The Suicide of Thought... (Rob and sidelined only)

Rob

If someone says that we are all sinners, the response is often, "It is not truth or fact for everyone".

I am not sure,but it seems to me that this statement is aimed at the premise that we are all sinners.

In point of fact we are all sinners if, and only if, we agree that sin is an actual condition.
Now if we take the tack the we all do things in our lives to break some rule or other then I suppose we are all guilty, but I cannot say this is the case since I do not know the actions of all people.

That said, the notion of a "sin" which I shall assume to be a transgression of God's rules, is true only if there is a God. If a person is not convinced that God exists then it is logically coherent in their view to make the statement " It is not truth or fact for everyone" without denying that such may be true for those that do belive such to be the case.

If I can't say what is true, then how can anyone say what is false? Such an objection is really just a way of saying what is true, just contrary to the rejected truth claim. we have to ask, "is it true that it is false?" That is the only way to affirm it!

It depends on what we are trying to establish is true. In the above istances you gave as example the equation 1+ 1= 2 and the earth is spherical.
Now as a statement of simple arithmetic the equation 1+1 =2 is correct by agreement, however there are instances where such statements do not hold true. The Earth is spherical is true to a great approximation And to an even greater approximation it is an oblate speroid because of its rotational motion, and to an even greater prcision it has a shrinkage in the direction of its orbit around the sun due to relativistic effects.

Your final statement "We are all sinners, even if some do not believe that..." can only be true if we establish that the condition for "sin" is valid.

Only the truth is affirming, so every rejection can be true only by inferring another truth claim. All truth claims are implicitly absolute. So in denying truth, we are making a truth claim.

I do not think this is quite the case, since we deal with the world under the limits of our ability to investigate.We need not make a truth claim at all yet still be able to deny the validity of a premise.

For instance,If you were to tell me that you have telekinetic powers and I think this to be a wonderful ability and something worth investigating ask you to show me this great ability and you attempt but fail to do so am I wrong to deny the truth of your statement? Perhaps. So after a while passes,I ask you to again attempt to demonstrate this ability because I am intensely interested in seeing this for myself.
Now for the second time I find that you cannot do this and I am disappointed because you sound sincere and I am excited by the prospect of this being a thing I can possibly copy. Do I deny the ability now? Perhaps.
Then some months pass and i see you at a party where you are demonstrating the ability to friends and I watch as you succesfully appear to manipulte the movement of pieces of paper under an empty overturned aquarium. Fascinated,I watch and see that the movements even correspond with the movements of your arms and I wonder at the sight.Should I now accept the truth of your claim? Perhaps.

As I watch you demonstrate to others I am struck by the idea that it seems to be odd that the paper moves in accordance with your arms because of a small delay between the movement of your arms and the movement of the paper.So I decide to get in cllsoer and I find that there are no strings of clear thread running under the edge { my first impression is wrong } and I get down to the table surface and watch closely.
Now something occurs that I had not noticed before. A moment before the paper moves I can feel the movement of air at the surface and I follow it around towards the front of the table where you are. I suspect you are somehow breathing in such a way that the air currents are moving under the edge of the aquarium and, subsequently , onto the paper.
I place my arm across the leading edge facing you and ,abruptly, the paper ceases movement. I point out that the paper is moving because of you breathing in such a way as to be inaudible to us but with enough force to reflect off your hands and under a small gap between the table and aquarium edge.
You calmly pause for a moment and berate me for having broke your concentration and then deny that I am correct. You are tired from the effort and you ask to be excused. Do I now deny that you are faking the effect? Perhaps.It is certain that I will still allow you to demonstrate for me provide I am allowed to seal the edges with tape and then allow you to do so again.

Now I have not established that you cannot telekinetically move paper but I do wonder why it happens that the failure was coincident with my blocking the possible entrance of air.After many other trials and tests without success when conditions are met to eliminate the other possibilities I need not deny the position that you hold but I need not consider it to be truth either.That said, I can hold the personal opinion that such an ability is not something you posseses.
Now in denying the truth of the claim am I thereby caliming another thing to be true.No.I have investigated to the limits of my bility and you have failed to show me the condition to be true as applies to yourself not to the validity of the exisitence of telekinesis.

