; he made the water stand firm like a wall.
Matthew 25: 31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
In conclusion, I wish to point out that in the Biblical sense, Jesus was most assuredly not a monist...
I follow my master. And you are doing precisly what the pharisees did. They demonized Him, and said He was Mad.
John 10:20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"
Consider making a place in your thoughts for moderation. Any kind at all.
It's healthier.
I have no 'symapthy for the devil', Mick Jagger notwithstanding.
I intend to uproot evil and distortion in myself as Christ enables me, and I intend to tell others that they can be free from evil as well, if they choose to follow the Spirit of truth and let Him lead them to where they cannot go on their own. That's because logic already exists, we only need conform to it, we cannot invent it or take credit for it. And that does not mean that people are not already good and logical is some degree. Of course we are. Even Hitler and Stalin had a measure of self control. It only means that truth has no limit to it's goodness, so we must never rest other than in Him for mercy and leadership.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 1:49 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 3:15 PM Rob has replied
 Message 65 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 4:19 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 55 of 90 (373037)
12-30-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by anastasia
12-30-2006 1:39 PM


Unless, of course they are describing vodka
Of course!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 1:39 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 56 of 90 (373039)
12-30-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
12-30-2006 1:49 PM


I asked how many times the word appears in a specific book because you claim that the whole concept of the book involves that word. Is it unreasonable to expect an English book about absolutes to use the word "absolute"?
No Ringo, I suppose not...
New International version - 1 verse
The Holman Christian Standard Bible - 2 Verses:
The Complete Jewish Bible - 2 Verses:
The New Living Translation - 4 Verses:
The New Revised Standard Version - 1 Verse:
The Good News Translation - 3 Verses:
The Douay-Rheims Bible - 1 Verse:
GOD'S WORD - 2 Verses:
The Message - 9 Verses:
Weymouth New Testament - 4 Verses:
Today's New International Version - 1 Verse:
Now will you please just.... go away.

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 1:49 PM ringo has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 57 of 90 (373041)
12-30-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ringo
12-30-2006 2:38 PM


scottness writes:
The whole concept of the Bible is absolute. It is said to be the very Word from the mouth of God.
In reference to this sentence, said to be from the very Mind of scottness, I am perhaps wondering if the 'whole concept of the Bible' can be conflated with the Word of God, or aside from that, I will settle for 'Bible'.
It's just a question; Is the Bible absolute, or is a concept absolute?
No conflations provided.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 2:38 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 3:17 PM anastasia has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 58 of 90 (373043)
12-30-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rob
12-30-2006 2:52 PM


Re: tally of world morality: too big to say
scottness writes:
I follow my master.
Your master said, "Ask and ye shall receive." I have asked you to demonstrate that your addiction to absolutes is not a symptom of madness.
Your master would suffer the little children to come unto Him. He would not chase them away.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 2:52 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 4:11 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 90 (373045)
12-30-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by anastasia
12-30-2006 3:05 PM


But there is no such thing as "The Bible"
In reference to this sentence, said to be from the very Mind of scottness, I am perhaps wondering if the 'whole concept of the Bible' can be conflated with the Word of God, or aside from that, I will settle for 'Bible'.
It's just a question; Is the Bible absolute, or is a concept absolute?
No conflations provided.
How can the Bible be absolute when there is no such thing as "The Bible".
The Samaritan Bible is only the first five books. Not one word of the New Testament is considered Biblical.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible has eighty-one books.
As a mater of fact, the ONLY books that are common to all of the Christian Canons are the first five books.
When there are multiple examples of something like the bible, how can it be an absolute?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 3:05 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 3:35 PM jar has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 60 of 90 (373048)
12-30-2006 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
12-30-2006 3:17 PM


Re: But there is no such thing as "The Bible"
Good. Now, what about 'the whole concept of the Bible'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 3:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 3:42 PM anastasia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024