[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

What have you seen in person or what information has been bestowed upon you that how you can upon it cannot be explained. Such as you knew a specific event or a specific thing that had happened to a person that could not have just been a guess.

To answer what I think you are asking here I will give you this: John 14:12.

And say that that will have to suffice for this venue.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

This post will be long...Sorry, but it is not a simple ques--er, issue...My next one will follow up my last.

There was no question in post 574. In order for something to be a question, a question mark, "?" for example, or perhaps the phrase "whether or not" or even merely "whether" needs to be present...

However, I take some umbrage at the oversimplification of the concept of morality, applied morality (ethics) and the concept of "being wronged."

Morality is the sense of right and wrong, or what may be called either subjectively or objectively right or wrong, and as a subject of discussion it can be truncated and narrow or lengthly and broad, depending on context. I will keep it both truncated and narrow in this post.

Now, that thing "inside us," as you say in the post without a "?," that tells us what is right and wrong might be referred to as the "moral compass" or innate moral sense, right? Both of these are very "in" terms now in pop-culture. However, the existence of a sense of right and wrong is fine, and that existence might be universal...The sociopath, of course, has no sense of this.

What each person might describe as right and wrong, the given orientation of their compass, as it were, and any subsequent polar coordinate actions based on following some given moral azimuth (I must say, I am quite proud of making, and holding, the land-nav metaphor...) is quite a different proposition...

See, there really is no innate human sense of right, encompassing the same behaviors, actions, and motivations, that is shared generally across the species. That is a common illogical leap. That because we all have a sense about right and wrong, that we all have "generally" the same sense...That is called ethical-centrism, and is commonly based upon ethnocentrism or cultural-centrism...

It is true we humans do have a sense, nearly all of us, but most of us have a vastly different sense about what is right and wrong, barring perhaps a few simplistic (to the point of being uninteresting) examples about killing other people when not being attacked, or raping little kids (of course, there are certainly exceptions to that; the pacific island nation where it is a custom, and therefore to those folks -morally right- to have 6-9 year old boys fellate their 12-15 year old older brothers and friends comes to mind...That is certainly a variety of rape of a child, I find it abhorrent, but it is accepted in their society as morally right, and in point of fact is a moral duty imposed upon the younger kids).

These differences are most obvious when looking at economic disparity...But more on that in a later post.

Your point was a bit muddled at the end of the first paragraph, so let me jump to the second:

Sure, I can see where you are coming from, but do we look at this from a consequentialist point of view? Is it good or bad, or heroic or cowardly, based on the results of the behavior?

Or, do we assign moral values based on something motivational?

Is the evaluation of goodness, badness, heroism or cowardice a question of means or ends?

Oversimplified and admittedly kinda stupid example:
My family is starving, so to feed them I poison a rich guy and take his money...I had the best of intentions for my family, I wished to do a good thing for them, but the consequences of my indisputibly bad actions were terrible and undeniably wrong...Unless he was the next Hitler, of course; in which case, by trying to do the good thing, I did a bad thing, which really accomplished an actual pair of good things...Too confusing, I know...To "off your point?" sorry...

Here: I am not sure whether you think morality is objective or subjective, axiomatic/rule-based or consequentialist, universal or personal (which is different from objective/subjective, of course)?

wow! taken off and gotten ahead of me again! It's ok to just say "what are you trying to say here?", my time online is limited now, and I can't always say all I want to.

Originally Posted by analogbear

I suppose to deal with the subject, we should narrow it down. Ask a simple question about one aspect of the subject at a time, and I will try to deal with that.

I already referenced this post, but I am concerned my point is not clear enough.

As an example lets say that one firefighter loses his life while removing people from a crumbling building. He could have simply fled and saved himself, but instead went to help others, paying for it with his life.

The second firefighter sees the people in need, realizes he could die if he helps, and instead flees saving himself but allowing others to die.

Which one would pretty much any society (or individual, for that matter) honor?

Why does one behavior seem more noble than the other?

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

See, like many with a compromised or incomplete education, you are labeling as opinion those things that are not. I am completely objective when it comes to this stuff with one exception: I will not accept anything supernatural unless I have experienced it first hand ...And some bullsh!t experience either...It's gotta be unequivocal...I have a bias against anything not rational, because that ability to reason is what really seperates us from the lower animals, and wherever that ability came from, to fail to use it is an insult...

