I was wrong

[Jay]

Axioms are self evident. Evidence is something evident. Things not so self evident require axioms as support. Silly xer. If you are not self evident then you would not be having this dialog whith me. Stop refuting yourself. hehe!

Thanks for the lesson, but I know what an axiom is. However, axioms are, just like manyother things, subjective.

First you ask me to define what thinking is then you use the word think in this next statement as if it means something to you.

Apparently, you missed the italics.

You are a contrarian. You are a simple minded naysayer who's only gift is a memory to mindlessly parrot what one reads. You pseudo intellectual cretin. We have hard evidence of what dreams are. You rediculous cretin. I will not do your homework for you. Read a book that covers human physiology/neurology you idiotic naysayer. Oh! better not do that, becuase books might not really exist and it might be a waste of time. Idiot!

I think, since you are unable to carry on this conversation without ad hominem, I will move on to other more rational people for discussion.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks for the lesson, but I know what an axiom is.  However, axioms are, just like manyother things, subjective.

I think, since you are unable to carry on this conversation without ad hominem, I will move on to other more rational people for discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your very tactics are an adhom attack on our human ability to navigate in reality. You self defeating abomination.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks for the lesson, but I know what an axiom is.  However, axioms are, just like manyother things, subjective.

I think, since you are unable to carry on this conversation without ad hominem, I will move on to other more rational people for discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I speak of is no were near as subjective as your belief in bible god you "you too" naysayer. We are rewarded in real life for our use of axioms. You offer only pure conjecture.

 

And you have no appreciation for axioms what so ever. That explains your love for junk philosophy.

 

Magical thinking will be punnished in my vicinity.

[dogmatically_challenged]

She's a Christian poster on our forum.  I think you might make a good pair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am beggining to really hate Liberal xers and new agers.

[dogmatically_challenged]

  Yep, they slippery like eel. 

 

I actually prefer debating fundies because their beliefs are more concrete and I understand what they believe so we can kind of have a starting point. 

 

Liberal Xtians are slippery because they can slip in and out of believing the Bible at whim.  One minute it is actual occurance, the next it is allegory...etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I actually prefer debating fundies because their beliefs are more concrete and I understand what they believe so we can kind of have a starting point.

Yes! Especially luke warm fundies, because they will work with you a lot of the time. They are curious.

[Purple Rhino]

I believe God is omnipotent in that he can do whatever is logically possible.  God cannot make a square circle, etc. 

 

Define "logically possible".  I would define a logical possibility as something that can happen within the natural order.  I would define an illogical possiblity as someting like, oh say, God impregnanting a woman who gives birth to someone who is His son but also Himself, who flew up unaided into the atmosphere and into open space after being dead for three days.  But that is just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Shit Madame M I'd settle for the logic behind Joseph not kicking whore mary's ass to the curb when she fed him the whole 'holy ghost did it"

 

 

PR

[Purple Rhino]

According to the Catholics, they never had sex as a married couple either.  What man would stand for that.

 

Well, you know what they say though, "Once they go ghost, they never go back."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do the catholics explain Jesus' brothers then? I their defence they do have the most fabulous drag outfits for funerals.

 

PR

[Ouroboros]

Well, those two words require some explanation.  I would answer yes to both.  But it is not what you think...

 

I believe that God is infallible, in that God does not make mistakes.  For instance, if God were doing a crossword puzzle, he would not fill in the wrong word.  If God were trying to calculate the derrivative...ok, you get the idea.  However, sometimes God does things without knowing how it will turn out, for sure.  That gets to omniscience...

 

I am an open-theist.  In short, I do not believe that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future.  In fact, some things in the future are impossible to know, even if you are God.  Since I believe that God made us as truly free agents, it would be impossible for all the effects of 7 billion free agents to be perfectly knowable, else they would not be free.  So God, I believe, has exhaustive knowledge of the present, but his knowledge gets more and more uncertain the farther into the future you project.

Basically you either see him as incredible smart, IQ of infinity, or you turn around the definition of infallible to be "Anything God does is to be considered perfect", instead of "God act in a perfect way".

 

The Bible clearly say that God regret the flood, so can God regret his own "perfect" actions, or was the actions not really "perfect"?

 

And do you see God as omnipotent and yet omni-benevolent?

I believe God is omnipotent in that he can do whatever is logically possible. God cannot make a square circle, etc. I am not certain what you mean by onmi-benevolent (I have never heard that term before), but, just going by what I can piece together grammatically, I do not believe God is omni-benevolent, with the caveat that I do not know precisely what you mean by that.

Yeah, I know the word omni-benevolent doesn't really exist, but I use the in the sense of "all-good", that he only have a good purpose and objective with his actions, and the results would be the best for all participating parties (all humans ever existed, all humans who exist, and all future humans). Another way of saying it is that "God is wholly good" (Not Jolly good )

 

I use that combination to enhance the meaning of benevolent which is something you and I can do, but an all-powerfull, all-knowing God could be considered also to be all-good.

