Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Ouroboros]

If our ability to reason is God given, then why is it mostly shunned by religious people? Reason, logic, and research leads to certain answers of reality, yet many religious leaders rather use rhetoric and polemic to control the masses.

 

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Did I?

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement then. My understanding was that you argued that humans have reason and that somehow proves God. But I find that kind of strange as an argument since many Christians defy and disagree with reason. If reason was from God, then reason shouldn't be hindered.

 

Many on this website left Christianity because of real, valid, and intelligent reasons. Perhaps it would have been better for God if we all were idiots?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me to argue God's existence by claiming that we have something unique and then declare it a useless feature of our mind.

 

I assume this is directed at the formerly mentioned "religious leaders" and not myself, since I haven't done that.

Good. So it doesn't bother you that some people have left Christianity because they reasoned?

[Kid]

Isn't it written that God is no respecter of persons? Seems unjust for God to give explicit directions to one and make another just guess at what pleases him.

 

It could seem unfair, if you assume that whatever the ultimate outcome is of not having had explicit directions is going to be negative rather than positive.

 

 

So then you would say that St. Jude was wrong when he wrote that the faith was delivered to the Saints once and for all?

 

No, I wouldn't. I can certainly agree with him that a foundational message of the purpose of God's grace is a plumb-line for faith. But that doesn't mean we cannot be mistaken in many ways and on many levels when it comes to our ideas about God. I'd go so far as to say I absolutely expect that we are.

[Kid]

Did I?

 

To reiterate you asked:

If our ability to reason is God given, then why is it mostly shunned by religious people?

And then you answered:

Reason, logic, and research leads to certain answers of reality, yet many religious leaders rather use rhetoric and polemic to control the masses.

 

 

So, yes, I rather think you did answer your own question. It's shunned because we've been told not to use our reason by our leaders, who were in turn told that by their leaders, and their leaders before them. I don't think that most leaders today are knowingly propagating a lie ... they're simply living out what they've been indoctrinated with themselves.

 

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement then. My understanding was that you argued that humans have reason and that somehow proves God. But I find that kind of strange as an argument since many Christians defy and disagree with reason. If reason was from God, then reason shouldn't be hindered.

 

Well, first of all, what I said has been rather pared down to one thing in the progression of the discussion. I actually said:

 

"We appear to be the only creatures on this planet that have the ability to experience life with intellect and emotion, the only ones able to create, and I can't help but think we are patterned after SomeOne." And that was only part of what I said. But, I understand your desire to fixate on reason since you feel that fundamental Christianity is hell-bent on hindering it.

 

 

 

 

Many on this website left Christianity because of real, valid, and intelligent reasons. Perhaps it would have been better for God if we all were idiots?

 

Maybe you should save your righteous indignation on this subject for someone who disagrees with you. Or, a saying I'm sure you're familiar with: you're preaching to the choir.

 

 

It just doesn't make sense to me to argue God's existence by claiming that we have something unique and then declare it a useless feature of our mind.

 

When have I said it was useless?

 

Good. So it doesn't bother you that some people have left Christianity because they reasoned?

 

It doesn't bother me that I have left behind those things I was taught to believe that I found my reason cannot support so why would it bother me that others have experienced this as well? Does it bother you that my reason has led me to remain a Christian?

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement then. My understanding was that you argued that humans have reason and that somehow proves God. But I find that kind of strange as an argument since many Christians defy and disagree with reason. If reason was from God, then reason shouldn't be hindered.

 

Well, first of all, what I said has been rather pared down to one thing in the progression of the discussion. I actually said:

 

"We appear to be the only creatures on this planet that have the ability to experience life with intellect and emotion, the only ones able to create, and I can't help but think we are patterned after SomeOne." And that was only part of what I said. But, I understand your desire to fixate on reason since you feel that fundamental Christianity is hell-bent on hindering it.

Ok.

 

However, I disagree with the "emotion" part since I believe animals have emotions too. And I do think they have intellects too, even if they're not as developed as ours.

 

Some animals have been able to solve some problems by using tools, so humans being different because we can create is... well, I'm not sure. We have a better skill and talent to do it, but it's all relative.

 

 

 

Many on this website left Christianity because of real, valid, and intelligent reasons. Perhaps it would have been better for God if we all were idiots?

 

Maybe you should save your righteous indignation on this subject for someone who disagrees with you. Or, a saying I'm sure you're familiar with: you're preaching to the choir.

Ah. Ok.

