OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Sconnor, I find it interesting that you have no problem with the concept of if God exists, he can show himself to you, and yet you dont find it acceptable at all that other people have this experience. Huh. If god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can share with me his character and will by telling me exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian asshole, that makes insane, unsubstantiated, interpretive god/jesus claims There is also the idea, that, experience is lousy evidence. I guess seeing God in a way, unlike most believers through the ages, that can't be accounted for by means of psychology is what he means. Experience can be excellent evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not really. Talking about religious experience in general. Who do you grant has having experience of truth. Surely you would not grant the "miracles" of Sai Baba, but while many of the ones that he is claimed to do are, similar to that of Christ, yet people still as of this day follow Sai Baba. Who has the most valuable claim. Also for example appearances of the dead, are they seeing the dead actually, or is there mind playing tricks on them. All these questions for the supposedly wonderful, experience evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 And anther thing....when one of you knotheads isn't acknowledged for the exact reason why YOU left Christianity, then we Christians are thrown into an inclusive group that we ALL don't understand your particular version for denial. From my other thread...alot of you wanted to stay, pleaded to stay, yet couldn't. Could you not find the right pill to fix the problem...after all, it's all natural physical. The doc should be able to help. He understands how exact configuations of billions upon billions of cells reacting together gives the answer anyone should desire..... Well again. I didn't leave. It left me. Well physically I left -- that is I quit going to church. But what should I have done? Should I have just kept pretending to be a believer? I couldn't find the right pill, but then I didn't know yet it was all natural physical. Therefore it didn't occur to me to find a faith pill. At the time I would have taken it. It was only later long after the fact that I realized the the explanation was "all natural physical". I've never heard of an actual faith pill, except for LSD. When I was on LSD I believed in fairies or any other weird notion that passed through my brain. And you, you knothead, still don't understand what not believing is --- do you? It is not, as you still feel it is, pretending that God is not while still knowing that God is. Atheism doesn't demand a leap of faith. It doesn't demand anything at all. That is what the "a" in atheism means -- nothing, nada, zero, zilch. It's like throwing your bucket in the ocean expecting there to be fish in it when you take it home. You were told by reliable people that there would be fish, but when you get home there is no fish in it. The reliable people are still saying, "no there is fish in there, just have faith!" Meanwhile you are getting hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta Hate is not taught in that passage. Spiritual consequences are. I'm surprised you are surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not really. Talking about religious experience in general. Who do you grant has having experience of truth. Surely you would not grant the "miracles" of Sai Baba, but while many of the ones that he is claimed to do are, similar to that of Christ, yet people still as of this day follow Sai Baba. Who has the most valuable claim. Also for example appearances of the dead, are they seeing the dead actually, or is there mind playing tricks on them. All these questions for the supposedly wonderful, experience evidence Experience can be both good and bad evidence. We all live our lives this way. Our judicial system and historiography are founded on it. You are dealing not with experience, you are dealing with specific cases, in which you question the testimony. This is very different, and provides no foundation for your gross generalization of experience. My evaluation of the evidence in total allows me to believe in Christ. As I have said many times here one must evaluate all evidence not just the parts you pick and choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta What's more is how someone with direct mystical experience can embrace it as legitimate, let alone use it as a weapon against another. But one of things that helps in understanding why texts like this exist in the Bible is because it is not one single message. They were written at different times for different purposes by people with various religious ideas, some spiritual, some political. 2 Peter is certainly not a text written by the Apostle Peter, but is pseudoepigraphal, written by someone else attributing it to the recognized name of Peter. Scholars place its composition between 110 to 150 CE. The very opening of it in verses 1-3 has "Peter" exhorting the readers to remember "the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles". So what you have is Peter as an apostle writing to remind them that they should remember the words of the apostles! Strange indeed. What you see in this is the use of the names of the apostles as authorities for their particular Christian beliefs (proto-orthodoxy) against other active Christian beliefs, such as the Gnostics. It's like creating a fictitious work in the name of one of the apostles that can be used against Roman Catholics if you were a Protestant. In essence what you have is a political attack using the language of the religion as support for itself. Not that we haven't seen that happen anywhere before! But the bottom line of this is that's it's tragic however for someone who is interested in the spiritual aspects of faith to stoop to playing god and using parts of the Bible as weapons in judgment against others in order to protect their cherished points of view. Perhaps the power of religious dogma is stronger than the heart? It's the heart that judges. Not one's dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 A word about symbols and signs. Supposing that religious symbols point to some amorphous beyond rather than some well formed beyond is not a superior religious position. Symbols and signs ought to point to something real or they are useless. If you see a curve sign on what you know is a long straight stretch of road, you ought to remove it, and not just start thinking, "well there will be something sort of curvish eventually." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not really. Talking about religious experience in general. Who do you grant has having experience of truth. Surely you would not grant the "miracles" of Sai Baba, but while many of the ones that he is claimed to do are, similar to that of Christ, yet people still as of this day follow Sai Baba. Who has the most valuable claim. Also for example appearances of the dead, are they seeing the dead actually, or is there mind playing tricks on them. All these questions for the supposedly wonderful, experience evidence Experience can be both good and bad evidence. We all live our lives this way. Our judicial system and historiography are founded on it. You are dealing not with experience, you are dealing with specific cases, in which you question the testimony. This is very different, and provides no foundation for your gross generalization of experience. My evaluation of the evidence in total allows me to believe in Christ. As I have said many times here one must evaluate all evidence not just the parts you pick and choose. You are kind of right. But I am dealing with experience, I am just referencing specific cases, for the sake of brevity. I am using specific instances to highlight the problems with using experience, which transcend the instances. Answer this: Historiography is methodologically natural right, then how can experience work to prove your case, since we haven't seen people rise from the dead like Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 A word about symbols and signs. Supposing that religious symbols point to some amorphous beyond rather than some well formed beyond is not a superior religious position. Symbols and signs ought to point to something real or they are useless. There is a difference between a sign and symbol. A sign does point to something 'real'. But a symbol is more than a sign, especially in a religious context, or better put in the context of Faith whether religious or secular. If they were meant to point to something 'real' as in the sense of 'provable', empirical, etc, then they really wouldn't serve as objects of faith. Would they? They have to point to something beyond themselves, beyond what can be immediately seized on the plane of the ordinary. Otherwise Faith has no means to reach to what is beyond itself. Moreover, symbols are not just signs as they play an active role in the experience of the Faith through those symbols. The flag is not just a sign of a country, it's a symbol that participates in a person's experience of "Country". They don't just point to something, they participate in the experience of it. So it's not quite so flat as to equate them with stop signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brakeman Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 That link was so bad it gave me diarrhea.. It's really simple, Because time is a dimension, god made the past, present, and future all at once. Thus he created the after point of the decision. He could know all the possibilities he wants, but he made only one outcome. If the outcome is predetermined, i.e. already made, then it is not a true decision. Since man cannot change a future that has already been constructed, he has no free will. Ordinary Clay, You never responded to this. Did god make both the beginning, middle, and end of this dimension we call time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not really. Talking about religious experience in general. Who do you grant has having experience of truth. Surely you would not grant the "miracles" of Sai Baba, but while many of the ones that he is claimed to do are, similar to that of Christ, yet people still as of this day follow Sai Baba. Who has the most valuable claim. Also for example appearances of the dead, are they seeing the dead actually, or is there mind playing tricks on them. All these questions for the supposedly wonderful, experience evidence Experience can be both good and bad evidence. We all live our lives this way. Our judicial system and historiography are founded on it. You are dealing not with experience, you are dealing with specific cases, in which you question the testimony. This is very different, and provides no foundation for your gross generalization of experience. My evaluation of the evidence in total allows me to believe in Christ. As I have said many times here one must evaluate all evidence not just the parts you pick and choose. You are kind of right. But I am dealing with experience, I am just referencing specific cases, for the sake of brevity. I am using specific instances to highlight the problems with using experience, which transcend the instances. Answer this: Historiography is methodologically natural right, then how can experience work to prove your case, since we haven't seen people rise from the dead like Christ? Christ was not raised by natural means. There is no physical law that says if we do such and such a body will rise from the dead. It was a supernatural event. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. The supernatural is under the control of a free willed agent. We don't see people raised from the dead because those supernatural beings who would can not and those that can (God) do so at their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Ordinary Clay, You never responded to this. Did god make both the beginning, middle, and end of this thing we call time? He created the universe. Time is part of space-time so yes, He created all of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Not really. Talking about religious experience in general. Who do you grant has having experience of truth. Surely you would not grant the "miracles" of Sai Baba, but while many of the ones that he is claimed to do are, similar to that of Christ, yet people still as of this day follow Sai Baba. Who has the most valuable claim. Also for example appearances of the dead, are they seeing the dead actually, or is there mind playing tricks on them. All these questions for the supposedly wonderful, experience evidence Experience can be both good and bad evidence. We all live our lives this way. Our judicial system and historiography are founded on it. You are dealing not with experience, you are dealing with specific cases, in which you question the testimony. This is very different, and provides no foundation for your gross generalization of experience. My evaluation of the evidence in total allows me to believe in Christ. As I have said many times here one must evaluate all evidence not just the parts you pick and choose. You are kind of right. But I am dealing with experience, I am just referencing specific cases, for the sake of brevity. I am using specific instances to highlight the problems with using experience, which transcend the instances. Answer this: Historiography is methodologically natural right, then how can experience work to prove your case, since we haven't seen people rise from the dead like Christ? Christ was not raised by natural means. There is no physical law that says if we do such and such a body will rise from the dead. It was a supernatural event. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. The supernatural is under the control of a free willed agent. We don't see people raised from the dead because those supernatural beings who would can not and those that can (God) do so at their will. Ummm then, historiographical methods, can't prove the supernatural then because they are methodologically natural right. If God doesn't raise the dead now, by what reason can we assume it happened then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Experience can be both good and bad evidence. We all live our lives this way. Our judicial system and historiography are founded on it. You are dealing not with experience, you are dealing with specific cases, in which you question the testimony. This is very different, and provides no foundation for your gross generalization of experience. My evaluation of the evidence in total allows me to believe in Christ. As I have said many times here one must evaluate all evidence not just the parts you pick and choose. You are kind of right. But I am dealing with experience, I am just referencing specific cases, for the sake of brevity. I am using specific instances to highlight the problems with using experience, which transcend the instances. Answer this: Historiography is methodologically natural right, then how can experience work to prove your case, since we haven't seen people rise from the dead like Christ? Christ was not raised by natural means. There is no physical law that says if we do such and such a body will rise from the dead. It was a supernatural event. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. The supernatural is under the control of a free willed agent. We don't see people raised from the dead because those supernatural beings who would can not and those that can (God) do so at their will. Ummm then, historiographical methods, can't prove the supernatural then because they are methodologically natural right. If God doesn't raise the dead now, by what reason can we assume it happened then? Historiography does not work by recreating the event(in this case a miracle). It works by detecting the side effects of the events that happened. I'm not saying God can not raise people from the dead now. I'm saying it is under the control of His free will as to when to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta What's more is how someone with direct mystical experience can embrace it as legitimate, let alone use it as a weapon against another. But one of things that helps in understanding why texts like this exist in the Bible is because it is not one single message. They were written at different times for different purposes by people with various religious ideas, some spiritual, some political. 2 Peter is certainly not a text written by the Apostle Peter, but is pseudoepigraphal, written by someone else attributing it to the recognized name of Peter. Scholars place its composition between 110 to 150 CE. The very opening of it in verses 1-3 has "Peter" exhorting the readers to remember "the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles". So what you have is Peter as an apostle writing to remind them that they should remember the words of the apostles! Strange indeed. What you see in this is the use of the names of the apostles as authorities for their particular Christian beliefs (proto-orthodoxy) against other active Christian beliefs, such as the Gnostics. It's like creating a fictitious work in the name of one of the apostles that can be used against Roman Catholics if you were a Protestant. In essence what you have is a political attack using the language of the religion as support for itself. Not that we haven't seen that happen anywhere before! But the bottom line of this is that's it's tragic however for someone who is interested in the spiritual aspects of faith to stoop to playing god and using parts of the Bible as weapons in judgment against others in order to protect their cherished points of view. Perhaps the power of religious dogma is stronger than the heart? It's the heart that judges. Not one's dogma. Funny how you left out the evidence in favor of it being authentic...Your larger god/loving heart seemed to have left this out using it as a weapon against Christianity? Why could you not afford grace to me and my postition? You just said go seek peace, yet you could not have grace enough to leave me alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 Why could you not afford grace to me and my postition? End what is grace in non-church terms? Patience? Forebearance? I think many of us have demonstrated these things to you. If you think that "love the sinner; hate the sin" is sound policy then you shouldn't have much problem with those of us who aspire to "have mercy for the Christian, show no mercy to Christianity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 No, of course not. My salvation is through Christ - a gift "lest any man should boast". It takes no talent, intellect or skill to be saved by the grace of Christ. All Christians should relate to the verses I mentioned. Hm. The verse was pretty clear that the person who doesn't warn has some pretty bad consequences and the person who does warn hast "delivered thy soul", "saved yourself". Is this some other kind of soul delivery/saving? You don't understand what the New Covenant is? This seems surprising if so. I am not surprised I don't understand it, because here I am, existing. Serious question: Can you adjust to me being different than your expectation? Can you meet me where I am? The New Testament describes the New Covenant of salvation through grace, not by works. Read Romans. That is why Christ died. I'm not interested in reading that large a chunk of biblical text. I'd hear a synopsis, though. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I kind of thought I did answer, but let me try again. Jesus Christ has the same nature (properties in the philosophical sense) as all the members of the Trinity with one difference - He was made incarnate through Mary. This incarnation is what makes Him the Son of God. If that did not answer I don't think I understand the question. Ok, this answer helps me understand better, I think. Let me know how I do. Jesus is just like God in nature and philosophically. The difference is he was born human of a human. Jesus is corporeal. Yes? Phanta No. Jesus is God who became incarnate. Try reading these ... http://www.cmalliance.org/about/beliefs/doctrine http://www.blessedhopechapel.org/beliefs.html Ok. Jesus is God incarnate. In flesh. You also said he is the "son of God". What, then, makes him God's "son"? I am understanding the word "son" to mean "male offspring". Is this also your understanding? Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XacerbusAngelus Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Experience can be both good and bad evidence. We all live our lives this way. Our judicial system and historiography are founded on it. You are dealing not with experience, you are dealing with specific cases, in which you question the testimony. This is very different, and provides no foundation for your gross generalization of experience. My evaluation of the evidence in total allows me to believe in Christ. As I have said many times here one must evaluate all evidence not just the parts you pick and choose. You are kind of right. But I am dealing with experience, I am just referencing specific cases, for the sake of brevity. I am using specific instances to highlight the problems with using experience, which transcend the instances. Answer this: Historiography is methodologically natural right, then how can experience work to prove your case, since we haven't seen people rise from the dead like Christ? Christ was not raised by natural means. There is no physical law that says if we do such and such a body will rise from the dead. It was a supernatural event. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. The supernatural is under the control of a free willed agent. We don't see people raised from the dead because those supernatural beings who would can not and those that can (God) do so at their will. Ummm then, historiographical methods, can't prove the supernatural then because they are methodologically natural right. If God doesn't raise the dead now, by what reason can we assume it happened then? Historiography does not work by recreating the event(in this case a miracle). It works by detecting the side effects of the events that happened. I'm not saying God can not raise people from the dead now. I'm saying it is under the control of His free will as to when to do it. If God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent therefore God has no free will because it is already predestined. If a perfect God already created a perfect course for us, why would the course change just because of His/Her/It's supposedly "free will", since it is already perfect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have compassion for those that it would help. You might go read 2Peter 2 in your spare time. Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. Phanta Hate is not taught in that passage. Spiritual consequences are. I'm surprised you are surprised. Dehumanizing language rouses hate in humans. That passage is full of dehumanizing language. I seem to be a very surprising person to you on many counts! I'm glad I can offer you that gift. Broadening awareness in the individual of human variety in the world is good for the human collective. Phanta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 OC, if it was 'finished' on the 'cross' - why wasn't it? Didn't 'god' get everything 'he' needed - blood sacrifice, death defeated? Why wasn't it 'game over' then and there? Pretty lousy system where 2,000 years pass and billions of souls are born destined for hell, to say nothing of the rape, murder, genocide, etc. that has gone on in the interim (guess those don't matter to 'god' since they're only temporal occurrences anyway), when it could have all ended with the 'resurrection' if your 'god' really was merciful. According to OC, it was the lesser evil version of all possible worlds. Fascinating, isn't it? Of the infinite number of possible worlds, this world, and this history, exactly how it played out, is the less evil of them all. 10,000,000,000 humans in Hell for eternity. And only perhaps some millions of Christians in Heaven, eating pizza on gold plates and laughing at the tortured souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." - Genesis 1:31 "Then God spent the rest of the days, fixing what he had made." - Book of Legion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Wow. This passage has some hardcore dehumanizing language in it. Dehumanization is a major step on the path of hate toward "the enemy" Other. I'm a little surprised the Bible feeds so obviously into human hate psychology. That's pretty unholy stuff. You can recognize topics from both Sociology and Psychology in that passage. It's the group think. This chapter is part of the mechanics of the meme virus. It scares the followers and make sure they won't fall out of ranks. You can also see what OC, LNC, and many other Christians who come here think of us. That's how they see you and me. Blasphemers who deserve the blackest darkness. Doesn't that make you warm and cozy inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Historiography does not work by recreating the event(in this case a miracle). It works by detecting the side effects of the events that happened. I'm not saying God can not raise people from the dead now. I'm saying it is under the control of His free will as to when to do it. So if he did, he would have to do so because he already planned to do so. Since he already played out the full scenario of the outcomes of all our lives, and this particular world and chain of events were exactly to his plans (the least evil of all versions), then his interaction and interference must have to be part of the plan from start, otherwise he will change the predicted outcome. This means that he does not make a choice now to do or act. He must follow the plan he set in motion and not deviate one bit. He's a slave to his own scheme for now, at least to the end of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Why could you not afford grace to me and my postition? End what is grace in non-church terms? Patience? Forebearance? I think many of us have demonstrated these things to you. Grace is pretty much having the wisdom to "know" when it is appropriate to have mercy/understanding for another person...from identification with that person through the same trials or sin/wrongdoing to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts