Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do.

 

Yes, but knowing that person allows for more likelihood of allowing them to have life....or pursue life. If I just randomly picked some guy and disagreed with his lifestyle vs. understanding why he lives the way he lives, I am more likely to be less condemning.

 

I still don't quite see why you need religion to do this.  Couldn't you just do it because you're a nice person?

 

I would think so. I profess it because it agrees with what I think the Bible is describing. Suppose I had mean tendencies. I expect there are several ways to learn how not to be mean. So I go to church and that particular method makes sense and I become less mean.

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost". I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method. Then I ascribe. Then I become a fundamentalist in that method. And then it takes a long time to move past the fundamental aspect.

 

Then when I get older, I am able to weigh other methods....therapy, science, rationalism, materialism..... After weighing some of these, I still conclude that Christianity is presenting and explaining the human condition better than anything I have found. I'm able to see other points, I just don't think they are as complete.

 

 

Completeness isn't the right criteria to use when selecting which method works best, End.

 

The power to explain is what you should be focusing on.

The objective power to explain reality.  Not the subjective belief that Christianity does explain reality.  

 

Ok, you believe (by faith) that Christianity gives you the best explanation of reality.  

But can you present any objective evidence that it is this best explanation?  

 

Christianity could be just as incomplete as any other method.

Or even less complete than any other method.  So how can you tell if it is as complete as you think it is?  

 

Do you have a reliable and objective method to test Christianity's ability to explain reality?

 

How do you objectively know Christianity is the best explanation of reality, End?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

We both agree that science can't describe the complete picture, is this correct?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do.

 

Yes, but knowing that person allows for more likelihood of allowing them to have life....or pursue life. If I just randomly picked some guy and disagreed with his lifestyle vs. understanding why he lives the way he lives, I am more likely to be less condemning.

 

I still don't quite see why you need religion to do this.  Couldn't you just do it because you're a nice person?

 

I would think so. I profess it because it agrees with what I think the Bible is describing. Suppose I had mean tendencies. I expect there are several ways to learn how not to be mean. So I go to church and that particular method makes sense and I become less mean.

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost". I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method. Then I ascribe. Then I become a fundamentalist in that method. And then it takes a long time to move past the fundamental aspect.

 

Then when I get older, I am able to weigh other methods....therapy, science, rationalism, materialism..... After weighing some of these, I still conclude that Christianity is presenting and explaining the human condition better than anything I have found. I'm able to see other points, I just don't think they are as complete.

 

 

Completeness isn't the right criteria to use when selecting which method works best, End.

 

The power to explain is what you should be focusing on.

The objective power to explain reality.  Not the subjective belief that Christianity does explain reality.  

 

Ok, you believe (by faith) that Christianity gives you the best explanation of reality.  

But can you present any objective evidence that it is this best explanation?  

 

Christianity could be just as incomplete as any other method.

Or even less complete than any other method.  So how can you tell if it is as complete as you think it is?  

 

Do you have a reliable and objective method to test Christianity's ability to explain reality?

 

How do you objectively know Christianity is the best explanation of reality, End?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

We both agree that science can't describe the complete picture, is this correct?

 

 

Correct.

 

But as I said before completeness is NOT the proper criteria for deciding which methodology best explains reality.

 

The power to explain IS.

 

Even though science will always be incomplete, it currently has sufficient power to explain reality without the need for a God.

 

Therefore, why invoke a God when he isn't needed to explain reality?

 

See the logic, End?

[Guest end3]

Correct.

 

But as I said before completeness is NOT the proper criteria for deciding which methodology best explains reality.

 

The power to explain IS.

 

Even though science will always be incomplete, it currently has sufficient power to explain reality without the need for a God.

 

Therefore, why invoke a God when he isn't needed to explain reality?

 

See the logic, End?

I don't believe science wins the power of explanation because it is too incomplete and doesn't adequately demonstrate cause.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Correct.

 

But as I said before completeness is NOT the proper criteria for deciding which methodology best explains reality.

 

The power to explain IS.

 

Even though science will always be incomplete, it currently has sufficient power to explain reality without the need for a God.

 

Therefore, why invoke a God when he isn't needed to explain reality?

 

See the logic, End?

I don't believe science wins the power of explanation because it is too incomplete and doesn't adequately demonstrate cause.

 

 

Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

[bornagainathiest]

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

 

Then you'll need to objectively define how you're using the word communion, End.

 

Otherwise the Prof might well use his own, subjective definition of it - which could be radically different from yours.

 

Can you objectively define it for him please?

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I weigh the experience, my wellbeing with my heart and mind. I give credibility to myth pointing to reality without the benefit of modern knowledge. I compare words and language and see if the possibility arises for agreement old vs. new interpretations/understandings.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

 

Then you'll need to objectively define how you're using the word communion, End.

 

Otherwise the Prof might well use his own, subjective definition of it - which could be radically different from yours.

 

Can you objectively define it for him please?

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA.

 

That's exactly what I am describing. You are holding my feet to the fire and YOU can't objectively define communion. What alternative do we have at this point other than knowing each other.

 

And what are the ramifications of science defining personality let's say.

 

"Oh, there's END3, with the R7c3po anomaly....he's fucked. Put him on drug 7631943 and assign him to production". A lovely thought.

[Fweethawt]

Well this is fun.

[bornagainathiest]

 

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I weigh the experience, my wellbeing with my heart and mind. I give credibility to myth pointing to reality without the benefit of modern knowledge. I compare words and language and see if the possibility arises for agreement old vs. new interpretations/understandings.

 

 

I'm sorry End but I can't see any objective methodology at work here.

 

Your method of 'weighing' sounds totally subjective and arbitrary.  

If you rely on your experiences, your feelings (the heart), your chosen standards of credibility, your standards of word and language comparison - then everything comes from you.  You aren't using any objective standards to weigh anything.

 

Can't you show me a worked example of an objective process of weighing?

[florduh]

The religious viewpoint works for end3. I find it lacking, but it's hard to argue with what works for an individual. I saw the same dynamic with my father as he used religion more and more as a coping mechanism for an increasingly difficult time near the end of his life though it was quite obvious that no prayers were ever answered, but reality didn't matter. For all that is wrong with Christianity we can't deny that it is simply what works well enough for many people. Neither can I successfully argue with a guy who made millions using astrology to guide his investments; in his mind it proved to be a valid tool.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

 

Then you'll need to objectively define how you're using the word communion, End.

 

Otherwise the Prof might well use his own, subjective definition of it - which could be radically different from yours.

 

Can you objectively define it for him please?

 

Thanks, 

 

BAA.

 

That's exactly what I am describing.

You are holding my feet to the fire and YOU can't objectively define communion.

 

Correct.

But you and I and the Prof can come to an objective understanding of it.

That exactly why ONLY my definition of it will be subjective.  That's why ONLY the Prof's definition will be subjective. That's why ONLY your definition of it will be subjective.  

 

That's exactly why we have to put our own personal and subjective definitions of things aside and use ONLY objective definitions.

 

What alternative do we have at this point other than knowing each other.

 

ALL of us putting aside our subjective definitions and working together to arrive at one, collective objective definition.  That's what.

 

And what are the ramifications of science defining personality let's say.

 

"Oh, there's END3, with the R7c3po anomaly....he's fucked. Put him on drug 7631943 and assign him to production". A lovely thought.

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

While you're considering your response to my request, End...

 

(Please demonstrate your reasoning and how you arrive at this conclusion.)

 

...I'd like to say that right now I'm focusing on your methodology.

You say that you've weighed therapy, science, rationalism, materialism, etc. and found them wanting.  You've found that they have less power to explain reality than Christianity.  I'm therefore asking you... HOW you did the weighing.

 

How did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that Christianity explains reality better than these other methods?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I weigh the experience, my wellbeing with my heart and mind. I give credibility to myth pointing to reality without the benefit of modern knowledge. I compare words and language and see if the possibility arises for agreement old vs. new interpretations/understandings.

 

 

I'm sorry End but I can't see any objective methodology at work here.

 

Your method of 'weighing' sounds totally subjective and arbitrary.  

If you rely on your experiences, your feelings (the heart), your chosen standards of credibility, your standards of word and language comparison - then everything comes from you.  You aren't using any objective standards to weigh anything.

 

Can't you show me a worked example of an objective process of weighing?

 

Ok, if we are going to play, go back and define the word power objectively and use it in that sense in your explanation, the "power to explain" I'm tired of fucking with you BAA.

[Ravenstar]

I understand believing in something irrationally because it seems to work. I used believe in Reiki, wholeheartedly… because it seems to have healed my Plantar Faciitis.

 

Now.. this was years ago so...as a more skeptical person I reserve my belief now… something happened around the time my foot problem was fixed.. around the same time I had 2 Reiki treatments and was attuned as a Reiki practitioner. I can no longer say "Reiki is real"… because there is only my anecdotal and subjective experience to go by. I don't say it isn't real either. In the objective world.. I truly do not know. It has not been proven by the scientific method. I reserve my judgement on it because I realize that, as a human, I am always looking for cause and effect… for surety.. this is a psychological drive in humans. Keeps us from getting eaten by saber-tooth cats and mammoths. It is NOT objective however.

 

My problem with your rationalization is that many people, throughout the ages and throughout the world have systems of belief that give them, subjectively, the results they want. Islam, witchcraft, christianity, Voodoo, New Age, Buddhism, yoga, homeopathy, crystals, meditation, etc, etc, etc…. the only one of these that is scientifically supported is meditation. (and maybe acupuncture). There is no way to verify most of these… they are completely subjective and the 'results' are impossible to pinpoint as having any one cause.

 

Think of it this way. A person in Africa has a problem with anger management.. he goes to the local priest/witch doctor… they give him some herbal remedy, brush another herb over him, burn something… say many prayers/chants.. whatever… there is social pressure for this guy to get along with others, and a belief that his problem is from demon possession. After his treatment he begins to feel better, and act better. To him it worked, it is real. Same experience you went through (different method) he believes it was because oingoboingo (some spirit or god) has cast out the demon. You believe it was Yahweh's grace. It's no different… and no less subjective.

 

If your experience was only seen in christians - then it would have much more weight, objectively - but what you experience is experienced by millions (maybe billions) of others who do not subscribe to your particular system...

 

do you see the problem?

[directionless]

 

BAA, I sympathize with what you said in the quote below regarding objectivity, but my hope is to simply understand End3's beliefs. I don't care if End3 uses "relationship", "communion", and "grace" in uncommon ways as long as he explains his definitions. Also I don't care if his beliefs are totally ridiculous.

 

I've been watching these discussions with End3, and I still don't have a clue what he believes. Maybe others know what he believes from past discussions, but I'm puzzled and curious.

directionless, this thread may help you understand where End3 is coming from:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59084-questions-for-end3/

 

Thanks, I read that thread and it helps somewhat. I'm still confused.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.

 

There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

[Guest end3]

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.

 

There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

Let me phrase it differently...this just came to me. How does science define subjectivity objectively? When we know that one, then I will come more close to leaving God behind. Fair enough?

[bornagainathiest]

 

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.

 

There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

Let me phase it differently...this just came to me. How does science define subjectivity objectively? When we know that one, then I will come more close to leaving God behind. Fair enough?

 

 

Ah... I see.

 

You set up a difficult (impossible?) task and then tie your decision to leave God behind to it's resolution, whenever that is.

Then you ask me if this is fair?

 

Ok, End.

 

I get the hint.  You want out.

[Guest end3]

 

 

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.

 

There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

Let me phase it differently...this just came to me. How does science define subjectivity objectively? When we know that one, then I will come more close to leaving God behind. Fair enough?

 

 

Ah... I see.

 

You set up a difficult (impossible?) task and then tie your decision to leave God behind to it's resolution, whenever that is.

Then you ask me if this is fair?

 

Ok, End.

 

I get the hint.  You want out.

 

No, I am being serious. That's how I see it in my mind. If science can say END's brain does this and we know exactly why and it effects the heart to do this and those in turn give him the feeling of fulfillment, I might go without God. Even so, this only describes mechanisms and not cause/origin.

[directionless]

My belief stems D from asking "what is God". My conclusion is that God is manifested, or the result of a relationship, whether it be a very simple elementary natural relationship or the relationship between larger systems. It's the unseen quality whether it be a good feeling or bad, a chemical bond or something that does not bond.

