Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 151 of 270 (415955)
08-13-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rob
08-13-2007 2:14 AM


Rob writes:
If I experience something, and it is married with emperical evidence, and... is logically consistent, then I have much more than emperical evidence.
Your "experiences" are subjective. Different colours of theist have different, often mutually exclusive "experiences". So no, you don't have "more" than empirical evidence.
But your own definition of answers (which is also the definition of truth) does not pertain only to the emperical world as you thought, it also pertains to the orderly nature of reality in general....
"Reality in general" is the empirical world. No other reality has been established as valid in this discussion.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
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 150 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 2:14 AM Rob has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 152 of 270 (415984)
08-13-2007 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2007 10:57 PM


"inadequacies"
Then by all means, present some other possibilities. I'm certainly open to that. What other options exist?
I have said what is sufficient, I have also said that beyond that it is personal. I don't need to lay it all out for you to drool over -- or do you want details of my sex life next? Send you pictures? A video with sound? Live internet link?
Alternatively you could actually look for other possibilities yourself. It's not like I have exclusive rights to them.
I mean, really! There wasn't anything that I directed towards you before you blew a gasket. And anyone with even a nominal familiarity with psychology knows that anyone that defensive about innocuous questions must have some underlying problem with the inquiry.
I think its evident at this point that perhaps you've reached some epiphany and you're just lashing out in frustration.
You can't answer the question, can you? Look, if this is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. I've never seen you this inane or flustered before.
If that's what you need to believe to feel safe in your faith and your limited myopic world view then go for it. Of course it could just be another of the numerous examples of your amazingly limited ability to see other possibilities. Your need to define the situation this way could just be your way of dealing with your basic inability to consider other possibilities, other answers, reality. Obviously you have a sever (need I say neurotic?) need to feel superior to others on the matter of faith and belief, and this is just one way to feed that kind of neurosis.
This from someone who posted that the US border is 98% land
What? LOL! The person, (I think Anglagard) said that we needed to remove the walls and start building bridges in their place. I informed him that there is only one bridge, 90 miles long, and that's in California. The 2% difference was in the unlikely event that I was missing some small river in Southern California.
But aside from all that, this is all wayyy off topic.
You think???
It's on topic about your inability to ground-check facts and to look into the truth of what you are posting, and to check all the possibilities. Now you are equivocating to wiggle around the blatant error of your post.
Message 93
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of.
We were discussing all the borders of the US, the length of the border with Canada that needed no walls, and the practicality of building walls instead of bridges (metaphorically btw, just in case you missed that small element of the discussion). That would be why Anglagard replied
Message 99
Please allow me to elaborate upon what RAZD has pointed out, perhaps too subtly. On the southern border of the US there is a river called the Rio Grande that goes from one end of Texas to the other, from El Paso to Brownsville.
Why would Anglagard talk about Texas if you were clearly and unmistakable and unequivocally talking only about California? You also said nothing to my reply referred to above:
Message 97
Have you checked an atlas lately? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?
You had an opportunity then to clear the issue up by clarifying what you meant. You did not take it. You dodged.
The fact that you have this very same problem with other posters - continually - should show you that the problem does not lie with me.
But I assume you read the definition of deism. Your current beliefs are totally incompatible with it, unless of course you can give some examples of the descriptions that I'm allegedly not understanding. Don't you find all of this a little disconcerting?
Not disconcerting at all nem, because your (many) assumptions are false. It's really quite simple. See if you can figure it out -- without needing to hold someone's hand to get there. Consider this an exercise in 'getting it right' before making unfounded conclusions. Homework.
You are just derailing the conversation to place the focus on me and to take the spotlight off of you. Deal with your own inadequacies.
Freaking unbelievable. You get free reign to make all kinds of disparaging, offensive and frankly insulting remarks about my "inadequacies" and my beliefs, and I don't get to talk about your inability to look at the facts and your failure to review available information.
At least you admit you are attacking me and not my arguments. You think you have put deism in a box, nem, but I am not in that box.
Enjoy.
Now maybe we can get back to Archer 'bitch-slapping' you on some other logical falsehoods of your thinking ...
Hey, here's a thought: if it's not just me who could it be?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 10:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-15-2007 5:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 153 of 270 (415993)
08-13-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rob
08-13-2007 12:56 AM


Re: Deism, reality and responses.
Sigh.
{offtopic}
There are bigger fish to fry than the age of the earth. I let it go, won't you?
The fact is, I dramatically underestimated the subject and decided it best (wise not fearful) to let it alone untill I brought myself up to speed. There is a time to shut one's mouth, and I must say that that was a particularly hard lesson for me, and I do not expect that I am completely over it, since even now, I suspect I am saying more than needs to be said.
Btw, a further suprise came to me when discussing the subject with my pastor of the foursquare church I attend (foursquare pastors are nut-jobs as everyone knows) and he said to me that he is undecided on the issue of the age of the earth. We agreed that it is not fundamental to the faith. We also agreed that what we can know for sure, is that there was a specific time period inwhich the universe was made. The six days may be taken to be symbolic of that.
Being "undecided" is a cop-out when there is real evidence of extreme age. The real question is whether or not you can deny that evidence, and how that reflects on your view of other scientific evidence of the reality of the world.
{/offtopic}
The deistic view of the world is based on the evidence of reality.
And I have to ask Razd, 'how is my question off topic when you are the one who brought it up'?
One phrase from a long post discussing "Deism, reality and responses" ... and all phrases in a post are supposed to be strictly on topic? Obviously not.
I am only trying to clarify what it is you intended to say. I could have just made an assumption and ran with it as I have done in the past. But some of us are growing.
If we did not already cover this on Perceptions of Reality, then that would be the place eh? Start at the beginning post ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 12:56 AM Rob has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 154 of 270 (415999)
08-13-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Straggler
08-11-2007 5:57 AM


There is a tendancy to treat any alternative as obviously and trivially wrong and to implicitly treat the advocate of any alternative as an obviously irrational imbecile.
Yes - I "see" that a lot at times. It is annoying.
But all too often it seems to be the default stance
There are a LOT of theists who are generally lazy-thinkers. In my experience, Christians can be the worst of them, and only have very poor fallacious arguments.
Sometimes theists have the same conclusions. They share many - but they have different arguments. So the one who does think is lumped in there with the ones who have the stupid arguments.
I am glad to see you be honest about this though, and tell it like it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 5:57 AM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 270 (416017)
08-13-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rob
08-13-2007 2:03 AM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
You seem angry with Him for that.
How could I be angry with what doesn't exist?
Perhaps you wanted a response on your terms?
All that I want is a response I can distinguish from my own imagination. I don't think that's too much to ask for the God described in the Christian religion.
Gee wiz Crash... have you not heard of the Space shuttle, and the pain that resulted from the crash?
And the joy that results from its flight, yes.
We still have free will, even in a universe where we're constrained by the laws of physics. A universe where we're restrained by a few additional physical laws could hardly represent a major loss of free will or something.
Lewis is just out to lunch on this. You don't need to be able to do evil in order to have choice. There's an infinite number of ways to do the right thing.
We always find a way to beat Him.
You can't beat the laws of physics.
But, wait. Are you saying that we're more powerful than God? That, no matter what, we can't be constrained by him?
That's an.... unusual position for a theist, I must say.
We want God to...
Blah blah blah. Heard it. You should spend your time rebutting my arguments, not trying to shrink me over the internet or deliver sermons. Lewis is wrong; I just proved it. Can you defend his remarks, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 2:03 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 2:24 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 156 of 270 (416047)
08-13-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 11:42 AM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crashfrog:
How could I be angry with what doesn't exist?
How can you miss a concert you never attended?
I once said that to a friend who kept telling me that 'I missed it'! Should I take 'his word' (on pure authority) that it was as good as he said?
Only after you know Him, can you appriciate how much others need Him as well. it matters not whether they believe in Him. My five year old doesn't believe in a lot of things, because he has never thought of or experienced them. And even if he does, his own imagination cannot capture the 'actual' reality. He must experience it, think it, test it, and use it.
Crashfrog:
Blah blah blah. Heard it. You should spend your time rebutting my arguments, not trying to shrink me over the internet or deliver sermons. Lewis is wrong; I just proved it. Can you defend his remarks, or not?
Yes!
Crashfrog:
Lewis is just out to lunch on this. You don't need to be able to do evil in order to have choice. There's an infinite number of ways to do the right thing.
Crash, do you realize how near you are to perceiving a most incredible theological truth? You are absolutely right when you say 'there is an infinite number of ways to do things right'. But not all choices are right. Things can be done wrong also. Without the freedom to do right or wrong you are not free, but constrained.