It's OK to make the opinion/reason/fact mistakes. I didn't go to college until fairly late in life, and boy was it a wake up call when I finally saw how much I really didn't know about information, knowledge, faith, the world, etc. That chip came crashing down off my shoulder, and I realized tht all the religious and spiritual mumbo jumbo I had refuted on my own over time was even more ridiculuous than I thought......I still don't know too much more about the actual nature of the universe, objectively, but I do know more about the nature of information, how to grasp it, and what it really means to analyze it, and that is why I am still enrolled in school, and will be for as long as possible...See, I am never happy with not knowing as much as I can...


There is a dividing line between us...You think faith is not an emotion, where I know it is. You will never, without a great deal more study away from your pro-religious bias be able to deal with the world of reason...I find that funny, because in most areas of your life reason, science, and the secular world is the most prominent thing, but then you abandon all of it when you talk about the bible and jesus...Very scary.

You know faith is an emotion? This coming from the man who said, to paraphrase roughly "anyone who thinks they know anything is full of it". So now you can tell the difference between opinion and fact? You think I'm crazy and I do not claim to have any truth of my own, only the word of God. Let God be true and every man a liar. Where is your source of truth? Your teachers in school? Aren't they men too? You say that I cannot deal with the world of reason. How is it that your reasoning is so warped?
Well let me get to the reason I responded to this post. You said "I will not accept anything supernatural unless I have experienced it first hand" I wish that everyone would approach the supernatural in this way. There is no way I would still be a Christian after all this time if God did not make himself real to me. His spirit lives in me and works through me. The gifts of the spirit work through me in power. First hand experience, this is not some emotional exercise. I pray that you will experience God for your self first hand.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

You know faith is an emotion? This coming from the man who said, to paraphrase roughly "anyone who thinks they know anything is full of it". So now you can tell the difference between opinion and fact? You say that I cannot deal with the world of reason. How is it that your reasoning is so warped?
First hand experience, this is not some emotional exercise. .

Faith is an emotion. To believe in something is fundamentally different than knowing something...Pick up any basic book on the essence of knowledge, or perhaps epistemology, and you will see that what I am calling faith, an emotional belief in something without any necessary evidence, has been assigned that value from times before jesus, and is in fact accepted as such even by most clergy.

That quote was meant as a humorous intelude...Don't mistake flippancy for a lack of respect.

By definition, opinons can't have a value, and facts can. Facts can be evaluated for level of accuracy, scientific repeatabilty, or even in the sense of history, to independant confirmation...Opinions on the other hand are much more malleable, often change with tastes or tides, and have no significance beyond the individual...I really have no care in the world if you think Shakira is a but-ugly dog, I happen to think she is fairly good looking (until she starts to sing, I hate singing girls, usually)...See, those things are opinions...But, if you try to tell me that the Rangers didn't lead the 24TH ID off of the beach at Normandy, with the command "Rangers, lead the way!" or if you say the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor on December 7th, we gotta little bit of a problem...If you say the attack by the Japanese was cowardly, well, that is your opinin...But you can't deny the fact. See, I like opinions better than religious fith, because with opinions, people can actually explaiun the nature of their appreciations...With faith, they put up a morass of contradictions, and when called on them say it's god's will...

You have demonstrated time and again that you will not put aside your faith, and respond to my actual substantive questions with the cool light of reason...Sorry, that's a fact, not an opinion...If you wish another turn, PM me.

Another mistake here, see, reason can't be warped, only faith, emotion, and unjustified opinions (which are OK, 'cause they are opinions) can be warped...The whole point of reason is to be objective about information...To analyze critically ALL of the data, not to just accept the first thing that seems to fit...And no, my "teachers" didn't give me any information, they allowed me to discover the process of reason...That is the fundamental difference between hish shool/community college, and good liberal arts schools and graduate programs in philosophy...They don't push their agenda, just try to give you a decent tool box...(I will admit, though, that politically, they almost all stand to the left of Marx, but that is not necessarily a bad influence at that time, given our unfairly greed-based culture.)

What kind of first hand experience did you have, and is it possible that a non-believer might mistake the experience for a NON-supernatural one?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Which one would pretty much any society (or individual, for that matter) honor?

Why does one behavior seem more noble than the other?

If the society respected self-sacrifice, then obvoiusly, the second one would be thought a little less noble, the first one would be granted heroic status, and boy, would he have all the trim he wanted...Wait! he's dead...OK, well, he gets a medal...Sure hope he planned for his family.



My turn:
If god knows what I am going to do before I do it, how can I have freewill?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

If the society respected self-sacrifice, then obvoiusly, the second one would be thought a little less noble, the first one would be granted heroic status, and boy, would he have all the trim he wanted...Wait! he's dead...OK, well, he gets a medal...Sure hope he planned for his family.

Were is that buzzer?
That is not what I asked. And I went to the trouble of using a ? mark and everthing...

Originally Posted by analogbear

My turn:
If god knows what I am going to do before I do it, how can I have freewill?

God knowing what you will do does not mean He is not allowing you to do what you wish. He just already knows which way you will go. You question is unreasonable. Maybe you didn't fully consider it before you asked

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

I think it would be an excellant idea for you to read them both in Hebrew.

I thought the Tanakh encompasses the Torah.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

To answer what I think you are asking here I will give you this: John 14:12.

And say that that will have to suffice for this venue.

I am not going to look up John 14:12 because I asked what have you experienced so I am going to assume nothing. My purpose through all this is curiosity. Curiosity for what is in your head and reasoning behind why you say what you say, it has been enlightening. It appears there is a desire for knowledge on your part but also a fear not to go to far because you Know it will make you question your faith. I do not expect you to admit any of that.
However with that aside, are you taking active steps to learn Hebrew? Since reading the Torah or Tanakh is a new idea of mine I have not ventured if it is possible to acquire a copy in as unaltered a form as possible would you possibly have any idea where to come by one keeping in mind.
1. You will not convert me that is a fact. I have been on your side and I do not like it.
2. Although I do not consider the current bible a lie but I do not consider it truth either.
I'm hoping I don't regret asking.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

Were is that buzzer?
That is not what I asked. And I went to the trouble of using a ? mark and everthing...




God knowing what you will do does not mean He is not allowing you to do what you wish. He just already knows which way you will go. You question is unreasonable. Maybe you didn't fully consider it before you asked

Perhaps the point is that although god knows what you will do he will not stop you but will course correct as to make everything equal again. At least that is similar to karma and universal law where the universe will eventually even itself out.

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Faith is an emotion. To believe in something is fundamentally different than knowing something...Pick up any basic book on the essence of knowledge, or perhaps epistemology, and you will see that what I am calling faith, an emotional belief in something without any necessary evidence, has been assigned that value from times before jesus, and is in fact accepted as such even by most clergy.

If we look at the way the bible ties faith and faithfulness together, we can see that faith is a thing that is not independent of action therefore it must be more than an emotion. Jesus taught that the manifestation of his miracles would happen "according to you faith it will be done to you". So what the bible is teaching is that "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him".
Faith, if it is real, manifests itself as loyalty, consistency and confidence of mind as well as action. Qualities that are not possibly consistent with a mere emotion. So what clergy are these that say otherwise? I believe therefore I act. I do not act as I feel. You would like me to engage you with your logic and reason, and I am not opposed to doing this at some point. I have done it with others and I may do it again. Your logic and reason is biased and unbalanced, so it is no means to an end for me, perhaps I will find something to get my teeth into.

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

1. You will not convert me that is a fact. I have been on your side and I do not like it.

We do not convert anyone, we may preach but conversion is God's job. I can tell you with confidence that you have never been on my side. You may have though you were, you may have spent many years in a church environment. If I painted a picture and hung it in the Louvre, it would still be pathetic, next to the works of the masters. You will only be on "my side" when you become a new creation through faith in Jesus.

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

My turn:
If god knows what I am going to do before I do it, how can I have freewill?

That's why he's God, he can know every possible outcome. How could that be too hard for the infinite? God did not want a bunch of automatons. Imagine for a moment that you poses the power to create life but are alone? You might want some company. The inevitable result of free will is that it's possessors will choose to step outside the plan of the creator.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

We do not convert anyone, we may preach but conversion is God's job. I can tell you with confidence that you have never been on my side. You may have though you were, you may have spent many years in a church environment. If I painted a picture and hung it in the Louvre, it would still be pathetic, next to the works of the masters. You will only be on "my side" when you become a new creation through faith in Jesus.

I used your side in a very general sense. My experience of Christianity is you are either for them or against them, since I am not Christian I am not on your side. If your religion does not convert then what are missionaries for?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

If we look at the way the bible ties faith and faithfulness together. So what the bible is teaching is that "without faith it is impossible to please God,
.

I see what you are doing, but you don't. I am not fighting with you, I am trying to help you clarify some misstatements and misconceptions.

Faith and faithfulness can be tied together, duh. But, as you so elequently put it, "love." Can't love also inspire action? I don't deny that people of "faith" do things; far from it...More people have died in the world because of a "god" or "faith" issue than anything else, so of course it can inspire action...

