If you believe in God:

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

This is your accepted idea. It is not supportable.

Yes you think that. And you are welcome to, doesn't make it right. And you can't justify it.

You admited when you posted the "judge not..." that it was out of context and it still is. But I do understand your point, that if we don't accept someone else's beliefs we judge them as wrong. And against that there is no law. If we don't use judgement in the sense of using our faculties to make decisions we are stupid.
It is mondo important to not take scripture out of context to make your point. That would be a no-no!

I am afraid we are done here, lee. There is a huge difference between using judgment -which the faithful cannot do, because they must take things on faith- and passing judgment, which the faithful always do, when they say someone else is wrong. If god is all, then all paths lead to an aspect of god. You have no right to say that someone else's path is wrong, just like I have no right to say your path is wrong. We are talking about the undefined, infinite, unknowable god. You cannot look only to the bible and your single-miniscule life experience, and hope to prove anything. You say nothing but the tired old I believe because I believe, dressed up in fancy clothes with a claim to reason. You are not rational, employ no reason, and are different from the muslim terrorists only in that you haven't killed anyone. You fall victim to the curse of the faithful: belief without reason, and I have grown beyond that by developing humility in the face of god, and am tired of talking about your faith as something certain. I am not so arrogant to think only my path is right. You are. And you are therefore: wrong. Not in your faith, but in your belief in its exclusivity. Try reading something besides the bible.

Best wishes, AB

steingar · 02-05-2007, 6:35 PM

Most major religions contend that there is an all-powerful omnipotent God who created everything and can do anything. A logical corrolary to this is that religions are things made of men, not God. An omnipotent God needs neither church nor book, these are things writtn by and for people. Moreover, an Ominpotent God cannot logically be constrained. Any faith proclaiming that it has an exclusive path to the creator must therefore be in error, and assume tremendous arrogance to claim such a deep understanding of a being far beyond anyone.

Further consideration would suggest that such a being would know what was thought by all people at all times, rendering spoken prayer superfluous. Any prayers voiced or thought in any language in any setting should be heard and understood by such a being, obviating the need for organized religion.

Abraham Lincoln once said that God cannot be both for and against the same thing at the same time. I would contend that he was in error, God can do whatever God considers suitable at any time.

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steingar

Most major religions contend that there is an all-powerful omnipotent God who created everything and can do anything. A logical corrolary to this is that religions are things made of men, not God. An omnipotent God needs neither church nor book, these are things writtn by and for people. Moreover, an Ominpotent God cannot logically be constrained.

I am not sure you mean what you say. Do you mean to say that logically/reasonably/rationally, god cannot be constrained at all; or, that god cannot be constrained by mere logic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by steingar

Any faith proclaiming that it has an exclusive path to the creator must therefore be in error, and assume tremendous arrogance to claim such a deep understanding of a being far beyond anyone.

Abraham Lincoln once said that God cannot be both for and against the same thing at the same time. I would contend that he was in error, God can do whatever God considers suitable at any time.

I disagree, only in that being for something, on the level of a diety, means bringing to bear supernatural power...Foolish to do this against yourself, if you are god. Perhaps god is freely capable, like we are to a certain limited extent, of holding two opposing thoughts on the same subject. To feel ambivalent in the extreme. In man, this manifests as cognitive dissonance, and can cause insanity, nervous breakdowns, etc. But for a diety that should be no problem...

leelover · 02-05-2007, 7:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

I am afraid we are done here, lee. There is a huge difference between using judgment -which the faithful cannot do, because they must take things on faith- and passing judgment, which the faithful always do, when they say someone else is wrong. If god is all, then all paths lead to an aspect of god. You have no right to say that someone else's path is wrong, just like I have no right to say your path is wrong. We are talking about the undefined, infinite, unknowable god. You cannot look only to the bible and your single-miniscule life experience, and hope to prove anything. You say nothing but the tired old I believe because I believe, dressed up in fancy clothes with a claim to reason. You are not rational, employ no reason, and are different from the muslim terrorists only in that you haven't killed anyone. You fall victim to the curse of the faithful: belief without reason, and I have grown beyond that by developing humility in the face of god, and am tired of talking about your faith as something certain. I am not so arrogant to think only my path is right. You are. And you are therefore: wrong. Not in your faith, but in your belief in its exclusivity. Try reading something besides the bible.

