[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Not dodging your question, even though I accept the validity of the reasons that you gave for not sharing your own personal beliefs.
How did I begin that exploration? Well...
I didn't. It was something that I did not wish to do and tried to avoid. I had a belief system that you would have found acceptable (I don't think I would have disagreed with anything you have said yet), and I came up with it without any bias, just things I found to be beneficial from a variety of sources. I really was a "good person" if you asked anyone who knew me.
The problem came when I actually heard who, and what Jesus claimed to be, and why it was important to me (according to the New Testament). I thought the same thing everyone does (in my experience), "that's an interesting story, probably inaccurate, and I don't need it". The "If it works for you" thing.
I had no contact with anything Christian after that brush with it. Yet something happened. When I argued my position on views and rights, I started to see that my motives were not that easy to justify. The more I dealt with this the more I saw that my innocuous beliefs were in reality very selfish. And the more I looked at that I realized they had ramifications that did affect others, usually negatively, possibly severely. There was quite a bit of time involved, with much "soul searching", and attempts to find a way to explain away the conviction I was feeling. I did all I could to change my behavior (I don't say that lightly, I know what discipline is). Still not really right in the light of what I knew it could be. I still looked good compared to those around me. Obviously this is the short, quick version. Please don't assume that it is complete.
All this to say that I was unable to escape the realization that my best was not really very good at all. I realized that something was fundamentally wrong. And not just me, but every person I observed fit a similar profile, with some variations, but the end was the same. Nix so gut.
I think I had suspended all dogma and pursued true introspection. The Biblical version of the nature of sin and need for redemption prevailed ultimately, despite my best attempts to avoid it.
And after even what you would consider a long time AB, I have yet to observe anyone truly good, concerned with the real welfare of others, and considering them above themselves. At least for more than certain small specific instances. That is outside of "Christians", and sadly (VERY sadly ) within their ranks.
That was the beginning. I still find the Bible to hold an abundance of revelant info, I think you have to really read it, with NO bias.

Fair enough. I will, in the immortal words of Ali G::"agree to degree"

[analogbear]

Where did you hear the story about the evolution of intellectual life? It is very controversial, and held close to the vest of a certain group of scholars.

Also, I know what you mean, with my critique of your posts. Just bear with me and I will try to bear with you...It is the slow pace and use of text that makes it hard.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Where did you hear the story about the evolution of intellectual life? It is very controversial, and held close to the vest of a certain group of scholars.

Also, I know what you mean, with my critique of your posts. Just bear with me and I will try to bear with you...It is the slow pace and use of text that makes it hard.

I first heard that story from an uncle of mine.
Then from several sources. I read a book in the late 80's that included the tenants of that story (I cannot remember the title or author, it is packed away now). And actually from several individuals over the last couple decades. I have contact with some interesting people on Sanibel and Captiva. I didn't realize that it was so controversal. It makes sense in and of it's self (not saying that the conclusions drawn are correct), and is more comfortable to believe than the actual words of Christ.

Yes, this mode of communication is imperfect and frustrating, but the slow pace helps those with slow minds (me )...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

I first heard that story from an uncle of mine.
Then from several sources. I read a book in the late 80's that included the tenants of that story (I cannot remember the title or author, it is packed away now). And actually from several individuals over the last couple decades. I have contact with some interesting people on Sanibel and Captiva. I didn't realize that it was so controversal. It makes sense in and of it's self (not saying that the conclusions drawn are correct), and is more comfortable to believe than the actual words of Christ.

Yes, this mode of communication is imperfect and frustrating, but the slow pace helps those with slow minds (me )...

Well, there were no conclusions drawn, and certainly none about anything to do with christ, beyond identifying a certain population of so-called intellectuals at a certain time. This was a purely historical story. I used it to frame the two ideas of: 1. A lack of intellectual rigor with examining issues of faith because issues of faith ultimately reduce to "the (supposed) word of god." Because the word of god can never be discussed and explicated with the author, and because there is no generally accepted version of the word of god (too many different interpretations), there is a problem trying to analyze it or accept it as it stands. And 2. That many people who are considered intellectuals now, including many authors, teachers, religious interpreters, and the more formal clergy, are not really intellectuals, because they emote more than they reason.

It is this ability to reason, according to some rules of knowledge, that separate intellectuals from those poseurs who just emote but think they are reasoning. I am not trying to mean, nor am I pointing fingers at anyone in particular. Faith is not reason. It is both more AND less than reason.

