Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is belief in God madness in a modern world?
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 90 (373049)
12-30-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by anastasia
12-30-2006 3:35 PM


Re: But there is no such thing as "The Bible"
Good. Now, what about 'the whole concept of the Bible'?
How is the 'the whole concept of the Bible' any different than the whole concept of the Qur'an, the Book of the Dead, the Vedas or the Tao Te Ching?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 3:35 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 3:52 PM jar has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 62 of 90 (373050)
12-30-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
12-30-2006 3:42 PM


Re: But there is no such thing as "The Bible"
jar writes:
How is the 'the whole concept of the Bible' any different than the whole concept of the Qur'an, the Book of the Dead, the Vedas or the Tao Te Ching?
Well, I seem to remember having discussions about what exactly the whole concept of the Bible is, but..
my question is whether or not the whole concept of the Bible or any book can be called 'absolute'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 3:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 4:02 PM anastasia has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 90 (373052)
12-30-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by anastasia
12-30-2006 3:52 PM


Re: But there is no such thing as "The Bible"
Well, I seem to remember having discussions about what exactly the whole concept of the Bible is, but..
my question is whether or not the whole concept of the Bible or any book can be called 'absolute'.
Since I don't have a clue what that means I can't answer.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by anastasia, posted 12-30-2006 3:52 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 64 of 90 (373053)
12-30-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ringo
12-30-2006 3:15 PM


Re: tally of world morality: too big to say
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.
I have demonstrated it very well (as an amatuer apologist) for those willing to follow and understand.
Your master would suffer the little children to come unto Him. He would not chase them away.
You're no child Ringo. If you were, then you would not be asking trick questions. You are acting as a teacher of the law. As from a position of authority. Feeling the pressure of logic pressing upon you, and you seek to escape. Go ahead... Leave me out of it!
Jesus handled different people in different ways. He was kind to sinners, and of course children.
A sinner is one who acknowledges that's what they are. Otherwise it is offensive. And He spoke scorching words to the selfrighteous, rebuking them in the most absolute tone and asking how they were ever to escape the damnation of hell.
You are like Pilot when he asked Jesus questions. You ask questions, not because you want the answer to adjust your current thinking and conform to reality, but because you are trying to decide how to handle or twist the information so as to hold on to your current thinking in spite of it.
You have everything turned 180 degress. I have experienced the new birth in Christ, and can now see from the other direction. Not because I am righteous, above, and smarter than Ringo, but because I am a sinner, below, and shallower. All it takes is honesty.
I wanted to make a whole thread on that point...
'What is truth?', Pilot asked. And with that he went out.
This is how Jesus answered those selfrighteous pharisees who interrogated Him with trick questions:
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!
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 3:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 5:35 PM Rob has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 65 of 90 (373055)
12-30-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rob
12-30-2006 2:52 PM


Re: off again
You're off again, Rob. Too bad. You were doing so much better making a connection between your comments and the discussions in which they appear. Now this.
You took my statement about being 'reasonable' completely out of context and assumed I was advocating some philosophical position (you label it 'pluralism') that was not under discussion at all.
You took my cautions to you about 'bipolarity' in mental images and matched them against quotes from outside sources to make it appear I was at odds with persons and positions whose views were not under discussion at all.
That's a stinky thing to do, Rob.
My caution about irrational extremes in mental images was not addressed to your mentor or to Wikipedia. It was not addressed to all religious persons or to Jesus. It was addressed to you.
And I gave you good advice. I recommended simply that you develop a taste for moderation. I said this would be healthy.
The way you treated that advice only shows how much you need it. You countered that you had no 'sympathy for the devil' or desire to be like Hitler or Stalin.
Moderation does not mean being like Hitler and Stalin, Rob.
It means being moderate.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

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 66 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 4:51 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 66 of 90 (373062)
12-30-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Archer Opteryx
12-30-2006 4:19 PM


