Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Grandpa Harley]

Having said that, if he answered every question, he'd probably be responding to stuff on page 3 still...

[Ouroboros]

Buddy,

 

Your answers are extremely wordy and vague. It seems your making a lot of non-answers to avoid conflict. Is it because you want to know what we think and are made off, without causing too much disturbance? Anyway, so far you have only impressed me by surviving the Lion's Den, but nothing you've said really stands out to be of any value. And I usually mistrust people that use fancy language, because mostly (not always) they're just trying to hide what they really mean. They're trying to be politically correct, without saying anything meaningful. I can be wordy too, but not intentionally. I usually repeat myself several times, and do it with different phrasing, just to make sure my point gets through. But I don't flip through a dictionary just to impress. If you can't say it with normal, regular words so the commoners can understand, then you might try to hide your true intentions. I do understand most of what you say, or at least I think I do, but understand it doesn't impress me one iota. So if you want to get a point across, then take your language down to a level that normal people use.

 

Regarding your answer about how to interpret the Bible, and how you would know what is literal or not, you didn't really answer. Your answer was only reflecting the problems with internal and external information, which is exactly the problem at hands here. So how do you know if one verse in the Bible is true and literal, and the next is not? The only way I can see it is that you trust your instincts and/or you trust other people. You have not other options. So what if your instincts are wrong? Or if the person you trust is wrong?

 

Basically you have to go to the core of what you know, and what you can know. You can know that you are alive in one way or another. You can know that you exist in some kind of world and universe. But you can't know for sure that there is some deity (one, three or many) that watches over you and inflict rewards or punishments based on his, hers or theirs arbitraty rules, and you can't know if the Bible is telling you true stories. Go to the core. Go to the bottom of what is knowledge in your faith. And research yourself. Do you believe because you only want to? Or do you believe because you really know?

 

And when it comes to your visions, remember that other people also had visions, but of other gods, and you don't believe in them. So why should we believe in yours? What is the difference between your visions and a Hindu's visions, or Mohammed's? In my point of view there are no differences. I treat your visions the same as I treat the Hindu's or Mohammed's. But you still haven't explained or given me a reason to why you think your visions are more real than some else's? Is it really possible that you could convince me, or do you realize the impossibility of it?

 

(I have to leave again. I'll continue later if time allows.)

[dano]

Buddy will continue saying stuff backward, so he can inject a bunch of his vocabulary into it, on the way to completely not answering your questions.

 

He can't help himself. But you gotta love someone who will stick around so long after the second page when it was obvious to most that he really didn't have anything else to add, after he said "I believe God did it, but I don't know why, I don't know how, and I don't know what God is." (Not a direct quote, poetic license)

[Legion]

... if he answered every question, he'd probably be responding to stuff on page 3 still...

Yeah, I have to agree. I think Buddy has done fairly well to try and engage all of us.

 

Buddy,

 

Your answers are extremely wordy and vague.

I agree with this too. It seems to me as if Buddy is using language to impress and hide rather than express himself clearly. In my opinion he uses a lot a flowery words and says very little.

[BuddyFerris]

... Your answers are extremely wordy and vague. ...So if you want to get a point across, then take your language down to a level that normal people use.

 

Regarding your answer about how to interpret the Bible, and how you would know what is literal or not, you didn't really answer. Your answer was only reflecting the problems with internal and external information, which is exactly the problem at hands here. So how do you know if one verse in the Bible is true and literal, and the next is not? The only way I can see it is that you trust your instincts and/or you trust other people. You have not other options. So what if your instincts are wrong? Or if the person you trust is wrong?

 

Basically you have to go to the core of what you know, and what you can know. You can know that you are alive in one way or another. You can know that you exist in some kind of world and universe. But you can't know for sure that there is some deity (one, three or many) that watches over you and inflict rewards or punishments based on his, hers or theirs arbitraty rules, and you can't know if the Bible is telling you true stories. Go to the core. Go to the bottom of what is knowledge in your faith. And research yourself. Do you believe because you only want to? Or do you believe because you really know?

 

And when it comes to your visions, remember that other people also had visions, but of other gods, and you don't believe in them. So why should we believe in yours? What is the difference between your visions and a Hindu's visions, or Mohammed's? In my point of view there are no differences. I treat your visions the same as I treat the Hindu's or Mohammed's. But you still haven't explained or given me a reason to why you think your visions are more real than some else's? Is it really possible that you could convince me, or do you realize the impossibility of it?....

HanS,

I've not intended to be vague, but I have tried to tread the mine field carefully. I'm not overly concerned with offending, but rather with finding a means of expression that's couched in acceptable terms. If I were to rattle off familiar phrases, I'd receive standardized responses without having been heard or having been thoughtfully answered. For example, I offered the apostle's creed as an answer to a request for a theological position; the response was without thoughtful content. I haven't spent any time on finer points of faith and belief because we have no agreed basis for discussion; to offer such would probably produce more thoughtless response of no interest to either of us.

 

On interpreting the Bible, you're probably correct that I didn't really answer. I've not spent a lot of time on it personally. My studies over the years have drawn conclusions on the question without particular difficulty based on commonly understood principles.

 

"Go to the core." The core of what you know and what you can know. We probably disagree regarding what can be known. Do I believe only because I want to? I hadn't thought about that in awhile; I remember dealing with the question for the first time in my mid-twenties. I'd been living and thinking 'outside the faith' for a few years; I was on my own in the Navy, among non-believers, living apart from church influences. About five years into it, I made a choice about how I was going to deal with what I knew to be true. It wasn't based on preference but on clear knowledge, as I remember. Your reaction to such a claim will probably include suspicion that I was brain-washed or superstitious or some other deprecating description; your choice of course.

 

The subject of true and false interpretations, true and false religions, has come up several times. As you suggest, I'm inclined to think I'm right and they're wrong. Everybody does; you do. It's a condition of mental balance; if we find that we're wrong, we juggle to re-balance things to be right. The question you frame relates to the integrity of that process; do I think so for any particular reason? Is it an adequate, defensible position? Having said all that, it's an over-simplification as stated; it seems unlikely to me that someone who with an honest heart pursues God will come back with a completely invalid experience; the right/wrong question is more correctly answered that I'm fully persuaded to Christianity; I'm not persuaded to Christian exclusivity, nor do I believe the Bible supports it. Can a native American connect with God under a different name? Probably. Is that the very best offer that God would make to him? Probably not.

 

Could the native people of this country have heard and received the gospel as it was presented to the Jews 2000 years ago? Of course not; it was formed for and presented to the Jews. Was it done in such a fashion to exclude others? Of course not. It doesn't. Not any.

 

Are my visions more real than others? Probably not. More truly illuminating of supernatural reality than any other? Probably not. More useful? Only somewhat, mostly to me and a few others, and then only insofar as they are consistent with the Biblical narrative.

 

Buddy

[Legion]

We probably disagree regarding what can be known.

I think this is astute. We probably do disagree about this. I've heard this called "epistemology".

 

I agree with those who assert that all we can really know is ourselves along with various impressions that we attribute as coming from our environments.

[BuddyFerris]

Yeah, I have to agree. I think Buddy has done fairly well to try and engage all of us.

 

Buddy,

 

Your answers are extremely wordy and vague.

I agree with this too. It seems to me as if Buddy is using language to impress and hide rather than express himself clearly. In my opinion he uses a lot a flowery words and says very little.

Legion,

My choice of words is careful here and elsewhere with the only goal being precision. Would you prefer I use the language of the fundamentalists who are so well received here? Or that of the ever popular evangelical?

 

In deference to those who've asked, however, I'll try to tone it down a little. Grant me a little latitude if you will, though; there are some things that just can't be said in one paragraph.