 

 

It just doesn't make sense to me to argue God's existence by claiming that we have something unique and then declare it a useless feature of our mind.

 

When have I said it was useless?

Ok.

 

Good. So it doesn't bother you that some people have left Christianity because they reasoned?

 

It doesn't bother me that I have left behind those things I was taught to believe that I found my reason cannot support so why would it bother me that others have experienced this as well? Does it bother you that my reason has led me to remain a Christian?

Nope. Not at all. Most of my family is still Christian. Even my brother who has 150+ IQ.

 

I just wanted to see where you stand.

[Kid]

Ok.

 

However, I disagree with the "emotion" part since I believe animals have emotions too. And I do think they have intellects too, even if they're not as developed as ours.

 

Some animals have been able to solve some problems by using tools, so humans being different because we can create is... well, I'm not sure. We have a better skill and talent to do it, but it's all relative.

 

You're right. I didn't need to focus on an assumption that humanity is unique. I am strongly inclined to believe that since we have intellect, emotion and an ability to consciously create, there is good reason to think (given our relative insignificance in the universe) that there is something out there, "bigger" than us, that possesses these same qualities. The fact that other creatures may have some of these to a less developed degree doesn't detract from that for me.

[Shyone]

Ok.

 

However, I disagree with the "emotion" part since I believe animals have emotions too. And I do think they have intellects too, even if they're not as developed as ours.

 

Some animals have been able to solve some problems by using tools, so humans being different because we can create is... well, I'm not sure. We have a better skill and talent to do it, but it's all relative.

 

You're right. I didn't need to focus on an assumption that humanity is unique. I am strongly inclined to believe that since we have intellect, emotion and an ability to consciously create, there is good reason to think (given our relative insignificance in the universe) that there is something out there, "bigger" than us, that possesses these same qualities. The fact that other creatures may have some of these to a less developed degree doesn't detract from that for me.

Do you also believe that there is something out there, bigger than the eagle, that possesses super eyesight? Or something out there, bigger than the cheetah that possesses super fast legs? Or something that can dig more deeply and faster than a worm?

 

We have an adaptation that has proven successful. I don't see why you feel the need to use Plato's form reasoning to say that "out there" is something perfect.

 

Of what you have written, the part that I can identify with is "our relative insignificance" in the universe. Every single galaxy, every single star, every single planet around every star is different - historically, physically and chemically. And yet, they are all the same. Bits of matter, aggregated in different ways, with properties that share only basic chemical and anatomic characteristics.

 

You can pray to Mars. Call it the God of War. "It" exists. Pray to Venus to save you from Mars. Or Jupiter to protect you. They are "bigger" than us, but I'd like to see you prove that they possess intellect, emotion and consciousness. How would you know a materialistic universe from a "living" universe? What does one do that the other doesn't?

 

Please refrain from the argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.

[NotBlinded]

Ok.

 

However, I disagree with the "emotion" part since I believe animals have emotions too. And I do think they have intellects too, even if they're not as developed as ours.

 

Some animals have been able to solve some problems by using tools, so humans being different because we can create is... well, I'm not sure. We have a better skill and talent to do it, but it's all relative.

 

You're right. I didn't need to focus on an assumption that humanity is unique. I am strongly inclined to believe that since we have intellect, emotion and an ability to consciously create, there is good reason to think (given our relative insignificance in the universe) that there is something out there, "bigger" than us, that possesses these same qualities. The fact that other creatures may have some of these to a less developed degree doesn't detract from that for me.

It's nice to see another Christian come in that doesn't just paste bible verses all over. You sound very capable of thinking for yourself and that is always good to see. Welcome.

 

It could be that what is out there isn't really "out" there but "in" there. The creator doesn't need to be separate from Creation. It's really in how you look at it. One is separate and issues commands and the other is an active participant in spontaneity. That way it doesn't have to be something apart from us that has these same qualities. We can look at anything and see God because all of nature is constantly creating. We can't forget about destruction though, and if we can see God in creation, we can also see God in destruction.

[Ouroboros]

You're right. I didn't need to focus on an assumption that humanity is unique. I am strongly inclined to believe that since we have intellect, emotion and an ability to consciously create, there is good reason to think (given our relative insignificance in the universe) that there is something out there, "bigger" than us, that possesses these same qualities. The fact that other creatures may have some of these to a less developed degree doesn't detract from that for me.