Therefore, 'wrong' ends in finitude, clash, conflict, and death, of a whole strand of reality (effectively killing the purity of the whole), 'Right' is infinite and eternal as you said.
So when the Bible says that with sin, death entered the world, it is perfectly logical.
Now back to defending Lewis, can a robot do anything outside of it's programming or what the physcal laws limit it to?
So does it have a choice as to what it can do, or is it only following instructions? Can it even be aware that it is doing anything? No!
So is a robot alive? No, it is merely a machine.
You are alive because you are not simply a machine. You are a living being that is part machine, part spirit; the totality and wholeness of which is your soul, and is the unique and marvelous Crashfrog.
God asks us to choose to follow instructions (as opposed to preprogramming us), so that we can learn the why and the what and appriciate our existence with full understanding. But like any teacher/student relationship, we must first trust the teacher so that the teacher can teach, and so we may benefit from the hindsight after the lesson is fininshed.
We always want to understand the 'what and why' first. I remember asking 'why' I needed to understand algebra back in 8th grade. It was only later in life that I realized its usefulness. As Jesus said to one of His disciples, (John 13:7) "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
We have to trust, even though doing so leaves us vulnerable. It is our protecting of our sevlves that builds walss between us. Our independance is our Achilles Heel. We need each other, and we need God to help us endure some lessons that are impossible to manage alone.
Crashfrog:
A universe where we're restrained by a few additional physical laws could hardly represent a major loss of free will or something.
I am not talking about physical laws... they are only the illustration. I am talking about not being alive because we cannot choose to manipulate our environment in any way other than the way we were programmed. We're not robots Crash... we're conscious. We're not 'artificial intelligence', we really are intelligent. And intelligence is the nature God's Holy Spirit. But His intelligence and wisdom transcends our 'current understanding' in the same way as algebra transcends a kindergartener's understanding.
We've been wrong about a lot of things, and have much to learn. the Bible is beyond us yes, but only relatively, not totally. It is transcendant not seperate. We must start small, and that begins with acknowledging that we don't understand everything and asking the teacher for help.
I remember being frustrated when I did understand the lesson, but the teacher had to stop for some 'dummy' and help him. As a consequence, I was always one of those kids who liked to pretend I understood even in the moments I really didn't. I didn't wnat anyone to think I was stupid. As a result I became a fool. I still struggle with it... I missed out on much learning because I confused humilty with humiliation.
And like the turtle and the hare, those slower kids sometimes surpassed me, simply because they were honest about their struggles. They were nicer too...
Pride is my enemy, and I assume it is yours as well. I am just a man, and I need help understanding a great deal. And more everyday, I see that those who (very much like me) act as thow they know... don't know as they ought to know(1 Corinthians 8:2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know).
Crashfrog:
You can't beat the laws of physics.
Your example was gravity... I used the space shuttle as an example of our accomplishment in overcoming it's restraint.
We wouldn't exist without the laws of physics other than in a purely spiritual state. But God had already made angels. He made us very special and more multi-dimensional than they.
Crashfrog:
All that I want is a response I can distinguish from my own imagination. I don't think that's too much to ask for the God described in the Christian religion.
No it's not... that is precisely why it is good news. Because he offers that kind of evidence and personal encounter.
And when you get it... you will never be able to deny it. I confessed to my pastor relatively recently that my struggles and pain were so bad, that I would just assume forget about Christ altogether if it were in my power. It would be far easier to live just for me and quit trying to play by the rules and failing constantly like some kid who was not cut out for the soccer team. But I also confessed that I couldn't forget. It is not within my power to deny the reality of knowing that it was, and is, not my imagination.
You are seeking the right thing Crash... your seeking reality.
I am not going to tell you (as I did before) that your motive is flawed or corrupted in some way. You must examine yourself.
Crashfrog:
But, wait. Are you saying that we're more powerful than God? That, no matter what, we can't be constrained by him?
Not really, but sort of...
What I am saying is that if God did not restrain us, we would overpower Him. But he can and will restrain us. Not to rob us of our desire (he will give us our hell if we insist)... but so as not to allow us to impose our will on Him.
Free will works both ways Crash. God does not impose. But He is God, and will not allow us to impose ourselves on Him eternally. He has given us time to learn and think it through... if we're teacheable. Whether we are or not is up to us individually.
The time will come to reap what we have sown, and I don't want to reap what I have sowed. I want mercy for my foolishness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 11:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 3:49 PM Rob has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 270 (416065)
08-13-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rob
08-13-2007 2:24 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
How can you miss a concert you never attended?