Buddy

[Legion]

Would you prefer I use the language of the fundamentalists who are so well received here? Or that of the ever popular evangelical?

I suppose these questions are somewhat rhetorical Buddy. I hope that you feel free to use whatever language you wish. But I also hope that you would recognize that we are free to form our opinions of it.

 

For what it's worth, I do appreciate the fact that you are clearly an intelligent person. And you certainly differ from most of the Christians that we have seen here. Let us try and be patient with one another.

[BuddyFerris]

On the subject of the origin of the Universe.

 

"What happened before the beginning?"

 

Is a little like asking 'What is South of the South Pole?" It's an answer that, from inside the bubble of space time we call 'The Universe' is without meaning... from anything inside space time, there can't be a 'time' before... since time didn't exist....

"...and there is no physical evidence...": States a requirement for a particular type of evidence that represents only a subset of reality. Still seems like blinders.

Our 'blinders' are pretty broad... the smallest thing we can watch is a shade larger that 10^-35mm and the largest thing we can observe is 46.5 billion light-years (the edge of the observable universe due to the limits on the speed of light, and there are some oddities in that number based on 'co-moving co-ordinates' that I'm still trying to see in my head... I usually had a 3d image of most puzzles I can 'play' with, but that one is a mind fuck...)

Hello, Grandpa,

South of the South Pole is a difficult location to find, agreed. But in the case of our universe, is that all there is? Nothing before, nothing beside? The rationalist's likely answer is 'that's all; and if there's more, we can't know'. The theist's contention is 'we can know'. As an interesting aside, the new testament says much more about what we can know than about accepting by faith. E.g., "it is given unto you to know....", "...so that you may know....", etc..

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Would you prefer I use the language of the fundamentalists who are so well received here? Or that of the ever popular evangelical?

I suppose these questions are somewhat rhetorical Buddy. I hope that you feel free to use whatever language you wish. But I also hope that you would recognize that we are free to form our opinions of it.

 

For what it's worth, I do appreciate the fact that you are clearly an intelligent person. And you certainly differ from most of the Christians that we have seen here. Let us try and be patient with one another.

Agreed. Thanks, pal. You may form your opinions as you will.

 

 

For the wolves in waiting...

There seems to be a question in the air on a definition for that to which I've referred as non-natural, supernatural, and so on. It smells of an ambush, methinks. Alas, it must wait for another day, as weightier matters intrude. Sleep, for one.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for your honest answer Buddy. I think that's the first one I felt was straight and revealing.

 

 

I've not intended to be vague, but I have tried to tread the mine field carefully. I'm not overly concerned with offending, but rather with finding a means of expression that's couched in acceptable terms. If I were to rattle off familiar phrases, I'd receive standardized responses without having been heard or having been thoughtfully answered. For example, I offered the apostle's creed as an answer to a request for a theological position; the response was without thoughtful content. I haven't spent any time on finer points of faith and belief because we have no agreed basis for discussion; to offer such would probably produce more thoughtless response of no interest to either of us.

True. We have nothing in common, except that I was Christian for 30 years and at least thought I believed and were a "true" Christian. Now I know it's a lot of self-delusion and denial of reality that drives the human mind. We can't deal with the real thing, so we invent the next best... fantasy.

 

...

"Go to the core." The core of what you know and what you can know. We probably disagree regarding what can be known.

Maybe, maybe not, I'm not sure I know what you think can be known. (Funny conundrum in that sentence)

 

...

It wasn't based on preference but on clear knowledge, as I remember.

Seems very odd to me, but okay. It's probably not the right forum to discuss what that "knowledge" was.

 

Your reaction to such a claim will probably include suspicion that I was brain-washed or superstitious or some other deprecating description; your choice of course.

You got that right.

 

The subject of true and false interpretations, true and false religions, has come up several times. As you suggest, I'm inclined to think I'm right and they're wrong. Everybody does; you do.