Sure, I believe too that there could exist beings just as intelligent as us, or even more intelligent and powerful. But, I can't say that our existence or intelligence leads to a super-being that is infinite, eternal, non-temporal, omni-xyz, the character and format of mathematics, logic, and perfect circles. In other words, sure, other beings which are more than us, but not necessarily just one being which is the most of all things.

[NotBlinded]

We have an adaptation that has proven successful. I don't see why you feel the need to use Plato's form reasoning to say that "out there" is something perfect.

Yes, because in order for perfection to even be thought about, there must be something that isn't perfect. That gives the entire show away. Perfection is the existence of both perfection and non-perfection. Just as it is when we look in the mirror or out the window. Reality is indeed perfect for it could be no other way.

[Shyone]

We have an adaptation that has proven successful. I don't see why you feel the need to use Plato's form reasoning to say that "out there" is something perfect.

Yes, because in order for perfection to even be thought about, there must be something that isn't perfect. That gives the entire show away. Perfection is the existence of both perfection and non-perfection. Just as it is when we look in the mirror or out the window. Reality is indeed perfect for it could be no other way.

I'd go with that. The discourse in this thread is really top-knotch. I've made the dumbest comments so far. My anatomy prevents me from kicking myself in the usual places.

 

HanSolo's comment was really good.

 

I just forgot to take my IQ pills.

[NotBlinded]

I just forgot to take my IQ pills.

Dooooode, what the heck are you talking about? Nobody can pull Plato out of their asses! Dumb? NOT! I love your posts.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo's comment was really good.

WTH!!! I said something good?

 

Evidence I haven't taken enough schnaps. Pour another akvavit guys. Scheerss!

 

[Kid]

Do you also believe that there is something out there, bigger than the eagle, that possesses super eyesight? Or something out there, bigger than the cheetah that possesses super fast legs? Or something that can dig more deeply and faster than a worm?

 

We have an adaptation that has proven successful. I don't see why you feel the need to use Plato's form reasoning to say that "out there" is something perfect.

 

Of what you have written, the part that I can identify with is "our relative insignificance" in the universe. Every single galaxy, every single star, every single planet around every star is different - historically, physically and chemically. And yet, they are all the same. Bits of matter, aggregated in different ways, with properties that share only basic chemical and anatomic characteristics.

 

You can pray to Mars. Call it the God of War. "It" exists. Pray to Venus to save you from Mars. Or Jupiter to protect you. They are "bigger" than us, but I'd like to see you prove that they possess intellect, emotion and consciousness. How would you know a materialistic universe from a "living" universe? What does one do that the other doesn't?

 

Please refrain from the argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.

 

To my detriment, I suppose, I don't know anything about Plato. I wasn't using his reasoning, just my own. As far as refraining from arguments, I'm not presenting any but simply answering the question of why I'm still a Christian. Hopefully I've been clear on the fact that I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything, nor would I expect to be able to.

 

To me, there is something unique and out of the ordinary about our cognitive, creative and emotional attributes beyond a physical explanation. If you don't see the possibility of anything beyond the natural in it, I'm certainly not here to change your mind.

[Kid]

It's nice to see another Christian come in that doesn't just paste bible verses all over. You sound very capable of thinking for yourself and that is always good to see. Welcome.

 

It could be that what is out there isn't really "out" there but "in" there. The creator doesn't need to be separate from Creation. It's really in how you look at it. One is separate and issues commands and the other is an active participant in spontaneity. That way it doesn't have to be something apart from us that has these same qualities. We can look at anything and see God because all of nature is constantly creating. We can't forget about destruction though, and if we can see God in creation, we can also see God in destruction.

 

Thanks for the welcome.

 

Well, I'm only recently considering a less literal understanding of the Bible, but I could see a metaphorical equivalent to what you're saying in God becoming one with humanity through Christ.

 

And, I agree, I do see God in destruction.

[Kid]

Sure, I believe too that there could exist beings just as intelligent as us, or even more intelligent and powerful. But, I can't say that our existence or intelligence leads to a super-being that is infinite, eternal, non-temporal, omni-xyz, the character and format of mathematics, logic, and perfect circles. In other words, sure, other beings which are more than us, but not necessarily just one being which is the most of all things.

 

I'm curious ... if you can see the possibility of "others" why not the possibility of a One, as well?

[Snakefoot]

And why is God a man? And does he have nipples like we guys do? Are we in his likeness, literally, or just figuratively?

 

I once seriously toyed with the notion of writing a book:

 

Title: Does God have a Penis?