If folks want us to believe that they are righteous and sinless, it is they who have an evidence problem. Because the only way that is possible, is if they are Gods, because there is no such thing as a perfect man unless He is God incarnate!

If a sin is commited only because it breaks a rule agreed to by humans as a means to providing social order then such can be the case. However sin as a rule established by God is not something that has been shown to be the case.
If we go by the Christian bible then we can say that even God commits sin since God has killed so this is not a good arguement.

Many cannot even bring themselves to consider that 'one man' was sinless and God's true Son, but in denying their sin, they expect us to believe that they are that man?

I cannot speak for others and would not presume to do so. For myself I would not deny the bible states that this is the case but that does not,in and of itself, make it so.I do not deny I have "sinned" in that I have broken rules that are found in the bible. I merely make the assertion that the God they are said to be established by has not be shown to my satisfaction to exist except in the minds of those that believe such.

I personally am not insulted that I am rejected for speaking the truth. But I do get frustrated that people are so obstinate (like me).

I long ago gave up on the seeking truth, since I find it far more productive to seek clarity and I find this to be something that is consonant with an atheist viewpoint wherein there is no supernatural "background" to the world and the universe is neutral to our existential angst.

Humanity rejects Jesus, and that is their individual perogative. He forces us to decide in an absolute and affirming fashion whether He was a liar or God in the flesh. It's totally up to the individual.

So goes the Christian point of view. This is just one of many POV's that have existed throughout time though.I would maintain that we need not view him as anything other than the imaginations of primitive people trying to bring a scoial order to the particualr tribes of the areas in which they lived as a means of harnessing the greater capabilities found in working together for a common goal as opposed to individual foraging.

Those who proclaim Christ are just doing what they know is right, because they know their Lord. If we don't like it, then so what. It's their perogotive as well to call it as they see it, even if we think they're mad.

So you say. However,just as in the scenario of the telekinesis I outlined,the fact that I do not adhere to your point of view in no way means that the POV you hold has no value for you, just that it holds no such value for myself.

We should understand that rejecting, is equal to proclaiming truth. Many do not understand that they imply truth everytime they denounce something, and not just when they affirm something.

Not at all. I have no idea what the truth is. It simply is not something I think that can be known. You disagree fine we are all adults and capable of choice. I do not think there is a God since I see no way that such can be consistent with my POV. That said does not mean that there is no god, it just means that I am unconvinced by the arguements made is all.

I don't understand the problem. If we don't like people speaking the truth, then we should be consistent and stop doing it!

You have not established that you are speaking the truth. You have only established by proclamation that you believe that you speak the truth. If you make a statement in which I feel you have been in error then it is up to you to defend it. If at the end of it all you have failed to convince me then it is too bad thatI am such a pigheaded fool incapable of seeing the obvious. I do not hold this to be the case with you. If I feel that you are missing something then I do not think it is my mission to convince you otherwise. I will not try to talk somebody out of a position that they talked themselves into in the first place. Sorta along the lines of teaching a pig to sing y'know?

We can't say that we disagree without contradicting ourself and proclaiming truth of our own. So we should be consistent, by shutting our mouths if we do not believe in absolute truth.

You still have not offered a convincing arguement for absolute truth ,just a obstinate unyielding POV. Such is life and I think that you are incorrect. So sue me or present a far more convincing arguement.

Those that believe in truth should be consistent by speaking truth with boldness and without fear. They are the true rebels...

Funny how truth seems to be something people are convinced that their group are the only ones that are correct in and all others are deluded. From such declarations are the fields of battle painted in blood.

I will leave out the Chesterson quote as I believe we will probably delve into his statement s time goes by.

Balls in your court Rob. Hopefully I can find enough time and access in the future to repond a little more often as i am going to be taking on a second job in the daytime this summer.

---

Dear Mrs Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.

Best wishes, Richard Feynman.

GREAT DEBATE THREAD - ROB and SIDELINED

Rob

In point of fact we are all sinners if, and only if, we agree that sin is an actual condition.

Drug addicts are drug addicts, long before they are willing to accept that reality and seek treatment. They're belief is a cop out, and is only denial. They choose not to see because they are so deticated and enslaved by their quest for enjoyment.

I am not denying that we sin in that we break rules of conduct outlined by society. What I do dispute is that the rules are sctually "sin" as is defined as a transgression against god. I have never had someone do more than play word games with pithy little analogies like this one.

A drug addict has an actual condition that we can see improve by the abstinence from the taking of the drug. I have seen no convincing evidence that people such as myself are avoiding the issue of having commited sin because we wish to trnsgress against God as a matter of rebellion.

Jesus, in John 5:6, asked a man who had been invalid for 38 yrs, if he wanted to get well? One would think the answer is obvious, but unfortunately the man replied with rationalizations and excuses for why he was in the condition. Jesus then comanded the man to get up, and the man made the correct decision in response. We can choose to accept such forceful calls on our bluff, but many do not!

Do you seek to imply that people such as myself are deliberately making excuses to avoid admitting that a point of view that a God exists is valid? I could not disagree more. I do not think God exists because there is no good evidence that this is true. That people belive that a God exists I am completely convinced of. I just doubt that it is something seperate from the human construct of God is all.

People think they are hidden in their sin. What they do not realize is that those who are free from the prison see right through the fig leaves. And as they try to share the good news of how to be free, they are mocked and abused for speaking the truth and shedding light on the situation that so many choose not to see.

I have never been less convinced of something than the conviction of people to knowing that they see the truth while others are blind. In point of fact the abuse you speak of is not necessarily a personal attack on your views so much as it is an attack on the presumption that the rest of people are idiots because they do not agree with your take on things.For the record,I am free, and any actions I take in my life I also accept the responsibilty for and if a price must be paid for that then the burden is, by choice, mine alone.

Not funny at all! Everything is that way; including what you just said in that quote. The truth is exclusive! If there is a Metaphysical reality, then it is absolute! as Bertrand Russel said, 'Unless you assume a creator, the question of lifes purpose is meaningless."

I agree that life is meaningless hopeless and in the end you die. Why do people find that a problem? That life has no meaning does not mean that we cannot use the brief time we have to express ourselves in relation to our fellow travellers in life. We're here for a good time, not a long time.In my view this does not mean that we must despair though this is up to the individual. To me it means that while I am alive I shall think great thoughts drink fine wine and eat fine food. And of course dance to the music. When death comes I will shake its hand and thank it for the chance to have been alive.

If it is not absolute, then it would include all faiths and beliefs. In which case, such a reality would exclude the Christ's claim that He does not include all faiths and beliefs.

But Christ is not a priori what the bible claims him to be anymore than the many myths and legends of the past. That you believe this to be the case does not make it correct it just makes it your belief. That Christ claimed this to be true is only valid if the accounts of Christ are also true. However you can not use the premise of an arguement as a conclusion in that arguement.

So no matter how you slice it, truth is exclusive! If it were not, then 3+3 would equal whatever we want it to equal. Some real dumb-asses may even prefer that it subtract and equal -17! Such thinking is simply nonsensicle.

Truth of what? That God exists? We have not even come close to supporting that simple premise and you would rush ahead and conclude, because it makes sense to you that it is therefore absoultely true? This is a bare assertion not a convincing arguement to make me pause and reflect upon.
And again you somehow think that the single level arithmetic dealing with a simple equation is somehow transferable to themulti level complex word around us? Why do you use the term dumb-ass? I mean, yeah, I am an ass but I think it alittle premature to assume I am dumb.
Thinking is a very difficult art and I think that as we progress I can show you just how the old adage " The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." is applicable to everybody.

sidelined writes: Your final statement "We are all sinners, even if some do not believe that..." can only be true if we establish that the condition for "sin" is valid.

Rob writes: I completely agree! So what do you make of the child sex industry, or the idea of burning atheists as witches? If there is no absoute moral law coming in from the transcendant, then how do you propose that we should (which implies purpose)invent something that is meaningless? And in case you do not suppose we should do anything; then on what grounds do you suppose that I am wrong whereby to debate me on this subject which is neither right or wrong?