I do. To some degree. Not as much as I used to when I was a fanatic Christian. I do think, know, feel things, but I know now the difference. I also know that I can't be 100% certain about many things. For instance, I rather call myself a non-theist, or an agnostic atheist, just to make a point that I believe there is no God, but I know that I can't know for sure. There is a difference, and I do not claim to know God's non-existence for sure, but so far when I push religious people to prove it, I do so to find out if there is a proof of God's existence, and it fails short every time. Give a 100% certain argument, and I will change my mind. But it has to be fool-proof. I spent 30 years believing in fragile and thin beliefs, and if I would change again, then it has to be absolutely sure. No half-lame ideas anymore. This time around it has to be more than semi-belief or half-doubt. I do not accept a religion anymore with the slightest doubt in it. The beauty of non-theism is that I can and I do admit the lack of proof for my belief. I believe there is no-God because I think there's no evidence for such God, but I also know that I can't know that my belief is a fact. That's a big difference from how religious people (and probably you) look at it. I'm honest with myself. Regardless if I'm right or not, to be honest to yourself is the first step to know truth.

 

It's a condition of mental balance; if we find that we're wrong, we juggle to re-balance things to be right. The question you frame relates to the integrity of that process; do I think so for any particular reason? Is it an adequate, defensible position? Having said all that, it's an over-simplification as stated; it seems unlikely to me that someone who with an honest heart pursues God will come back with a completely invalid experience; the right/wrong question is more correctly answered that I'm fully persuaded to Christianity; I'm not persuaded to Christian exclusivity, nor do I believe the Bible supports it. Can a native American connect with God under a different name? Probably. Is that the very best offer that God would make to him? Probably not.

I think we're finally are getting somewhere.

 

Could the native people of this country have heard and received the gospel as it was presented to the Jews 2000 years ago? Of course not; it was formed for and presented to the Jews. Was it done in such a fashion to exclude others? Of course not. It doesn't. Not any.

 

Are my visions more real than others? Probably not. More truly illuminating of supernatural reality than any other? Probably not. More useful? Only somewhat, mostly to me and a few others, and then only insofar as they are consistent with the Biblical narrative.

Sounds like you're quite open minded in how Christianity and other religions apply to people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does sound like you're not a hard core "Jesus only" Christian? A bit of a Buddhist in there maybe?

[dano]

Yawn!

 

I'm going out to look for Grandpa!

[dano]

Welcome to Chakra Buddy!

[BuddyFerris]

We probably disagree regarding what can be known.

I think this is astute. We probably do disagree about this. I've heard this called "epistemology".

 

I agree with those who assert that all we can really know is ourselves along with various impressions that we attribute as coming from our environments.

Good morning Legion,

Here's a further thought: What we can know in a dialog is dependent on many things, not the least of which are the willingness of the hearer and the precision and thoroughness of the speaker. We have wonderful examples in everyday life of what we say being different from what they heard. Raising children is an exhausting exercise in effective communication; I got to the place (based on my wife's example) of saying things twice from two different angles and listening for the appropriate understanding in the feedback.

 

I'll go so far as to agree with your position that all we can really know with confidence is ourselves along with various impressions we attribute to external sources. I'll add that an active external source that persists in stating and restating information can contribute to the process effectively.

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Yawn!

 

I'm going out to look for Grandpa!

Dano,

You're up early on Sunday. Going to church?

Buddy

Kidding of course. I am, but it's the first time in three weeks.

Fishing? Almost as good as church; OK, usually it's better.

[dano]

there are some things that just can't be said in one paragraph.[/i]

Buddy

 

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[BuddyFerris]

Yeah, I have to agree. I think Buddy has done fairly well to try and engage all of us.

 

Buddy,

 

Your answers are extremely wordy and vague.

I agree with this too. It seems to me as if Buddy is using language to impress and hide rather than express himself clearly. In my opinion he uses a lot a flowery words and says very little.