 

As you probably are aware of, there's conflicts and contradictions in these views. A being able to do all good through his all powers, but yet is not, is either limiting himself to be not all powerful, or he is just not all good.

 

So does God has the will to do good, but can't?

Or is his view of good so completely removed from our understanding of what good is that when he acts for the greater good, it could mean temporary evil things for us?

[Cerise]

I am not certain what you mean by onmi-benevolent (I have never heard that term before), but, just going by what I can piece together grammatically, I do not believe God is omni-benevolent, with the caveat that I do not know precisely what you mean by that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Omni-benevolent. All-good.

 

Do you believe that God can do evil, or is your God all good?

[♦ ficino ♦]

But I never have, dammit.  Read my posts before criticizing.

 

Jay, I was actually agreeing with you and then jumping off to editorialize from there. The words "not you necessarily" were intended to show I was not criticizing you. I was blanketly criticizing other Christians who come on here and talk about their experience as though it constitutes evidence for the truth of doctrinal propositions. I used to sing a song about that, as a matter of fact: "you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart."

[Jay]

In other words, you can't apply it to most of the Bible then.  Love is not logical?  Then neither is grace, mercy, justice, morality, sorrow, repentance, joy, peace, eternal retribution or the salvation of the spirit.  Blood sacrifices are not logical ways to atone for the sins of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would take it a step further and suggest that atonement itself is not logical. It is alogical. In fact, so is punishment in general. There is no syllogistic case that can be made that proves that someone who murders should go to prison. It is one of those things that cannot be defined in terms of logic.

 

In fact, most of the things we deal with on a day to day basis are alogical. They fall into that category we lovingly call "common sense", which is not a logical precept at all.

 

of course, alogic is not the same as illogic....

[Cerise]

I find it perfectly logical that a murderer should be put in a place where no furthur harm can come to society do to his/her actions. A prison would be such a place, would it not?

[Jay]

I believe God is omnipotent in that he can do whatever is logically possible.  God cannot make a square circle, etc. 

 

Define "logically possible".  I would define a logical possibility as something that can happen within the natural order.  I would define an illogical possiblity as someting like, oh say, God impregnanting a woman who gives birth to someone who is His son but also Himself, who flew up unaided into the atmosphere and into open space after being dead for three days.  But that is just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I do not know that nature provides an exhaustive catalogue of all things logical. Perhaps you do know this.

 

I cannot say for certain that, if there is an intelligent designer who created this world, it would be impossible for such a being to suspend various aspects of nature at his whim. Logic, I believe to be something above nature, not a part of it. I believe that God must abide by logic, but not nature.

[Jay]

Basically you either see him as incredible smart, IQ of infinity, or you turn around the definition of infallible to be "Anything God does is to be considered perfect", instead of "God act in a perfect way".

 

The Bible clearly say that God regret the flood, so can God regret his own "perfect" actions, or was the actions not really "perfect"?

That is not the only one...there are other actions that God regretted as well. I gave specific examples of the types of things that God does not make mistakes about. I was not intending that to encompass everything he has ever done.

 

Yeah' date=' I know the word omni-benevolent doesn't really exist, but I use the in the sense of "all-good", that he only have a good purpose and objective with his actions, and the results would be the best for all participating parties (all humans ever existed, all humans who exist, and all future humans). Another way of saying it is that "God is wholly good" (Not Jolly good )

 

I use that combination to enhance the meaning of benevolent which is something you and I can do, but an all-powerfull, all-knowing God could be considered also to be all-good.[/quote']See, that is where it would probably break down, because terms loke "good" and "bad" are relative and subjective. I mean, I think it is good when the Cardinals win, and my friend Bill thinks it is bad. I would say that God does what he pleases for the purpose of accomplishing his objectives, although I do not claim to know what those are.

 

As you probably are aware of' date=' there's conflicts and contradictions in these views. A being able to do all good through his all powers, but yet is not, is either limiting himself to be not all powerful, or he is just not all good.[/quote']Right, which I would stay away from describing God as all good, because I would have no frame of reference by which to define that.

 

[quote name=HanSoloSo does God has the will to do good' date=' but can't?

Or is his view of good so completely removed from our understanding of what good is that when he acts for the greater good, it could mean temporary evil things for us?[/quote]

Well, my opening answer to you on that issue was that God was not all-benevolent. Now that you have clarified your definition, and I have explained my thoughts, perhaps we are approaching common understanding.

[Jay]

Jay, I was actually agreeing with you and then jumping off to editorialize from there.  The words "not you necessarily" were intended to show I was not criticizing you.  I was blanketly criticizing other Christians who come on here and talk about their experience as though it constitutes evidence for the truth of doctrinal propositions.  I used to sing a song about that, as a matter of fact: "you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that song makes me sick. Sorry to have snapped. I have been feeling a little under attack and did not read your post properly.