Best wishes, AB

I realize I have been dismissed (again

), but I wasn't quite through...
You know AB, you are really going to need to stop jumping to conclusions and telling others all that they believe if you wish to really communicate.
The subject here is religion, not something like baking a cake. It may take a bit to get ideas accross in this imperfect mode of idea exchange.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 7:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

But that doesn't make sense, if all roads are supposed to lead to god, because he is all, everything and eternal.

I think the paths may be as varied as the wide variety of people who travel them...The only constant is the destination, is god.

You make these statements with no substantiation and then go on without explaining why they are true.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Sorry, that last one was kinda flippant. Look, you cannot use life-experience to establish the fact or truth of any specific items in the bible, beyond the historically accurate ones that are independantly confirmed in other faiths and in historical texts. What you can believe in, clearly, are those philosophies, moral positions, and interpersonal-guidelines that have worked for you, in a real sense, in your life. Who begat whom when, means not a damned thing.

The bible, and the stories used to teach lessons in it, is a period piece. Taken out of time, it should have a different (to me, much more profound -but way less divine) meaning and impact.

I can't observe the behaviour of those I come in contact with (including myself), and may know closely, then compare it to what the Bible says? If there is a pattern there maybe it might support further study.
I have not yet touched on the historical importance of the Bible, but it is undeniable. You say the begat's mean nothing, but then you may not know all.
Even though you have gone beyond me.
The Bible was written in a vastly different time and culture, and yet the lessons therein apply directly to our lives in this day.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 8:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

The first spiritual leaders of christianity were women.

Who?and what does this have to do with the discussion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

The Christian holidays all have an analogue in the (earlier) pagan holidays.

That is why we should not celebrate them without understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

These are 2 of the literally hundreds of issues that make up the contrived nature of any dogmatic adherence to a traditional form of christianity.

They have nothing to do with the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Nearly 2/3 of the material that could have gone into the bible didn't, and most of that stuff advocated not having a clergy and not needing even a book like the bible or churches, because those books and churches would become icons. And worship of icons was discouraged. The distinguishing features if christianity -beyond jesus, of course- were that one was supposed to come to god on his own, and one was unable to read any of the holy scriptures (they were not around for cristians, yet...Remember, it wasn't until later that the bible was assembled). Hmmm.

Again, I studied the bible and the texts of several other religions not as a member of the faithful (although my religious status is not what many might think), but as a student of history, philosophy and theology...I had to really suspend belief, and examine not just one text, but many, with an eye to historical fact, practice, and and constancy. The bible is not the end of the path, but is merely poorly edited michelin guide-book.

If you will concern yourself with what IS in there, you will find plenty to deal with in your own life and in society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

To answer you 2-points:

1-You cannot be "tempted" as matter of course, without having the thoughts...If those thoughts are impure (as they must be if sin is on the table) then he commited the sin of having impure thoughts, however brief they may have been.

2-Masturbation is certainly not a sin to me, but I remember saying a certain number of hail marys to atone for a rub and tug (at the voyeuristic expense of the little hottie across the airshaft and that first copy of hustler I saw...On a side note, I still get flashes of those early sexual-awakening catalysts in my mind's eye...Neat) so there is certainly the element of sin to the behavior. To grade, classify or order sin in any way smacks of human influence, not divine.

Once again your position on these things is not biblicaly supported.
1-"tempted" does not mean indulged or entertained. If you are going to hold me closely to definitions the play by the same rules. You can be tempted with out going through the mental process of entertaining that thought that would be sin.
2-I don't care about your opinion or mine. What does the Bible say?

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

You make these statements with no substanciation and then go on without explaining why they are true.

Nonsense.

You have expressed a profound "lack of confidence" in my bringing to bear any kind of reason, logic, justification, proof, etc. So I followed a ridiculuous page from your "I emote, not justify" book. Deal with it.

And, you have already fully fleshed out an indefensible position, since you fail to apply, at a minimum, the rules of justification to your faith. You say there are things that cannot be proven, you just must believe...What crap, especially when you then ask for proof, substantiation, or justification (the reasoning behind why something might be true ...) from me.

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

Who?and what does this have to do with the discussion?

That is why we should not celebrate them without understanding.

To hold them reverent is not to understand them, but is in fact to honor the theft of them from the pagans, and the torture of pagans who refused to convert in the face of force

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

They have nothing to do with the Bible.