Re: You think so?
And I gave you good advice. I recommended simply that you develop a taste for moderation. I said this would be healthy.
You think so?
Well that's not very moderate of you! What do you think? That I go around telling people that I am right and they are wrong? I do not.
I tell people that we are wrong and God is right. Of course reality is right. That's why it's reality.
This whole notion of moderation is luducrous. It's the most contradictory idea there is and is painfully seductive. A postmodren spell.
Good does not need to moderate, because it is already good.
Evil is what needs to moderate, no matter it's condition relative to the good. Good is the standard. Anything less is corrupted.
And since I realized this, I realized I needed God's help. To my utter shock, He showed Himself to me. He came running to my side just as Jesus said He would in the parable of the lost son.
Whether you believe me is your descision. I didn't believe anyone until I saw Him for myself. But I sure as hell wanted to, I'll admit that. And if reality could be known, and it turned out to be an intimate spiritual relationship with God Himself, who wouldn't?
I don't brag about myself. I brag about God. Why so many make that about me I do not understand.
Perhaps you should moderate...
What you are offended by, is the implication that you are corrupt. Well so was I for a long time. But it was and remains true. For me not to be corrupt, I would have to be perfect. I am corrupt, not perfect. That doesn't mean that we are condemed by God. He does not want to condemn us. That is why He gives us time to think it out. If we seek, we will find. We are only condemned by God if we refuse to see that we are corrupt and take His right hand. But not because He condemns us, but because we condemn ourselves.
We cannot know all truth on our own, but it came and revealed itself to us. What we can do, is follow what truth we do have, and gain more as we are willing to submit to it. Logic does not lie. Contradictions arelies.
God sent His son to save us, not to condemn us. And that is what makes the Bible different from every other book of divinity.
We want to make it all our responsibility so that others will look at us and be impressed. That is precisely what will condemn us.
We need to realize in humility that we do not know the way. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. All synonyms for reality.
There are no magic words. No one size fits all prayer. All it takes is genuine internal honesty. That's it!
Again, you make up your own mind. As with this whole thread, I offer this as an apologetic (a defense) of my faith. Not to preach.

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 65 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 4:19 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 5:20 PM Rob has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 67 of 90 (373071)
12-30-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rob
12-30-2006 4:51 PM


Your post looks complete on its own terms, Rob. I will not respond other than to clear up one thing.
You have assumed more than once lately that I am 'offended' in one way or another.
What you are offended by, is the implication that you are corrupt.
I have never been offended by anything you have written.
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 4:51 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 6:03 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 68 of 90 (373073)
12-30-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rob
12-30-2006 4:11 PM


scottness writes:
I have demonstrated it very well (as an amatuer apologist) for those willing to follow and understand.
This isn't choir practice - it's is a debate site.
You ask questions, not because you want the answer to adjust your current thinking and conform to reality, but because you are trying to decide how to handle or twist the information so as to hold on to your current thinking in spite of it.
Actually, no. I have no need to "hold on to" my current thinking.
I haven't even told you what my "current thinking" is.
I'm just trying to get you to think about your position instead of dribbling the same rhetoric over and over.
Let's try again: Can you show any rationale for your obsessive belief in absolutes?
No trick. Just a simple question.

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 64 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 4:11 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 6:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 69 of 90 (373081)
12-30-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Archer Opteryx
12-30-2006 5:20 PM


I have never been offended by anything you have written.
Alright, then what is there for me to moderate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 5:20 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 6:23 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 70 of 90 (373085)
12-30-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
12-30-2006 5:35 PM


Actually, no. I have no need to "hold on to" my current thinking.
I haven't even told you what my "current thinking" is.
That's good, because he who tries to keep his life will loose it.
You've told me far more than you realize. You have the right not to incriminate yourself you know. Loose lips sink ships. I can tell by your questions, much of what you believe. And that is not something I can prove without your cooperation. Cooperation which I have expected, but never received from you.
Can you show any rationale for your obsessive belief in absolutes?
That is the kind of question I'm talking about.
Here's another... 'Does your mother know your stupid?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 5:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Kader, posted 12-30-2006 6:32 PM Rob has replied
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 12-30-2006 7:18 PM Rob has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 71 of 90 (373088)
12-30-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rob
12-30-2006 6:03 PM