Legion,

My choice of words is careful here and elsewhere with the only goal being precision. Would you prefer I use the language of the fundamentalists who are so well received here? Or that of the ever popular evangelical?

 

In deference to those who've asked, however, I'll try to tone it down a little. Grant me a little latitude if you will, though; there are some things that just can't be said in one paragraph.

Buddy

 

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Good choice.

[BuddyFerris]

Thanks for your honest answer Buddy. I think that's the first one I felt was straight and revealing.

Your reaction to such a claim will probably include suspicion that I was brain-washed or superstitious or some other deprecating description; your choice of course.

You got that right.

The subject of true and false interpretations, true and false religions, has come up several times. As you suggest, I'm inclined to think I'm right and they're wrong. Everybody does; you do.

I do. To some degree. Not as much as I used to when I was a fanatic Christian. I do think, know, feel things, but I know now the difference. I also know that I can't be 100% certain about many things. For instance, I rather call myself a non-theist, or an agnostic atheist, just to make a point that I believe there is no God, but I know that I can't know for sure. There is a difference, and I do not claim to know God's non-existence for sure, but so far when I push religious people to prove it, I do so to find out if there is a proof of God's existence, and it fails short every time. Give a 100% certain argument, and I will change my mind. But it has to be fool-proof. I spent 30 years believing in fragile and thin beliefs, and if I would change again, then it has to be absolutely sure. No half-lame ideas anymore. This time around it has to be more than semi-belief or half-doubt. I do not accept a religion anymore with the slightest doubt in it. The beauty of non-theism is that I can and I do admit the lack of proof for my belief. I believe there is no-God because I think there's no evidence for such God, but I also know that I can't know that my belief is a fact. That's a big difference from how religious people (and probably you) look at it. I'm honest with myself. Regardless if I'm right or not, to be honest to yourself is the first step to know truth.

...

Sounds like you're quite open minded in how Christianity and other religions apply to people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does sound like you're not a hard core "Jesus only" Christian? A bit of a Buddhist in there maybe?

 

OK HanS, it's morning. Having difficulty keeping both eyes open at the same time, and my Left Coast friend wants to know if I'm a Buddhist. Probably; who knows at this hour, I may be Napoleon, too. Wait 'til my coffee kicks in. Starting travel today; too soon after the last trip. Four or five times a year would suit me well; closer together becomes an imposition. Norfolk tonight, aboard ship tomorrow, California late Wednesday night.

 

Whoopee! I got points for an honest answer. Your welcome affirmation is only slightly negated by your quick agreement to my being brainwashed.

 

I appreciate the nuance of non-theist, and I understand and somewhat echo your requirement for 100% certainty. Unfortunately, that level of certainty is only inherent in the non-theoretical math and science realms, a relatively small portion of our collective thinking. I'm happy with an 80% probability of success at the beginning of a new engineering effort on the assumption that we'll improve the number as we progress. You're right in holding a higher standard of certainty for this; too important not to.

 

Hard core? You're probably right, I don't consider myself hard core; it has the tone of deliberate immovability (the hard headed kind); unteachable. I remember the number of times the young churches needed to be corrected for their foolishness and hope I would be open to such were it needed. It's a particularly difficult task retaining an open mind. I find my tendency is to deal with information, make decisions, and move on. Revisiting a previously made decision, particularly a foundational decision, risks major reorganization of information and ideas, plus decisions dependent on the first will have to be revisited. It's hard work just to be willing. I'm don't think I'm willing all the time; just when I can drag myself away from routine.

 

Buddy

[dano]

Yawn!

 

I'm going out to look for Grandpa!

Dano,

You're up early on Sunday. Going to church?

Buddy

Kidding of course. I am, but it's the first time in three weeks.

Fishing? Almost as good as church; OK, usually it's better.