Wrong question. How could I have attended a concert that never happened?
Only after you know Him, can you appriciate how much others need Him as well.
Once again, you seem to have forgotten that I did know "him", that I was a Christian. But it became obvious that the only think I was knowing was myself. When prayers were "answered", I was doing the answering. The presence of God was simply the presence of my imagination.
As it is for you. I don't expect you to believe me yet, of course. You need to consider the problem without introducing your own "feeling" that God exists. Once you understand that, in all likelihood, there's no such thing as God, you'll wonder who it was that has been talking to you for all this time.
Simple. You've been talking to yourself. That's why the God that you worship believes the exact same things as you (gays are icky, etc) - because it is you.
Crash, do you realize how near you are to perceiving a most incredible theological truth? You are absolutely right when you say 'there is an infinite number of ways to do things right'. But not all choices are right.
Duh. I think the problem is, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.
I'm saying, even if you got rid of all the "not-right" choices, there would still be an infinite number of choices. How can choice be said to be eliminated if we'd still have infinite choice?
Without the freedom to do right or wrong you are not free, but constrained.
The laws of physics already constrain us, but you don't hear Lewis complaining about it. If we're still free under those constraints, a few more couldn't hurt.
Now back to defending Lewis, can a robot do anything outside of it's programming or what the physcal laws limit it to?
I'm not talking about being programmed, any more than a stone is programmed to fall when released from a height.
The laws of physics constrain us without programming us, somehow. We'd be no more programmed by incontrovertible laws of morality in addition to that.
Don't you understand, yet? Lewis thinks that we need unrestricted choice to be free - but we clearly don't, since we're still free under the laws of physics. So we could just as easily add laws of morality to that and still be free.
I used the space shuttle as an example of our accomplishment in overcoming it's restraint.
The Space Shuttle is just as restrained by gravity as anything else. It comes back down, doesn't it?
God asks us to choose to follow instructions (as opposed to preprogramming us), so that we can learn the why and the what and appriciate our existence with full understanding.
But that's inconsistent. God doesn't ask us to follow the laws of physics - he forces us to do so, apparently.
God asks us to follow moral laws, but forces us to follow the less-important physical laws? That doesn't make sense. If we can be forced to follow physical law without a loss of free will, surely we can be forced into moral law without losing free will, as well.
It is not within my power to deny the reality of knowing that it was, and is, not my imagination.
How do you know it's not? You "just know?"
I "just knew", too. Until I realized that I didn't. Don't think that you know something "better" than I do.
God does not impose.
Except the laws of physics, which are imposed on all. Why not impose the laws of morality, too, and make it a much better world? We wouldn't be any less free, obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 2:24 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 7:49 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 8:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 158 of 270 (416093)
08-13-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 3:49 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crash:
The laws of physics already constrain us, but you don't hear Lewis complaining about it. If we're still free under those constraints, a few more couldn't hurt.
They do exist Crash. But they hurt when we don't want to be bound by them.
Crashfrog:
Except the laws of physics, which are imposed on all. Why not impose the laws of morality, too, and make it a much better world? We wouldn't be any less free, obviously.
Ask a physicist what would happen if any of the physical laws were changed. He (or she) will answer something to this effect: 'The result in a universe who's relational physical laws are relative to each other, would be a complete obliteration of the possibility of complex carbon based life in the least. At worst, there would be no physical existence at all'. The fine tuning of the universe is an immense challenge for your argument. God must impose the physical laws, because the altenative is non-existence.
In the same way, violation of the moral (or spiritual) laws results in spiritual death.
James 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
You must ask yourself Crash... 'how would you have designed the universe if you were God?', and then work through the implications.
The choice is in the spiritual laws. Even some of the angels rebelled. Animals on the other hand, do not rebel... they do what animals do. They are beasts. They are bound by only the natural physical drive. We were not meant to be beasts. But we have become one.
Crashfrog:
I'm saying, even if you got rid of all the "not-right" choices, there would still be an infinite number of choices.
Sounds like a finite number of choices to me. How can you get rid of some choices, and still have infinite choice? It will not do...
You misunderstood my point (sorry I did not express it better). And that is... that the right choices can be made indefinitely and infinitely without end and without stepping on anyones toes. That does not mean the same thing as 'infinite choice'. I apologize for any confusion.
Freedom is found in law Crash. Lack of, or absense of law, results in chaos and even death. Everyone is stepping on everyone elses toes. Order is essential to being... otherwise it is disorderly nonsense.
Crashfrog:
The laws of physics constrain us without programming us, somehow.
Really? I don't see how. As you said, you've no more choice of falling than a stone has. But that is only the physical side of the equation.
Crash:
We'd be no more programmed by incontrovertible laws of morality in addition to that.
But you keep forgetting that we will not except the program...
Crash:
How do you know it's not? You "just know?"
I "just knew", too. Until I realized that I didn't. Don't think that you know something "better" than I do.
It's a fair question... but it cuts both ways. If all of these philosophical constructs are only our imagination, then how do we know that 'that claim itself' is not our imagination?
You have to get outside of the box to make that stick crash. And when you get a peek outside of the box, then as Jesus promised, 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 3:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 8:45 PM Rob has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 270 (416097)
08-13-2007 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Rob
08-13-2007 7:49 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
They do exist Crash. But they hurt when we don't want to be bound by them.
We're talking past each other. I'm rebutting Lewis's argument; you're using it as an opportunity to make unconnected sermons.
Are you going to defend Lewis's position, or not?
How can you get rid of some choices, and still have infinite choice?
Because infinity, minus some finite sum (or even an infinite sum), is still infinity. That's basic mathematical truth. For instance, if you take all the whole numbers, and then take out all the odd numbers, what's left is the even numbers, but there's still an infinite number of them.
Freedom is found in law Crash. Lack of, or absense of law, results in chaos and even death.
I'm not talking about getting rid of any laws. Do you understand? I'm talking about adding new ones.
But you keep forgetting that we will not except the program...
...what on Earth does that have to do with what I'm saying?
We're not programmed. I was agreeing with you, Rob. Are you paying attention? Or just free-associating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 7:49 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 8:52 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 162 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 9:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 160 of 270 (416099)
08-13-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 3:49 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crash:
Once again, you seem to have forgotten that I did know "him", that I was a Christian. But it became obvious that the only think I was knowing was myself. When prayers were "answered", I was doing the answering. The presence of God was simply the presence of my imagination.
Did you think so at the time?
Did you 'want to believe' rather than really believe?
Did the church you attended speak intelligently about the real spiritual enemy and the spiritual warfare that you are and were engaged in?
How do you differenciate between what is your imagination and what is not?
I'm not just defending my position Crash... I am trying to help you understand that some things are real. I am trying to encourage you not to give up. you seem to have closed the door. If so, there is nothing I can do about that. It's your life, and you're free to choose for yourself. But a closed mind is not the sort of thing that I believe you are proud of.
I know my mind Crash... I know how I work through problems. And I know how I can twist things to my advantage. I know my own depravity. I am conscious of it now. It's no longer hidden from me.
And when 'revelation' came time and time again by simply asking sincere questions in prayer, I didn't have to think through them like I do... the answers were simply imparted in their full glory, as though I already understood them fully.
That wasn't me crash... it was the voice of truth that exists with or without me. It is logic and justice that shows no partiality. It simply speaks the truth. All bias is cast aside... many of the answers were frankly not what I wanted to hear. But I recognized them as reality.
And it still occurs, and is still a challenge. But now that I know my own desperate wickedness as the Bible explains, I can recognize the me and differenciate between truth and selfishness.
Not always mind you... I'm still a blathering idot a great deal of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 3:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 161 of 270 (416101)
08-13-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 8:45 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crash:
Because infinity, minus some finite sum (or even an infinite sum), is still infinity. That's basic mathematical truth. For instance, if you take all the whole numbers, and then take out all the odd numbers, what's left is the even numbers, but there's still an infinite number of them.
That is an excellent illustration... well put!
But your still asking God to have created a (how shall I put it?) less 'diverse' universe. That way you don't have to suffer the pain of learning to concur your desires, when it is so much easier to give in.
When you thnk about it, the whole thing is God's fault really... It's His mess. Perhaps He should take responsibility for our sin?
Will we let Him?
As a former Christian, what exactly were you expecting God to for you anyway? Make your problems go away?
Make you happy?
How can a good person in an evil world be at home? He is more a man of sorrows and pain really...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 8:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 10:33 PM Rob has replied

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


Message 162 of 270 (416104)
08-13-2007 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 8:45 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
Crash:
We're not programmed. I was agreeing with you, Rob. Are you paying attention? Or just free-associating?