Alright, then what is there for me to moderate?
Reading Message 50 again, quotes included, would be a good start on answering this if you're really interested.
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 6:03 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 8:14 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3726 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 72 of 90 (373091)
12-30-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rob
12-30-2006 6:10 PM


Can you show any rationale for your obsessive belief in absolutes?
That is the kind of question I'm talking about.
Here's another... 'Does your mother know your stupid?'
INsdtead of being childish, why dont you answer the question, i've been reading the whole thread and you didnt give an answer.
So me too I want to know.
Here it is.....
Can you show any rationale for your belief in absolutes?
Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 6:10 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 12-30-2006 7:04 PM Kader has not replied
 Message 78 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 8:53 PM Kader has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 90 (373096)
12-30-2006 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Kader
12-30-2006 6:32 PM


Absolutes do exist.
Can you show any rationale for your belief in absolutes?
I don't think Ringo or Archer or anyone else here denies that some Absolutes exist. There are the examples of mathematics as well as the trivial examples like "any man born will die".
The interesting point is what the implications are of even such trivial absolutes as "anyone born will die".
If you accept that anyone born must die as an absolute, then of course, Jesus death loses any special significance.
Jesus was born therefore, according to the absolute, Jesus would die.
Some folk try to get around it by pointing to crucifixion as something special. Unfortunately, Jesus crucifixion was neither unique or special. At least two others were executed in the same way, at the same time, in the same place as Jesus and it is likely that hundreds were killed the same way the same day across the vast Roman Empire.
Still others try to make Jesus crucifixion something special by claiming he was God. Well, if he was actually divine at the time, then the incident of his death becomes nothing but a fraud and con game. A God cannot be killed by mere humans and even if he pretends to let them kill him, God is eternal and so death is just a pretense.
So Absolutes Exist. Some Absolutes have been presented.
What has not been presented are any examples of Absolute Morals.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Kader, posted 12-30-2006 6:32 PM Kader has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 90 (373099)
12-30-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Rob
12-30-2006 6:10 PM


scottness writes:
I can tell by your questions, much of what you believe. And that is not something I can prove without your cooperation.
So, without my "co-operation", what you think you know about me can't be distinguished from delusion?
How does that relate to the topic? How can anybody distinguish what you think you know about God from delusion?

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 70 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 6:10 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Rob, posted 12-30-2006 8:20 PM ringo has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 75 of 90 (373104)
12-30-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Archer Opteryx
12-30-2006 6:23 PM