 

I would go to church, but to sit there listening to some hick Baptist preacher, with the audacity to stand up there and pretend that he knows what God wants, what God says, and what God is, just turns my stomach.

 

I listen to them on the car radio when on a trip, because they are the funniest thing on, and I can just turn the knob, when they get to the begging for money, and the selling stuff, part!

[dano]

OK HanS, it's morning. Having difficulty keeping both eyes open at the same time, and my Left Coast friend wants to know if I'm a Buddhist. Probably; who knows at this hour, I may be Napoleon, too. Wait 'til my coffee kicks in. Starting travel today; too soon after the last trip. Four or five times a year would suit me well; closer together becomes an imposition. Norfolk tonight, aboard ship tomorrow, California late Wednesday night.

Buddy

 

I hope we taxpayers aren't paying for all that!

[Grandpa Harley]

On the subject of the origin of the Universe.

 

"What happened before the beginning?"

 

Is a little like asking 'What is South of the South Pole?" It's an answer that, from inside the bubble of space time we call 'The Universe' is without meaning... from anything inside space time, there can't be a 'time' before... since time didn't exist....

"...and there is no physical evidence...": States a requirement for a particular type of evidence that represents only a subset of reality. Still seems like blinders.

Our 'blinders' are pretty broad... the smallest thing we can watch is a shade larger that 10^-35mm and the largest thing we can observe is 46.5 billion light-years (the edge of the observable universe due to the limits on the speed of light, and there are some oddities in that number based on 'co-moving co-ordinates' that I'm still trying to see in my head... I usually had a 3d image of most puzzles I can 'play' with, but that one is a mind fuck...)

Hello, Grandpa,

South of the South Pole is a difficult location to find, agreed. But in the case of our universe, is that all there is? Nothing before, nothing beside? The rationalist's likely answer is 'that's all; and if there's more, we can't know'. The theist's contention is 'we can know'. As an interesting aside, the new testament says much more about what we can know than about accepting by faith. E.g., "it is given unto you to know....", "...so that you may know....", etc..

Buddy

Whoa! I didn't say 'nothing'...if I'd meant 'nothing', then I'd have said 'nothing' since 'nothing' IS something... I said it's undefined which ain't nothing... It's like 1/0 which isn't nothing and it's not infinity (since a lot of people believe it is due to electronic calculators) it's undefined. The question of 'before' time only has a meaning in a Newtonian universe (and they thought Time was independent of space and space... it's not... and that is pretty well established as fact. In a Newtonian universe there is the implication that Space is infinite and there is Universal time, again, this has been proved not to be possible in an observable sense. There may be a universal 'now' but due to the finite speed of light, we can't observe it. Ever. If the sun went out this instant, I'd not know about it for another 8 minutes. If Proxima Centauri exploded now, we'd not know for a shade over 4 years...).

 

The Theist contention isn't we can know, it is we do know... Goddidit... which is meaningless... I'm not saying we can't know what was outside our space-time phase when it was a singularity, but given the current theories of our closed or semi-closed system it's not possible since it can't be defined as a state of our space time. However, I don't claim forever, since never forever and always are the domain of folk who have an 'answer' i.e. Einstein was wrong or Goddidit! At the moment, models of 'before or outside space-time' are analogy only... there are some moves in terms of M-Brane string theory, but since it's not predicted anything, yet, it's regarded as an interesting mathematical oddity that matches some of our current theories, but doens't quite fill the gaps... closest it did is the denkwerk around why Gravity is so weak compared to the three nuclear forces... but until we can detect one of 8 addtional dimensions of space-time, it's just a pretty idea rather than a working hypothesis. People are working on it, but they're hitting the 10^-35 metre issue... for the interested, you'd need more that all the power out put of the sun for a long time (millions of years) to get a reference frequency high enough to measure something that small...

 

As to dragging into the deal the NT, that is like me trying to explain the triple point of water by invoking Moby Dick...