 

It could well be "god" is a emergent property of the particular organization "humanity". I don't believe that, but it could be.

 

I think even in the generation of personality, we see life and death, or God, in the result. I would think our goal of our own "unfolding" would be life, but it is often death, both in a figurative sense....and physical too.

 

Suppose creation is all rolling out of the mouth of God via the Big Bang, whatever we witness, even ourselves, are both life and death through dynamic relationships.

 

(Top this BS generator)

Thanks, that helps a bit.

 

Here is my guess, and you can tell me if this is right. It seems like you get benefits from participating in a fairly orthodox Christian church of some kind. You realize that a literal interpretation of Christianity doesn't match reality, so you are thinking about weird alternatives in an effort to reconcile Christianity and reality?

 

If you feel like sharing, I'm curious what kind of church you attend, how regular, etc.

 

Just trying to understand your thinking.

[bornagainathiest]

So I'm out.

 

 

 

 

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.
 
There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

Let me phase it differently...this just came to me. How does science define subjectivity objectively? When we know that one, then I will come more close to leaving God behind. Fair enough?

 

 
Ah... I see.
 
You set up a difficult (impossible?) task and then tie your decision to leave God behind to it's resolution, whenever that is.
Then you ask me if this is fair?
 
Ok, End.
 
I get the hint.  You want out.

 

No, I am being serious. That's how I see it in my mind. If science can say END's brain does this and we know exactly why and it effects the heart to do this and those in turn give him the feeling of fulfillment, I might go without God. Even so, this only describes mechanisms and not cause/origin.

 

 

But you've just changed tack and are now talking about your brain and leaving Christianity!

 

If you are serious, stick with the issue at hand.

 

I have to go offline now - but I'll be back later.

 

Then we can continue with the issue at hand.

[Guest end3]

 

My belief stems D from asking "what is God". My conclusion is that God is manifested, or the result of a relationship, whether it be a very simple elementary natural relationship or the relationship between larger systems. It's the unseen quality whether it be a good feeling or bad, a chemical bond or something that does not bond.

 

It could well be "god" is a emergent property of the particular organization "humanity". I don't believe that, but it could be.

 

I think even in the generation of personality, we see life and death, or God, in the result. I would think our goal of our own "unfolding" would be life, but it is often death, both in a figurative sense....and physical too.

 

Suppose creation is all rolling out of the mouth of God via the Big Bang, whatever we witness, even ourselves, are both life and death through dynamic relationships.

 

(Top this BS generator)

Thanks, that helps a bit.

 

Here is my guess, and you can tell me if this is right. It seems like you get benefits from participating in a fairly orthodox Christian church of some kind. You realize that a literal interpretation of Christianity doesn't match reality, so you are thinking about weird alternatives in an effort to reconcile Christianity and reality?

 

If you feel like sharing, I'm curious what kind of church you attend, how regular, etc.

 

Just trying to understand your thinking.

 

I don't attend anymore. Used to go to a Church of Christ. Let me give you an example so we may compare "thinking" if you don't mind participating.

 

 

Jhn 17:10

 

All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

 

 

What do you perceive about this and then I will share.

 

thanks.

[Guest end3]

So I'm out.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.

 

There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

Let me phase it differently...this just came to me. How does science define subjectivity objectively? When we know that one, then I will come more close to leaving God behind. Fair enough?

 

 

Ah... I see.

 

You set up a difficult (impossible?) task and then tie your decision to leave God behind to it's resolution, whenever that is.

Then you ask me if this is fair?

 

Ok, End.

 

I get the hint.  You want out.

 

No, I am being serious. That's how I see it in my mind. If science can say END's brain does this and we know exactly why and it effects the heart to do this and those in turn give him the feeling of fulfillment, I might go without God. Even so, this only describes mechanisms and not cause/origin.

 

 

But you've just changed tack and are now talking about your brain and leaving Christianity!

 

If you are serious, stick with the issue at hand.

 

I have to go offline now - but I'll be back later.

 

Then we can continue with the issue at hand.

 

Sure, I didn't think I had jumped the track, lol, but don't mind trying to ride the rails again.