Sure they do, as they were the voice of the spiritual leaders in christianity before there was a bible, yet were not mentioned, honored, or granted any status afterward. Shafted by the bible, they were...

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

If you will concern yourself with what IS in there, you will find plenty to deal with in your own life and in society.

See, read something besides the bible...Education ain't all bad...Most of the time, more can be gleaned by what people do not say, rather than what they do. Most communication is non-verbal, and nothing is more telling in prose or poetry than that which is ommitted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

Once again your position on these things is not biblicaly supported.
1-"tempted" does not mean indulged or entertained. If you are going to hold me closely to definitions the play by the same rules. You can be tempted with out going through the mental process of entertaining that thought that would be sin.
2-I don't care about your opinion or mine. What does the Bible say?

Is it once? Or is it again? That is called a split-infinitive, and is nonsensical. Use of slang is permitted, but try to use the language correctly, please.

I will answer 2 first: It is your opinion that what the bible says is true, regardless of the subject...I clearly recall a passage that decrees that it is better for a man to lay with a whore than to spill his seed on the ground. If that is not a colloquialism for jerking off...

1-Tempted does mean exactly what I said. That is the the whole purpose of the word. Otherwise, he just would have been offered. First comes the offer, then comes the temptation to take the offer, then comes either acceptance or denial.

Dude, this is ridiculuous. You cannot prove, justify, or rationalize your belief in the bible as the sole and definitive word of god, and your insistence that you not try makes you an ignoramus. At least I admit the possibility of being wrong...You don't. I guess you are god.

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

I can't observe the behaviour of those I come in contact with (including myself), and may know closely, then compare it to what the Bible says? If there is a pattern there maybe it might support further study.
I have not yet touched on the historical importance of the Bible, but it is undeniable. You say the begat's mean nothing, but then you may not know all.
Even though you have gone beyond me.
The Bible was written in a vastly different time and culture, and yet the lessons therein apply directly to our lives in this day.

I never claimed to know anything more than you; I, in fact, claim to know less! I know so much more about what I don't know it is truly amazing. One thing I do know for sure, could prove or justify, is that no human really knows anything beyond the limits of the temporal and corporeal world. They may think, feel and suspect, but they cannot know. I suspect that if there was any master plan of god's out there, it would be that: in the face of not knowing, will mankind admit that, or will mankind make their understanding of ME their lord in their own image...With your dogmatic adherence to the bible as the only great truth, you have really disappointed your god by making him small and so like you.

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:03 PM

I recall a great bumper sticker:

My Karma ran over your Dogma...

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:15 PM

I am not dismissing you, lee, I just can't talk to anyone who cannot undertake a thought experiment, or is so set in unproveable and unjustified beliefs with no acceptance of the possibility of their error that they might blow up an airplane anyday...I loathe the self-righteous, because they usually are the ones most full of ****. You may be fully genuine, but that makes the certainty with which you believe that only you are right -and everybody else is wrong- that much more tragic. I think you are a fairly smart guy who is selling himself short out of the intellectual laziness encouraged in most textual-religious study.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 9:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

At least I admit the possibility of being wrong...You don't. I guess you are god.

What is up with you???????
I did not say there was no possibility of me being wrong, and I have been going about the process of explaining why I believe what I do.
You continue to tell me how and what I think and believe and why it is not valid or important or whatever you wish to use at the moment.
If you want to continue to tell me what I believe without any interruptions, that is up to you.
I thought this was a forum with exchange of ideas, not a private soap box for you.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 9:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

I am not dismissing you, lee, I just can't talk to anyone who cannot undertake a thought experiment, or is so set in unproveable and unjustified beliefs with no acceptance of the possibility of their error that they might blow up an airplane anyday...I loathe the self-righteous, because they usually are the ones most full of ****. You may be fully genuine, but that makes the certainty with which you believe that only you are right -and everybody else is wrong- that much more tragic. I think you are a fairly smart guy who is selling himself short out of the intellectual laziness encouraged in most textual-religious study.

Did you miss the part where I said "this is a quick beginning"?

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

What is up with you???????
I did not say there was no possibility of me being wrong, and I have been going about the process of explaining why I believe what I do.
You continue to tell me how and what I think and believe and why it is not valid or important or whatever you wish to use at the moment.
If you want to continue to tell me what I believe without any interruptions, that is up to you.
I thought this was a forum with exchange of ideas, not a private soap box for you.

If you are exclusively right, then someone else must exclusively, be wrong. Is that too complex?