But, the general purpose I had here was: to say to people who believed in god, that had faith in god, "that what they might really be doing was not having "faith," which is an undeniably powerful emotion, but were instead "merely emoting" at a level that didn't really rise to the degree of faih, based on a certain level of analyis developed by the father of logic, Aristotle."

Why did I do this? As a nation we keep railing against religious fundamentalism "over there" without really looking at it here. If we, as humans, had the strength of character and strength of will to admit we really don't know about the existence of the supernatural, that maybe we will learn after we die, but no matter what, because we don't know for sure, we should never speak with certainty about the supernatural things that can't be proven...Aspects of human interpersonal interaction, especially wars, politics, and economics, should never be in the realm of faith, but should be based on reason. Reason, as a term of art means to apply certain rules, it does not mean "reasons" for doing something!

That certainty in their version of the supernatural (the divinity of their texts, supremacy of their prophet, etc) is what the bad guys use to justify killing us, and it is a congruent secular certainty, fueled frankly by a christian fundamentalism, that we have employed to counter their fundamentalism.

But, back to your comment:

Faith in something can't be used to justify, prove or accept the existence of something. The fact that you believe in the bible doesn't mean it's true, that fact that you believe in god doesn't mean he exists. That is not skewed or biased or unreasonable anything. That's just how it is. You don't like it, but you don't like it NOT because it seems unfair, unreasonable, or biased, but because you DO believe in god and the bible, and that belief is based on an emotional state of mind, and you can't put aside your feeling of truth to analyze the object of your belief. That is very human, and a very hard skill to develop...I usually am good for a few exchanges, then I just get all pissed...But, it is much easier to find "support" for your belief system if you imbue events with supernatural aspects, than it is to disprove physical actions and reactions in the scientific world. And therein lies the principle difference between faith and science: SCIENCE TRIES TO DISPROVE ITS OWN THEORIES WITH TESTING AND REPEATABLILITY; FAITH TRIES TO SUPPORT ITS OWN BELEIEFS WITH REFERENCES TO QUESTIONABLY-SOURCED WORDS ON PAPER AND VARIABLY-INTERPRETABLE EVENTS.

When you say my reasoning is skewed, you are failing to accept the difference between reason as a tem of art and a persons reasons for making a decision.

Again, you have dodged a fairly simple question (what supernatural event occurred to you), and instead of reasoning with me, you quote the bible and got upset. Calm down; to you I am full of crap. To me, you are full of crap. So, we both know where we stand: You are a person with emotional belief (you call it faith), I am a person who relies on disproving science.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

That's why he's God, he can know every possible outcome. How could that be too hard for the infinite? God did not want a bunch of automatons. Imagine for a moment that you poses the power to create life but are alone? You might want some company. The inevitable result of free will is that it's possessors will choose to step outside the plan of the creator.

How do you know what is hard or easy for the infinite? Maybe he shot his load on creation...Does he talk to you about it? Not the bible.

How do you know what god wants? Does he talk to you about it? And, if everyone who is going to be god's friend believes only in the bible, and acts accordingly, they will be just like automotons...Remember, most advances in the arts, science (and that bike of your isn't some enchanted magic doohicky, it was designed and built using the dreaded S word) and medecine came from the heretical, not the faithful...Again, does he talk to you, but not from the bible?

If god really wants company, why is he doing absolutely nothing to cultivate that company? And, for that matter, have you ever thrown a party? More specifically, a nice dinner party? You don't invite people who are "like eachother," you invite lots of different folks, with lots of different values, beliefs, opinions, faiths, etc to keep the conversation growing and fun. If god is an infinite being, wouldn't he have designed and made and encouraged infinite diversity? Of body AND mind? The very argument you bible thumpers use to try to discredit scientific theories (truely showing you guys don't know squat about the scientific method) really discounts any belief in a single book, dogma, religion, or system of belief...Infinite diversity...Because god created it all, and knows it all before hand, all of it must be unfolding according to his plan...Including what I am writing here. (Clearly, this means I could be the second coming of jesus, but if not, I am part of god anyway, and he must approve of what I am writing, as he is making me write it...)


How do you know what the inevitable result of freewill is? Have you given freewill to a creation? Your statement presumes too much: that there is freewill, that there is a creator, that we were created, and that there was a "plan." One flippant statement, 4 propositions that must be established...The only one thatI can see you establishing is that we have freewill.