[Jay]

I find it perfectly logical that a murderer should be put in a place where no furthur harm can come to society do to his/her actions.  A prison would be such a place, would it not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you provide a logical proof?

[spamandham]

Not me.  I would never ask you to believe anything based on any personal experience.

 

I would hope you wouldn't ask me to believe based on anything. It's enough to present a case and let others believe or not as they see fit.

[Cerise]

Can you provide a logical proof?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A logical proof that having murderers wander around open society is a bad idea? What, you want statistics? A mathmatical equation?

 

Or just an example of certain undesireable effects that lack of prisons could cause?

[Jay]

I would hope you wouldn't ask me to believe based on anything.  It's enough to present a case and let others believe or not as they see fit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe...indeed, you make a good point. A poor use of words on my part.

[spamandham]

Fortunately, I did not rely on my own interpretation when I was investigating it.  But my claim about Hinduism is not based on textual word play.  It is in regard to the basic philosophical tenets of the religion.  Hinduism teaches that all religions are true.  But Hinduism has two tenets that must be believed: The Law of Karma and reincarnation.  Most other religions to not accept those tenets.  In fact, it was that dogmatism that caused the birth of Buddhism.  Hinduism says that there are many paths, although most of the paths claim exclusivity.  Hinduism says that exclusivity is flatly wrong, but that a path that claims exclusivity is valid.  That is a plain violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

 

No it isn't. Hinduism says that all paths lead to reincarnation according to Karma. Those who follow other paths will still be reincarnated according to Karma from the Hindu perspective, even if those paths teach that Hinduism is false. It is not necessary to believe in the Hindu tenets for them to hold true. Thus, no violation of non-contradiction.

 

Just as no scientist will ever be able to show that it is even possible for life to emerge from non-life.

 

How do you know that?

 

You talk the philosophical talk, but you do not seem to recognize your own failure to adhere to it.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know.  My search was for truth, not some religion to cling to.  I was on the border of atheism myself.

Yes.  And I am not asking anyone to accept religious experience as evidence for anything.  Not quite sure how many times I have to state that in this thread.

Just as no scientist will ever be able to show that it is even possible for life to emerge from non-life.

You're making an assumption there.

 

When you're saying "no scientists will ever be able to show", then I assume that you have some evidence to that fact?

 

I know they can't do it now, but "never" is a very strong standpoint that you have to uphold with something more... please provide more information...

[dogmatically_challenged]

I apologize Jay for my deplorable behavior towards you in this thread. I am a total jerk. I will from this point on chill out.

 

Again I sincerely apologize for my behavior. You did not in any way deserve the abuse I dished out.

[Saviourmachine]

... Also, understanding what the Bible is, and what its intended purpose is. The Bible is not a book of science. ... It is skewed and biased.  If you read it knowing those things, then you can gain some useful information from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the intended purpose of the bible? What useful information can be gained? What's the purpose of the myth about Jesus death?

- Do you know Strauss? Jesus is a myth*, and God want to tell us through him that He is present in every person.

- Do you know Troeltsch? Jesus is only necessary to continue the existence of the church.

- Do you know Bousset? Judge xianity just as you would judge every other religion. Jesus is deified and does fill in some spiritual need of the people that ancient time and in current times. Humanity does wish 'einen Gott auf Erden'.

- Do you know Harnack? Jesus didn't preach himself. Jesus isn't an ingredient of the gospel / good message. He was only a messenger of the gospel.

- Do you know Bultmann? He said that we know not much about Jesus as a historical person. In the gospels we meet not Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus as the faithful xian communities saw him. For Bultmann believing was not believing in the history of the bible, it is 'something' that arises from 'hearing the Word'. And that was about the seriousness of the 'End of the World' in Jesus time, and is now for the listener, the seriousness of the 'End of His/Her Own Life': Death. Believing is a form of 'Entweltlichung': being Free from the World. Almost Buddhistic.

 

* However, he didn't consider it as fairy tale. A kind of serious myth.

__________

This summary about modern theology is - I think - necessary for the many that - like me - had quite fundamental beliefs: Literal truth, literal hell etc. Let's hear wat the gospel of Jay and Amanda is. Let they speak! I open my ears:

[Purple Rhino]

Content removed.  I misread a statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

now I gotta know what was here! I missed something

 

 

PR

[Purple Rhino]

Some stuff about Hinduism.  I accidentally quoted the wrong person, then when I went back, I couldn't find Jay's comment I wanted to comment on, so I just removed it- 'cause I wasn't sure if he said what I thought he did. 

 

Basically, I said that if Hinduism violates the law of non-contradiction, by encompassing the whole of the world into it's beliefs.  Then Christianity does too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Madame M

 

Thank you thank you! I can now get on with my day

 

that was close

 

PR