[Grandpa Harley]

"I remember the number of times the young churches needed to be corrected for their foolishness and hope I would be open to such were it needed."

 

You meant like Athanasius of Alexandria? He certainly 'corrected' those Arians... and the Marcionites were 'corrected' down the line too...

 

Prior to the legalisation of one sect of Christians by Constantine, one sect frequently 'corrected' another to the point that Rome just arrested all Christians, since they were a menace (although that history has largely been expunged by later Christian sources, leaving only the Roman persecutions in place and some vague assertions of blood liable and 'being heathen').

 

Problem is it's like the British 'corrected' the Tasmanian Aborigines. Extinction is not correction...

[BuddyFerris]

OK HanS, it's morning. Having difficulty keeping both eyes open at the same time, and my Left Coast friend wants to know if I'm a Buddhist. Probably; who knows at this hour, I may be Napoleon, too. Wait 'til my coffee kicks in. Starting travel today; too soon after the last trip. Four or five times a year would suit me well; closer together becomes an imposition. Norfolk tonight, aboard ship tomorrow, California late Wednesday night.

Buddy

 

I hope we taxpayers aren't paying for all that!

Bad news, pal; this trip is all tax dollars. The good news is I got a great deal on my airfare.

Buddy

[Legion]

Good morning Legion,

Good morning Buddy.

 

I'll go so far as to agree with your position that all we can really know with confidence is ourselves along with various impressions we attribute to external sources. I'll add that an active external source that persists in stating and restating information can contribute to the process effectively.

I often find myself trying to strike some sort of balance. I know how easily communication can go astray. So I sometimes repeat myself in a slightly different manner. At the same time however, I feel that a certain amount of credit should be granted to my audience. They have the capacity to discern what I am trying to say. So to labor too long on my point does a disservice to them. It borders on condescension in my opinion.

 

So when I am speaking with someone I find myself trying to achieve clarity while maintaining some level of respect.

 

Buddy I know that you have been bombarded with questions. And I think you’ve done an admirable job of trying to stay on top of them, but I have one more to throw at you.

 

Do you really think Christianity will survive the coming centuries? I have an intense interest in biology and I look forward to this coming century. I think it will be a century in which biology will come to the fore. It seems to me that as our understanding of life and living phenomena waxes Christianity will wane. Do you not feel that this will be the case?

[webmdave]

Buddy,

 

If you are sincerely trying to "understand" us, and not actually just trying to evangelize, then please take some time to explore this site: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

 

To be brief, you have decided to adopt the position in your life of unshakable religious belief. There are many people that have adopted that position for their lives in many different religions. In fact, it's a fairly common occurrence in human history.

 

What might be a bit less common is finding someone who has made that decision to devotedly follow a religion and has actually had experiences that were interpreted with his or her mind to be "supernatural," and that one day became sincerely willing to explore the very real possibility that his or her worldview and accompanying subjective experiences were fraught with terrible errors of judgment and gross misinterpretation of data.

 

My wife's sister is a life-long Charismatic Christian (she and her husband led a Vineyard Church in Belgium for many years). She and my wife talk frequently over the Internet. My wife is now an atheist, and her sister knows it, and they've discussed many things about their upbringing, their lives, their religion, etc. Their father, whom I've mentioned earlier, truly does believe God speaks to him in an audible voice about mundane matters. He left manufacturing in the early 60's to devote his life to missionary work in Europe with Operation Mobilization. My wife and her siblings knew only One Way to view reality. Their parents only recently retired and returned to the States.

 

Anyway, my wife and her sister talk. This is what my wife's sister has to say about my wife's de-conversion: "I know that all the things you are telling me make perfect sense, but if I were to abandon my faith now at this point in my life, then all my life would have been wasted. I just can't consider the possibility that all that I've believed is a lie."

 

Again, If you really are sincerely trying to "understand" us, and not actually just trying to "help us understand what we think, or see if we know what or why we think what we think," then please take some time to explore this site: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html