Subtitle: And if so, what does he do with it?

[Shyone]

To my detriment, I suppose, I don't know anything about Plato. I wasn't using his reasoning, just my own. As far as refraining from arguments, I'm not presenting any but simply answering the question of why I'm still a Christian. Hopefully I've been clear on the fact that I'm not here to try to convince anyone of anything, nor would I expect to be able to.

 

To me, there is something unique and out of the ordinary about our cognitive, creative and emotional attributes beyond a physical explanation. If you don't see the possibility of anything beyond the natural in it, I'm certainly not here to change your mind.

Plato was a Republican, so he's not that important anyway.

 

I'll grant that our cognitive ability is unique. Really special - for those who have a good helping of cognitive ability. Ability fits a bell curve unfortunately. Reproductive success will determine if the curve shifts to the left or the right.

 

And for me that's the key. Intelligence is innate. One cannot become intelligent because one wants to, or because of some special education, but one can take advantage of whatever innate abilities one has - or not. But regardless, it is limited by our "inborn" abilities just as some lions are faster than others.

 

And some birds are earlier than others?

 

Anyway, acquired physical disability can also limit intelligence - which we may define as the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience or the ability to learn.

 

Having seen the physical disintegration of intelligence, I can say that without the brain, there isn't any intelligence.

[Shyone]

Sure, I believe too that there could exist beings just as intelligent as us, or even more intelligent and powerful. But, I can't say that our existence or intelligence leads to a super-being that is infinite, eternal, non-temporal, omni-xyz, the character and format of mathematics, logic, and perfect circles. In other words, sure, other beings which are more than us, but not necessarily just one being which is the most of all things.

 

I'm curious ... if you can see the possibility of "others" why not the possibility of a One, as well?

Isn't HanSolo referring to alien beings? Beings with physical bodies, or at least some aggregate of energy? He specifically excluded non-temporal immaterial beings.

 

"More than us" could mean "of superior abilities or intelligence."

 

The One thing suggests that there is some way for the universe to be organized to store information. Perhaps one could say that, but it isn't the kind of information we are accustomed to calling information. Gravitational pull could be loosely defined as information, and particle exchanges (gluons, photons, etc) could be "information exchange", but that's not what we are really talking about, is it?

[Kid]

Having seen the physical disintegration of intelligence, I can say that without the brain, there isn't any intelligence.

 

No observable intelligence.

 

In my first post I said I couldn't exactly determine if my faith is based on reason or gut, but I think I can be more precise about that now. My faith, in some regards, is based on reason -- I reason through the different aspects of what I believe about God and why. But at the core of it, in terms of whether or not to accept the existance of God, that's gut for me. So, while it may be the case that there is no observable intelligence in the abscence of of a physical brain, that doesn't preclude me listening to my "gut" that there is more to us, and to the universe at large, than what is observable by the physical senses. Certainly my brain isn't wired to be particularly scientific and maybe it is wired to lean towards the "mystic" side of things; but then my gut would say it wasn't wired that way by chance.

[Kid]

Isn't HanSolo referring to alien beings? Beings with physical bodies, or at least some aggregate of energy? He specifically excluded non-temporal immaterial beings.

 

"More than us" could mean "of superior abilities or intelligence."

 

The One thing suggests that there is some way for the universe to be organized to store information. Perhaps one could say that, but it isn't the kind of information we are accustomed to calling information. Gravitational pull could be loosely defined as information, and particle exchanges (gluons, photons, etc) could be "information exchange", but that's not what we are really talking about, is it?

 

 

If I ever figure out what you're talking about I'll let you know if that's what we're talking about.

[Shyone]

Having seen the physical disintegration of intelligence, I can say that without the brain, there isn't any intelligence.

 

No observable intelligence.

 

In my first post I said I couldn't exactly determine if my faith is based on reason or gut, but I think I can be more precise about that now. My faith, in some regards, is based on reason -- I reason through the different aspects of what I believe about God and why. But at the core of it, in terms of whether or not to accept the existance of God, that's gut for me. So, while it may be the case that there is no observable intelligence in the abscence of of a physical brain, that doesn't preclude me listening to my "gut" that there is more to us, and to the universe at large, than what is observable by the physical senses. Certainly my brain isn't wired to be particularly scientific and maybe it is wired to lean towards the "mystic" side of things; but then my gut would say it wasn't wired that way by chance.

 

Rocks have no observable intelligence, and neither do vegetables - the human or plant kind.

 

Reasoning about God tends to be circular:

 

1. If there is a god, things would be as they are now.

2. Things are as they are now.

3. Therefore there is a god.

 

Yes, this is a form of reasoning, but if the premise is faulty, the argument fails.

 

1. If pigs could fly, you would be a Christian.

2. You are a Christian.

3. Therefore pigs can fly.

 

I am reminded of St. Thomas Aquinas's great work, the Summa Theologiae. In article 3, he addressed the existence of God with an argument that has been debunked. He continued to elaborate the various "aspects" of god, but by the time he gets to the properties of angels, he is way out in weird land.

 

Start with a faulty premise, and you can build enormous piles of shit on that faulty premise.

 

My gut tells me it's a bunch of pig slop.

[Snakefoot]

Having seen the physical disintegration of intelligence, I can say that without the brain, there isn't any intelligence.

 

No observable intelligence.

 

In my first post I said I couldn't exactly determine if my faith is based on reason or gut, but I think I can be more precise about that now. My faith, in some regards, is based on reason -- I reason through the different aspects of what I believe about God and why. But at the core of it, in terms of whether or not to accept the existance of God, that's gut for me. So, while it may be the case that there is no observable intelligence in the abscence of of a physical brain, that doesn't preclude me listening to my "gut" that there is more to us, and to the universe at large, than what is observable by the physical senses. Certainly my brain isn't wired to be particularly scientific and maybe it is wired to lean towards the "mystic" side of things; but then my gut would say it wasn't wired that way by chance.

 

Let me make sure I understand you: Are you saying a person can "feel" or "think" with their "gut" even if there is no brain in the skull?

[Snakefoot]

Sure, I believe too that there could exist beings just as intelligent as us, or even more intelligent and powerful. But, I can't say that our existence or intelligence leads to a super-being that is infinite, eternal, non-temporal, omni-xyz, the character and format of mathematics, logic, and perfect circles. In other words, sure, other beings which are more than us, but not necessarily just one being which is the most of all things.

 

I'm curious ... if you can see the possibility of "others" why not the possibility of a One, as well?

Isn't HanSolo referring to alien beings? Beings with physical bodies, or at least some aggregate of energy? He specifically excluded non-temporal immaterial beings.

 

"More than us" could mean "of superior abilities or intelligence."

 

The One thing suggests that there is some way for the universe to be organized to store information. Perhaps one could say that, but it isn't the kind of information we are accustomed to calling information. Gravitational pull could be loosely defined as information, and particle exchanges (gluons, photons, etc) could be "information exchange", but that's not what we are really talking about, is it?

That's how I read it, too.

[Kid]

My gut tells me it's a bunch of pig slop.

 

 

Could be.

[Ouroboros]

Sure, I believe too that there could exist beings just as intelligent as us, or even more intelligent and powerful. But, I can't say that our existence or intelligence leads to a super-being that is infinite, eternal, non-temporal, omni-xyz, the character and format of mathematics, logic, and perfect circles. In other words, sure, other beings which are more than us, but not necessarily just one being which is the most of all things.

 

I'm curious ... if you can see the possibility of "others" why not the possibility of a One, as well?

Because it would be a completely different category of being.

 

Think of it this way: imagine the whole set of integers. If you remember from algebra, the set of integers has the domain (-∞,∞). Let's imagine that each and every being is a number in that set. I'm number 92, you're number 157, etc. Some being exists which is number 982 who is far smarter and more intelligent than me.

 

Now, we are supposed to imagine a number, one of these numbers, is not only an integer but also the creator of all integers.

 

I other words, this being, this number, is a number in the set, but also a non-integer number which exists outside the set, or before the set. I can't really imagine that. So I find it very hard to consider a being which is the sum of the akashic field and the sum of all abstractions, sum of a prescience, yet he is somehow a being just like us.

 

Then of course the Christian answer is that God is naturally not the same kind of being like us.

 

But wait, wasn't that the argument? A being which is smarter than us? Well, if he's not anything like us, then what does the word "smarter" mean? Or "being"? He's something like us but bigger, but he is not like us but infinite. Eh? You make God to whatever you want, not to something which is just bigger than us.

 

Or put it this way. It's easy to consider something which is bigger, better, smarter, and stronger than us. But that's not the same as the biggest, best, smartest, and strongest. That's a quantum leap from something measurable to something which is ultimate and unmeasurable.

 

In other words, they're not the same category. Smarter v Smartest. Not the same scaling.