Originally Posted by leelover

Were is that buzzer?
That is not what I asked. And I went to the trouble of using a ? mark and everthing...
God knowing what you will do does not mean He is not allowing you to do what you wish. He just already knows which way you will go. You question is unreasonable. Maybe you didn't fully consider it before you asked

I considered it, but no longer care to talk about it.

RE: the fireman, I thought the Q too dumb. That sacrifice of self was, in a sexy analogue of JC's sacrifice, an enobling act...Wow, I wonder where you are going now...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I considered it, but no longer care to talk about it.

Classic, just classic!

You only play your own game by your own rules!

It's OK, if your are afraid to go down a path and look at something from a perspective you may have not seen. Safer for you to remain closed minded.

Originally Posted by analogbear

RE: the fireman, I thought the Q too dumb. That sacrifice of self was, in a sexy analogue of JC's sacrifice, an enobling act...Wow, I wonder where you are going now...

Once again Maybe you could stop second guessing me for once. I did not mean to analogue the sacrifice of the Messiah.

So to make it easier on you, lets say the guy lived. Same question.

And you don't know where I am going. But you did make the right choice in not egaging...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

I thought the Tanakh encompasses the Torah.

You are correct. Sorry about that! I was thinking Talmud, not Tanakh.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

I am not going to look up John 14:12 because I asked what have you experienced so I am going to assume nothing. My purpose through all this is curiosity. Curiosity for what is in your head and reasoning behind why you say what you say, it has been enlightening. It appears there is a desire for knowledge on your part but also a fear not to go to far because you Know it will make you question your faith. I do not expect you to admit any of that.
However with that aside, are you taking active steps to learn Hebrew? Since reading the Torah or Tanakh is a new idea of mine I have not ventured if it is possible to acquire a copy in as unaltered a form as possible would you possibly have any idea where to come by one keeping in mind.
1. You will not convert me that is a fact. I have been on your side and I do not like it.
2. Although I do not consider the current bible a lie but I do not consider it truth either.
I'm hoping I don't regret asking.

This is an interesting post. You are not going to reference what I gave you but assume something? Um, weren't you accusing ratchetman of something like that earlier? If you don't wish to learn, and are afraid of knowledge that's OK.
Better to keep a closed mind, and make assumptions. And then to say that I won't go any farther because I will question my faith? What is it with you people?

Other than that, yes I am taking steps to study the Tanakh in Hebrew. I think the best (pure) form would be to get a scroll made according to the Jewish Traditions. They are extremely strict about how the are produced. Not cheap or all that readily available though.

Oh, and you have been on my side? Really? You have accepted the sacrifice made by Yeshua ha Mashiach, known to us as Jesus the Christ? You have believed that He is The Son of God, was crucified and shed His Blood for you to make atonement for your sins, and have given your life over to Him? Or did you do a little play church?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I see what you are doing, but you don't. I am not fighting with you, I am trying to help you clarify some misstatements and misconceptions.

Faith and faithfulness can be tied together, duh. But, as you so elequently put it, "love." Can't love also inspire action? I don't deny that people of "faith" do things; far from it...More people have died in the world because of a "god" or "faith" issue than anything else, so of course it can inspire action...

But, the general purpose I had here was: to say to people who believed in god, that had faith in god, "that what they might really be doing was not having "faith," which is an undeniably powerful emotion, but were instead "merely emoting" at a level that didn't really rise to the degree of faih, based on a certain level of analyis developed by the father of logic, Aristotle."

Ok, Aristotle was the father of logic? He created it? No, that would be God.
Aristotle set out a very accurate system to deduce logic as applied to things anyone can observe. It does not take into account the issues that we are kicking around here.

Originally Posted by analogbear

Why did I do this? As a nation we keep railing against religious fundamentalism "over there" without really looking at it here. ...and then a whole lot of the same beliefs you always spout...

Maybe you miss a fundamental difference here: the religious fundamentalists "over there" as you put, have the conquest of the world and placement of it's government under Islamic rule as their goal. The fundamentalists "over here" want to tell the world about the love and sacrifice of Christ and let them make their own decision. There is kind of a large difference there reason would say.

Originally Posted by analogbear

Again, you have dodged a fairly simple question (what supernatural event occurred to you), and instead of reasoning with me, you quote the bible and got upset. Calm down; to you I am full of crap. To me, you are full of crap. So, we both know where we stand: You are a person with emotional belief (you call it faith), I am a person who relies on disproving science.

HE seemed pretty calm to me. You, on the other hand, are the one who consistently gets upset, calls people names, makes ridiculous claims, and ultimately continues to play your own game without really paying attention to what is said.