And you have on many occasions so far said that you were right. Saying that you are right excludes the possibility of being wrong. And as for a soap-box, I ahave yet to say anything about what I believed, really...I have been spending most of this time criticizing anyone who would accept only one pathe as the true path to god, and would accept the bible as anything more than a period piece with some interesting stuff to compare with OTHER religious texts. By your own admission you have read no other texts, but have looked only to your life, and to the bible. I find that woefully inadequate to even begin to discuss the nature of god, or any of the paths.

analogbear · 02-05-2007, 9:25 PM

Lee, if you want to talk, write something about what you believe. Stop trying to argue with me about the basics. I am glad the bible works for you, but you said that you believe it is right, and that it is the only path to god. That is ridiculuous.

leelover · 02-05-2007, 9:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

Lee, if you want to talk, write something about what you believe. Stop trying to argue with me about the basics. I am glad the bible works for you, but you said that you believe it is right, and that it is the only path to god. That is ridiculuous.

I was writing about what I believed!
YOU stopped me and started telling me I had no validity!
I don't want to argue about the basics! That is you!

analogbear · 02-06-2007, 9:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leelover

I was writing about what I believed!
YOU stopped me and started telling me I had no validity!
I don't want to argue about the basics! That is you!

Without an agreement about the basics, we cannot discuss actual beliefs. If you believe that what you believe is right, then you are playing the exclusivity card, have failed to internalize the basics, and cannot freely exchange ideas because you consider by implication all beliefs not yours to be wrong. What is the point of hearing someone else's wrong ideas? Ideas can only be exchanged with open minded folks -who have no self righteousness or sense of right-ness. If you believe that you are right, you are not open minded. I do not believe that I am right, I just have faith in what I believe, but that can change quite a bit from exposure to people who believe differently and freely share their ideas and their religious path. There must be some humility in the face of both god, and our understanding of god, in order to have a meaningful exchange about discrete ideas.

If you will say you do not believe you are right, but that you do have a certain program of belief that you are dedicated to and gain spiritual comfort from, I would love to hear about it. One of my pet projects is a textbook I am writing with a friend, titled Ethics in Society...Sort of an analysis of and recommendations about, applied social morality.

If you say that you are right, you are both a budding fudamentalist and and an arrogant person, and as such will not benefit from anything I could tell you about my beliefs, nor do you have anything to offer me.

cyclones66046 · 02-06-2007, 11:16 AM

Just like the CBR............
evolution

onevcs · 02-06-2007, 12:11 PM

I read the first few posts and I couldn't keep reading, sorry. I didn't see a convincing point. I'll reserve the reason for myself.

My point is, no matter who the Deity you follow is, IMO a divinity, or whatever you believe in, that allows certain events to happen it's better off non-existing.
I'll explain myself...
If a god exist, any god, and it allows events like the Tsunami in the south Pacific, I must repudiate it. Even if all that died or suffered were the biggest sinners in the history of human kind, forgiveness is a virtue man can dish out, certainly any god should be capable of it. Mainly when if affects Innocent children.
Therefore, I conclude god, any god, does not exist, or if it exist, it's not worth my reverence.

analogbear · 02-06-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onevcs

I read the first few posts and I couldn't keep reading, sorry. I didn't see a convincing point. I'll reserve the reason for myself.

My point is, no matter who the Deity you follow is, IMO a divinity, or whatever you believe in, that allows certain events to happen it's better off non-existing.
I'll explain myself...
If a god exist, any god, and it allows events like the Tsunami in the south Pacific, I must repudiate it. Even if all that died or suffered were the biggest sinners in the history of human kind, forgiveness is a virtue man can dish out, certainly any god should be capable of it. Mainly when if affects Innocent children.
Therefore, I conclude god, any god, does not exist, or if it exist, it's not worth my reverence.

No point was made in the first few posts...Just attempting to define the parameters for the discussion, but got hornswaggled...

Why can't god "allow" the tsunami or Katrina? Were those not natural events? Why should god always interfere with the natural order of things. Besides, he arguably set nature in motion, so this is all god's will. Now, what pisses me off about god is not when a non-thinking storm comes and kills, but when a person hurts another person, and god doesn't stop it. That is a little wrong, in my opinion. When people suffer natural disaster or disease, it is part of life, just like death. But real cruelty is a purely human thing, and a merciful god would not allow us to these things to innocents.