You are confusing the meaning of my statement.Sin, in the sense that we are breaking an established rule, in not in doubt here. "Sin" as a breaking of rules as a result of the imposed will of a God rather than a system of conduct to allow human society to work together in life is where we part company.

We have law against killing because that breeds a climate of fear and we cannot properly enjoy each other if we do so. That we have a rule against stealing makes sense because it is disheartening to work hard in the living of life to allow the hard earned gains to taken without fear of reprisal. Thus we find that placess of High crime are also places of restricted freedom and enjoyment.

I debate you because I think you are in error and because I whined louder than the others and you picked me LOL

I will have to get back to the rest of this post and your next one at another time. See ya!

Edited by AdminPD, : Added Great Debate Header

Edited by sidelined, : added quotes

Rob

Calrity is found in putting pieces of a puzzle together so as to make an intelligible picture possible. It is called shedding light on an issue, or making known, or revealing, or explaining in a manner that reflects reality. Reality being true or untrue just as Aristotle said so clearly...

The nature of reality is far more subtle and indirect than the cursory glance that was available to Aristotle and other ancients.There are areas of inquiry and consequences of that inquiry than Arisotle could have even anticipated.
Clarity includes the world view of scientific investigations and modern understanding of the limitations of our "common sense" ideas of how things actually work. It is not intuitively obvious that a situation could exist wherein the statement 1+1=2 is not correct but that is incomplete in its understanding of these subtlties.
We shed light when we can confirm an idea through experiment and observation and not through speculation.

I don't think we really need to question those questions. They tend to dispell any myths... The rejection of morality is not based on a lack of evidence. It is based on a desire to continue sinning, and in denying that we understand.

I disagree. The rejection of morality is not at issue since even an atheist such as I can be moral. The issue is with the contention that the moral attitude needs a supernatural origin. I have broken those rules which you would call commandments and if I had the desire to continue I would but I do not yet I arrived here by choice and commitment to not hurting others for my own gain.
I understand maybe more than you can fathom the depths of depravity but this does not mean I am in thrall to them.It has cost me dearly and the cost of the acts is what instilled the moral sense to do no more damage in that way.
I do not reject morality I simply realize that it is an arbitrary choice and that the veil of civility that seperates us from commiting deeds that would shock us is very thin indeed. Like a man once said, given the right conditions I can turn anybody into a wholesale killer.

As Muggeridge said, "The depravity of man is at once, the most imperically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, the most intellectually resisted fact."

That is an ignorant statement in that it does not also see the flip side of humans capabilities either.The capacity to endure hardships of the most horrific kind and to demonstrate a willingness to literally walk through fire to aid another without thought is also easily verifiable.
We are human. That statement contains in it the breadth of all so called morality and justice and idealistic striving for a better world AND the unthinking,unfeeling, capricious lack of empathy and understanding of simple caring for anyone other than oneself and sometimes including oneself.

We humans are so easily lit up to perform irrational acts and as we become a more economically interwoven world society we keep failing to make the distinction between justice and human rights {multiple level, multiple influence} from our justice,our human rights.

That we all tend to find killing abhorent can be explained sufficiently by the fact that even the most savage and powerful are incapable of survival, much less enjoyment of life,without the constant focus of attention on the interactions of oneself with others to keep from becoming a statistic.
As for stealing we tend to have a less rigid view since it seems to me that people steal on a regular basis but that what we consider theft is a matter of personal levels of what constitutes value.
Lying {bearing false witness} is an even shakier subjective condition in which we must first recognize that we are,in fact, lying and we even have a phrase in the english language{little white lies} to distiguish a valid form of lying that we brush away as a matter of acceptance of its not so pertainent nature. And this merely deals with lying to others.Far more subtle and elusive is the lies we tell ourselves.

Do you have a preference? What right do you have, to deny them their right to eat you???

Well ,for one thing I am tough and gamey so the value of nourishment off my bones is worth less that the expendeture of time and energy needed to tenderize and make palatable this sack of meat.Other than that there is the distinct probability that anyone trying will find the kill to cost them dearly.:laugh

Job chap 13:6-12: "Hear now my argument; listen to the plea of my lips. Will you speak wickedly on Gods behalf? Will you speak deceitfully for him? Will you show him partiality? Will you argue the case for God? Would it turn out well if he examined you? Could you deceive him as you might deceive men? Would not his splendor terrify you? Would not the dread of him fall on you? Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses, defenses of clay!

I will none of the above since it is a logical misstep to assume the antecendent if you cannot show by logical deduction that the god in the chapter is is an actual entity to which the above conditions apply. Since there is no succesful arguement to god that is neither circular nor derived from mere faith then I need not give the above matter thought.

The author appears to think that the veiled threats he implies are sommehow a replacement for cogent arguement.Since he is rigid and incapable of rational discussion that would include the possibilty that his position is false and will not listen then I would wish him well and continue on my way.

Rob

-RobIt's not that God wants to punish us. He does not. But His justice requires payment. He filled that requirement. We are already in the state of lost-ness. He has reached down with His own 'right hand' to offer us what He wills for us (eternally). If we refuse, then we stay in the state of confusion we are already in. And that is essentially what hell is.

The issue here seems to be that you consider us all to be in a state of "lost-ness" as you put it. Let us explore this shall we? Just what do you consider this lost-ness to entail and by what means did you gain insight into this condition?

Rob

It is obvious in reading through your posts that you have had a great deal of turmoil in your life and that the result of your struggles and searching was to take the road that many choose in Christianity and submit to your emotional weariness and don what I consider to be an even more unhealthy attitude by assuaging youdespair in the cloak of imagination and psychological parrying of the hurt you feel.
It has been my observation that the acceptance of Christ into your life is a socially accepted means of healing through acceptance by others for common transgressions and guilt over decisions made in life.
However, that said, it is not necessary to assume that all people feel this way and that the world and human motivations and the actions of people are indeed "sinful" or anything other than response to what conditions were faced by individuals in stressful situations.

To you there are answers to be found in the companionship of others and the benefit of communal support. You also make a statement here I would like to pursue, since I think it pertinent.

I asked Jesus to forgive me, and to take my life as His own and show me the way. I didn't know what to expect, but I was broken. To my utter shock, something happened. To describe it is not possible other than to point to things others have said like, 'the peace that passeth understanding'. I was blind but now I see.

I have heard this many times throughout my dealings with some Christians and I have been puzzled by what precisely was meant by this as it seems to me that they are anything but filled with peace.I have known many before and after their conversion and I have not noticed any difference in their actions from before.
When we are emotionally distraught we often seek solace in one form or another drugs, booze, loud music etc... and having gone through that in my life I must say that it is my impression that the Christianity and other religions have merely hooked into a social version of the escape found through drugs and such. That people find solace and comfort there does not surprise me nor does the apparent "fix" that they require weekly and to me it is no different from other mind altering states in that it allows us to deflect the realities of life that we have difficulty in accepting, most especially our mortal lives.

You say you were utterly shocked to find that something occured and yet you admit to being broken and in despair so why do you find it strange that you should feel different after having unburdened yourself to a group that would support you when you accept their beliefs? Having just expressed the remorse and admitting that you felt lost and alone to a group or even to yourself about your feelings can be a powerful experience right?

I have also done the accept Christ into your life bit back when I thought my mother was dying and I was sincere in my need to accept such and the end result was that nothing occured so what do I make of this? That I was rejected and that God hates me or was I not sincere and broken enough? The impression I got was that the difference lay with how we process the events we find significant in our lives.
You had been seeking answers to questions about the world and was envious of other people and feeling inadequate while I have never felt a disconnect from life in those ways and perhaps the social life you have through the groups of people you run with is of importance to you.
I have always been a loner and perhaps it is because of my solitary nature that the "gift" never took hold. I felt no pressure to "feel" a "peace that passeth understanding" by a peer group since the people who sought to convert me were complete strangers.

In the light of later years I have come to accept my mortality and to realize that the things I found so important as a youth and all the questionable impulses and inclinations I followed were simply a result of not knowing better or perhaps because youth follow their 'feelings' more than their reasoning.