It is OK, absolutely OK, feel free to do it, OK, if a person has faith in god, the bible, the koran, aliens who seeded the galaxy, fairies, druidic-paganism, whatever.

It is absurd for that person of faith to then say his or her faith is based on reason. Not reasonS Everybody has reasons for what they do and believe, but the fact is, faith is a psychological emotion, not a state of knowledge. The ability to bring REASON to bear and not just appeal to reasonS is what separates the intellectual from the reat of the world. It can be lonely, but that is the way it is. Even Descartes, one of the most famous philosophers, who undertook the philosophical investigation of his christian faith in order to PROVE GOD EXISTED, ultimately said that: although he had faith in god, and would continue to believe, he knew he had NO RATIONAL BASIS for faith in the existence of god, that it was emotion, not reason, and that his belief stemmed ultimately from these irrational emotions, no matter how he sought to justify the beliefs. He admitted this was stuff that could not be known, could not be certain, and because there were so many different interpretations, they couldn't all be right. I happen to wholeheartedly agree with him.

But, to him, it was this faith that was so important, in an intensely personal way, that validated keeping the rational world and the world of faith apart.

[slorider18]

Sorry to but in, but may i have this dance. I have to admit that i skipped pages 3-6, but only because i was so eager to engage with the two of you. I will be basing my first few posts on the latest ones and address the other pages as i get to them. That being said...

I believe in the bible as the word of God, and do my best to relate it in its original context and content (hebrew and greek) so i try to base all of my posts on scripture so that they can be evaluated by the reader. On the subject of faith Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (NKJV) I think faith comes down to evaluating what you can observe of the topic. ie: the teachings of God and its impact upon the lives of those that believe. Once evaluated you can then decide if you want to put your faith into that thing. even if it cannot be proven.

I have more thoughts but will have to address them individually. I lack the vernacular prowess pocessed by the two of you. (hope i spelled that right) I do appreciate the pace of the conversation though, and i thought the opening monty pithon allusions were great. We shall meet again!

[slorider18]

I need to proof read better, i mean to "butt" in. like i said. a little slow

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

Sorry to but in, but may i have this dance. I have to admit that i skipped pages 3-6, but only because i was so eager to engage with the two of you. I will be basing my first few posts on the latest ones and address the other pages as i get to them. That being said...

I believe in the bible as the word of God, and do my best to relate it in its original context and content (hebrew and greek) so i try to base all of my posts on scripture so that they can be evaluated by the reader. On the subject of faith Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (NKJV) I think faith comes down to evaluating what you can observe of the topic. ie: the teachings of God and its impact upon the lives of those that believe. Once evaluated you can then decide if you want to put your faith into that thing. even if it cannot be proven.

I have more thoughts but will have to address them individually. I lack the vernacular prowess pocessed by the two of you. (hope i spelled that right) I do appreciate the pace of the conversation though, and i thought the opening monty pithon allusions were great. We shall meet again!

I have asked lee, and he has graciously agreed, to no longer discuss religion with eachother. That being said, if you wish to discuss these issues rationally, with a serial contrarian (me), feel free. I will, however, view -without reading- any posts by Lee on this subject as cheerleading for your team only, and will not read any posts you make responding to his stuff.

Go back and read the progression of ideas, please, starting with the tail end of the "what is truth?" and "any believers in christ" threads first (from my first posts, I guess would be appropriate), and then the first pages of this thread, so I don't have to repeat myself or my position ad nauseum, and bore you or insult your intelligence with trying to awkwardly reconstruct my earlier posts. Admittedly, I got very angry and arrogant at times, so bear with my sometime ranting, but that is the price of scholarly training combined with 8-years of jumping out of planes and killing people, I guess. Sorry, I am as God made me.

We may have a fundamental problem with method and principle, as I approach these things as a philosopher, not as a person of faith (though I do have a faith).
Faith, an emotion regardless of what translation of a particular spiritual text you may use to attempt to operationally define it, has too little pragmatic substance, is too variable, and is too frought with built-in conflict to approach as a subject for the source of personal or societal morality, reasoned debate, discussion, or analysis. The arguments ultimately boil down to:
"Well, that's what god says!"
"No it isn't!'
"Yes it is!"
"Well, F-you then, you non-believer!"

That is so uninteresting to me.

If you are already set in your beliefs, believe them to be true, and think they are applicable generally to everyone as the "truth," we truly have nothing to discuss.

That is faith without reason; it is pure emotion, and no more valid intellectually, philosophically, pragmatically, historically, or rationally than thinking Britney Spears is as talented as Beethoven was.