Maybe, but I am trying Crash...
but my conscious is bothering me for once about something... Topic! Poor Straggler hasn't been seen here for a while...
Can we move our discussion to another thread?
Perhaps 'perceptions of reality' would suffice? http://EvC Forum: Perceptions of Reality -->EvC Forum: Perceptions of Reality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 8:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 270 (416112)
08-13-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
08-13-2007 8:52 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
But your still asking God to have created a (how shall I put it?) less 'diverse' universe.
Yes, I am. I think a less diverse universe is an appropriate price to pay for, say, nobody ever raping to death 10-year-old girls.
For example.
As a former Christian, what exactly were you expecting God to for you anyway? Make your problems go away?
Make you happy?
Nothing so pedestrian. We live in a universe that includes incomprehensibly meaningless and wanton suffering of innocents. Lewis says God can't prevent that without us becoming robots. (You say it's about preserving the diversity of the universe, as though we're somehow all enriched because sickos can rape 10-year-old girls to death.) I say that, if God existed, he could prevent that without us becoming robots.
The reason God doesn't is because there's no such thing as God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 08-13-2007 8:52 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Chiroptera, posted 08-13-2007 10:52 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 165 by Rob, posted 08-14-2007 2:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 270 (416114)
08-13-2007 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 10:33 PM


If I remember my fundamentalist eschatology correctly, after Satan is thrown into hell, there isn't going to be any more sin, and the new heaven and the new earth is going to be filled with all these non-diverse robots that God didn't want in the first place.
So, either he can manage to eliminate sin without creating a bunch of non-diverse robots, or he really doesn't mind them after all.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 10:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rob, posted 08-14-2007 2:17 AM Chiroptera has replied

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


Message 165 of 270 (416127)
08-14-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
08-13-2007 10:33 PM


Re: playing God's advocate for you...
CrashFrog:
Nothing so pedestrian. We live in a universe that includes incomprehensibly meaningless and wanton suffering of innocents. Lewis says God can't prevent that without us becoming robots. (You say it's about preserving the diversity of the universe, as though we're somehow all enriched because sickos can rape 10-year-old girls to death.) I say that, if God existed, he could prevent that without us becoming robots.
How so? Could He also prevent us from lying and becoming homosexuals?
The sicko you mentioned is only a sicko relative to you. But you are not the measure... God is.
And all of us are equal under God, because all have sinned.
In your mind, you are superior to the so-called 'sicko'. But if we use Adolf Hitler as the standard, your sicko is actually a pretty decent chap.
Who is the real measure? Who can say, 'I am good'?
Good??? Compared to whom?
If I am the measure of me, then why can I not discriminate? In fact 'measuring' implies discrimination between entities by definition. If homosexuality is produced by genetics and environment, then why is discrimination not the same?
I am not descriminatory against any man, but against all men (myself included). But if I was, how can I help it if God doesn't prevent me?
Don't you see Crash? You expect me to relent... Why?
If the ultimate reality is not moral, then why do you expect others to be moral?
You just want to take the attention off of you by foisting it onto others. But you will not tolerate it from others...
That's why God must be the standard, not Rob or Crashfrog. Because we are God compared to others less moral than us. But compared to God, we are all the sicko's. If for no other reason, because we crucify others, in order to justify ourseves.
What is the difference between me (calling you a sicko / which I have never done) and you, calling the sicko in your illustration, a sicko?
There is no difference in kind, only degree. The fact is Crash, we are all sickos, because as you said, the right thing (morality) is infinite.
Say what you want about Lewis, but you have correctly positioned one of the most hinge questions about God. It is a deep and meaningful theological question. Very astute! Quite perceptive...
Do you want the answer? Because it is not found in sound bite posts and replies.
Read 'The Problem of Pain'.
C.S. lewis struggled with this same issue and said later that he was very angry with God for not existing. He also said that if there is no God, then we have another problem... how to explain the good?
Give it a try just to challenge yourself if your inclined...
God is patient Crash... Justice will be served. But He not only allows you and I the chance to repent, but even the 'sicko's. The girl in your illustration is being well cared for in the mean time.
We must look at the big picture, and not jump to always crucifying the guilty. Lest we crucify ourselves.
Forgiveness, mercy, and the ressurection. The story is not over. It's only begun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 08-13-2007 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 08-14-2007 9:44 AM Rob 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