We're getting into serious stuff...
Scottness said: 'Alright, then what is there for me to moderate?'
And Archer said:
Reading Message 50 again, quotes included, would be a good start on answering this if you're really interested.
Ok... this is a lot of work. I hope it is respectable to you, if not enlightening.
Here are some that I did not address:
Sanity is perfectly compatible with Christian belief. Sanity is also perfectly compatible with any number of non-Christian beliefs.
You are equating partial sanity as being acceptable terms. Well, we certainly only have that to work with (I'll give you that), even as you said, in any belief.
What I am trying to point out is that sanity, like goodness or truth, is not subject to our subjection. It is objective for our discovery and absolute. Settling for less and compromising is what we must do in this place of time, but that is equivocally admitting we have failed to reach the goal in eternity.
I am not saying we have to be perfect here, but only if we want to go on into God's eternal reality of heaven.
So I have a dillemma. I am not worthy of going to that place, even though it is what I was created for. Which also explains why nothing here satisfies me. No pleasure be it wealth, or sensual. The material world is not enough.
Anyway... I have a dillemma. But then I see that there is one who claimed to be worthy. And He tells me that I can have His righteousness credited to me in exchange for my soul.
As for the debt I could never repay, He satisfies His own Father's (reality's) perfect Justice, by living without any sin. And then He dies in my stead physically, so that I need not die spiritually. And then rises form the dead to prove the afterlife.
Then He promises to send His Spirit to live inside me.
So justice and mercy converge on this astonishing and mysterious cross.
How could I refuse? It was the only sane thing to do in light of my situation. There is nothing He said in regard to sin that was not true. He had me pegged, I only had to admit it, and that was the hard part because I was (and sometimes still am) a liar.
And no belief system innoculates a person against the possibility of insanity.
Of course not. We would have to be perfect to be wholly sane.
Sanity assumes a standard Archer. And that standard (whatever it may be) is the absolute. Just as goodness, what's the difference?
We have twisted the meaning of words so that reasonable and sane are perceived in the pantheist stripe. That good and evil are relative. That they are part of the same one. In that case, 'sanity and goodness' is then balancing them all into some harmony.
But our world in time is in constant conflict because good and evil are both absolute, and both intend to rule. One is the reality that always was and always will be. The other can only imitate the real thing. So naturally, evil does not present itself as such. But rather an angel of light. It's the fruit and serpent story.
Ther is no middle ground in temrs of goodness. That is an invention of man's mind whispered to him from ideational heavenlies.
The first challenge to the absolute: The serpent said, 'Did God really say... for God knows that when you eat of it, you will become like God, knowing good and evil!
We were only meant to be men, and to know the good, and enjoy it's fruit. It takes a God to be able to handle the evil of this world with both justice and mercy. it doesn't take a dilligent leader. it takes the king of the universe. It's a Perfect balance! And He did it on the cross.
Whatever beliefs we hold, we do well to recognize our limitations.
Of course... that's why submission to God makes sense. Not blindly mind you. Jesus did not come into the world to demand blind faith. Jesus came to give sight to all who would come to Him. The faith part is what most of you already have... You know 'something' (some kind of God is there). That is the mustard seed that Jesus talked about. He siad, 'If you have (blind) faith as small as a mustard seed, you can tell that mountain to move, and it will obey you.'
The mountain is the Spirit of the age (the God of this evil world) that whispers to us, 'you cannot know'. Just think of the obvious contradiction in that mountain. If you cannot know, then how can you know that? Because if it were true, it would be reality. Truth and Reality are synonymous.
I said: 'On our knees in humility and realizing the utter failure of ourselves to handle what little power we have?'
And you replied
It's silly to call yourself an 'utter failure' just because human beings don't know everything.
I said we are utter failures in handling what power and truth we do have. That's why the violence, and that's why the deception. Because instead of using it for the only good we are capable of (choosing to give our lives to Him), we instead use it to try and repair the damage ourselves even though we admit we cannot know what picture it is we're trying to rebuild.
So we build our civilizations and our Towers. Time and again they come crashing down. But we are confident? Confident of what? We know next to nothing!
Who is being unreasonable? The man who thinks he is secure? Where is his foundation? By his own admission it is not reality. So why does he remain obstinate?
Priori assumptions of his own. Bias! He has his own imagination to pursue. A human imagination limited to human understanding.
It's silly to call the world 'a sewer of madness' just because human beings don't know everything.
Well, what we are so eager to settle for, used to be a garden. Do you look to the future in hope? Or do you settle for the new existentialist creed of balancing it all for your own happiness in the now?
jean-Paul Sartre in the end, admitted his philosophy held no ground and conceded:
It is sufficient to quote a single sentence from what Sartre said then to measure the degree of his acceptance of the grace of God and the creatureliness of man: "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."
Students of existentialism, the atheistic branch, will note that in this one sentence Sartre disavowed his entire system, his engagements, his whole life. Voltaire converted on his deathbed; one never knows, the brilliant old rascal is supposed to have said. Sartre did not convert, at least outwardly, but came to understand. Everything ought to be forgiven him.
My original source was Ravi Zacharius quoting Norman Geisler. I pulled this off the net: (source / http://www.greatcom.org/...ys_religions/04chap04/default.htm)
The utopianist lives for the future (pie in the sky by and by when I die). The traditionalist lives for the past (tradition tradition tradition). The existentialist lives for the now.
Jesus fused all of history:
Luke 22:15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God." 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
In the communion, we proclaim 'now' our communion with him, his death in the 'past', until He comes in the future.'
Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

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 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-30-2006 6:23 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024