I confessed to God my inability to comprehend what was true and what wasn't. I confessed I would be rightly condemned if judged by an all seeing God. I confessed that I was utterly lost without Him.

This is telling as well since the despair you felt is so obvious in these statements. Can I ask you if you were told to what you must say in order to be saved or was this by your own conviction ?

The reason I ask is that this is quite close to the words that the group I ran into gave to me to speak and I was wondering if it was different in your case.

I shall await your response to these further questions.

Rob

I suffer more now, than the initial struggles that brought me to Christ (as bad as they were). And that was quite a shock to me at first, until I read more of what Jesus had to say. And His spirit confirmed those words for me on the inside. It was, and is, like reading what I was already thinking when I arrive at a new level of understanding and wisdom. You see, I didn't really think there was much wrong with me at the time. I was a normal family man in many respects. The only thing I knew with certainty, was that I was a sinner. And I don't know what to tell you, other than I believed what Jesus said without really comprehending much more than that. I recognized His Word as 'truth'.

Well this brings a further muddying of the fields out in the open since you are already convinced of the truth of Jesus words before you even accept him into your life how do you determine that you have not merely talked yourself into the psychological status you now operate in? More to the point how do you convince others that such is not the case?
First though let us begin by examining the things that you considered the struggles that led you to Christ.

Rob

I wasn't convinced that Jesus words are true. His words are true! Do you see the difference?

Nope. It would be good of you to clarify.

Let me place the burden on you. Show me something He said that isn't true.

Just as soon as you can find me something written by him to show that he said it,rather than by third party reference to events decades after by people not even witness to the events themselves.

Let's stop beating around the bush. Psychological status? You mean that I am mad? Compared to whom? Those who know the truth?

Easy now big guy, By psychological status I mean your state of mind not your level of sanity.

How can I convince anyone of something they refuse to accept? A child cannot be taught if he makes up his mind not to submit to the teacher

You convince someone with the strength of the argument you present to justify your position on a subject. Of course if a person has closed their minds we cannot begin to penetrate it without their consent.However, to state that a person is closed minded simply because they disagree with your argument is an incorrect stance to assume. It may well be that they have heard better arguments concerning the subject you wish to discuss and thus consider your argument insufficient to sway their opinion.

I've stood on the other side of the fence Sidelined. I was 33 years old when I came to faith. I let go of my 'psychological status' in our 'relative perceptions of reality' that you appear to refer to as sanity.

Since I have explained the meaning of psychological status then we need pursue this misunderstanding any further.

I have given up faith in America, human wisdom, materialism, political freedom, etc (hedonism IOW). They are all going to parish. They are momentary empires and strategies. They are the goal posts that move.

Heaven and earth shall pass away too the bible says yet this is not troubling to me since I am not holding on to the notion of wishing more from life.

What can be believed in? Why am I here? What is reality? Who am I? Who is God? None of these questions are answered by my old 'psychological status'.

Believe what you will.
I do not know why you are here. Perhaps it is a wrong question to ask.
Reality is a slippery matter but there are many clues that we have established throughout history by rule and line.
Who God is has never been established with any level of certainty that I am aware of.
Perhaps your state of mind is something that you decided to cling to as a means of taking a stance you agreed with.

Can you bring me back? Are you my savior? Can you help me to see the light? Can you answer those questions for me?

No. I do not think the questions are actually valid since it is my understanding that the things you ask have no basis in reality.

sidelined writes: First though let us begin by examining the things that you considered the struggles that led you to Christ.

Rob writes: Why do you want to know?

It gives us insight into the workings of your mind in relation to those struggles and how the events you went through led you to Christ.
Perhaps you have an epiphany of understanding that we are not aware of. Perhaps you have made an error of reasoning. Without the understanding of these things we cannot decide for ourselves the validity of the things you profess.

---

" Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!!What a ride!"
-----------------------------------------
What delightful hosts they are-Love and Laughter!
Lingeringly I turn away at this late hour,yet glad
They have not withheld from me their high hospitality.
So at the door I pause to press their hands once more
And say,"So fine a time!Thank you both...and goodbye.