However, if you are willing to accept that all faiths are at best only partially right because of the spiritual, historical, scientific, political, reasonable and pragmatic facts of our various ages, then we may begin a very fun investigation. If not, if you "know," you then suffer from what I have termed before here as self-righteousness, somewhat akin to the religious fundamentalism tearing our modern world apart, and it is not interesting.

But, before you respond to this post, even, I urge you to read the posts at the middle-end of "what is truth" and "any believers in christ," to get a sense of where I am coming from.

I am a Philosopher; a Sophist by profession, but a Philosopher by training.

[slorider18]

i guess i have some reading to do. I do have a quick question. To what end are we discussing. you can let me know after my next post. thanks. i think this will be fun.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

i guess i have some reading to do. I do have a quick question. To what end are we discussing. you can let me know after my next post. thanks. i think this will be fun.

I would assume discussion for the sake of discussion.

If you are really a person of faith, I would never seek to dissuade you from it; and because I know that your faith is not exclusively right, and because I can accept Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. all as equally in posession of "truth," your faith, or your belief in a particular flavor of spiritual dogma poses no threat to me. This is primarily because I believe that what is most important on the subject of religions, are those things that are the same in all religions...Those things that guide us in how to live rightly, without a need for the obligatory supernatural/mythological/magical stuff that seems both like tales of the Olympian gods and so much like a sales pitch for illiterate and simple-minded peasants.

[slorider18]

still reading....just for discussion is fine. i'll get back to you.

[slorider18]

wow, busy week, kids are sick, expanding operations at work, ran over a cone with my f3. anyway, here i am. i finally read it all. you could have mentioned page 5. i don't know much about guitars or what they have to do with faith.

I would however like to continue the discussion. but i would like to step back a little. the original question was (paraphrase) "do you believe your faith is the right one?" i do think that my faith is based on absolute truth. i am not sure if i am prepared to defend that in an articulate way but i am going to give it my best shot.

without getting into what you believe, do you belive you are right. in addition to that to you think that there is a "truth". when you are given several options(different faiths(even your own)) how do you know you can circle E: all of the above?

After reading your post i will have to say that you are more "educated" than i am. so i don't know how redily i can respond to anything. but if you have time, i don't know what your schedule is like, you should maybe look at the new evidence that demands a verdict by james mcdowell. it is bias and i apologize for that but i think it is written in a way that may give you food for thought.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

wow, busy week, kids are sick, expanding operations at work, ran over a cone with my f3. anyway, here i am. i finally read it all. you could have mentioned page 5. i don't know much about guitars or what they have to do with faith.

I would however like to continue the discussion. but i would like to step back a little. the original question was (paraphrase) "do you believe your faith is the right one?" i do think that my faith is based on absolute truth. i am not sure if i am prepared to defend that in an articulate way but i am going to give it my best shot.

without getting into what you believe, do you belive you are right. in addition to that to you think that there is a "truth". when you are given several options(different faiths(even your own)) how do you know you can circle E: all of the above?

After reading your post i will have to say that you are more "educated" than i am. so i don't know how redily i can respond to anything. but if you have time, i don't know what your schedule is like, you should maybe look at the new evidence that demands a verdict by james mcdowell. it is bias and i apologize for that but i think it is written in a way that may give you food for thought.

Education is overrated...Totally ignorant and uneducated people can be the smartest out there, because smart is just an ability to think, reason, find the interrelationships between seemingly unrelated items, and then articulating the stuff in a way that gets the point across. You may not have the vocabulary to discuss the various muscles and connective tissue in your foot, but I bet you can get me to understand that when you stub your toe, it hurts...'Nuff said.

What I believe is so generalized, that right or wrong can never enter it. To put it plainly, my being "right" does not make necessary your being wrong; My right and your right can stand together.

The fundamental truth here is that we can never KNOW...That is why it requires faith, right? We can't prove any of it. If we could, that would be front page news. So, accepting that we must proceed on faith, an emotion, should our emotions be the basis for invalidating someone else's emotions? Do you believe in what you believe (pardon the tautology)? If so, think about Jews. Do you think Jews believe in what they believe? Or Muslims...Do you think they believe in what they believe? Now, add the element of (in your words) absolute truth. You can't know your belief is true, you can only have faith. An emotion. Is your emotion more important or more "right" than anyone else's? Don't you think jews and muslims (and everybody else) believe their belief system is right too? This, the exclusionary principle, is why religion is so hard to talk about. If you are exclusively right (and make no mistake, if you believe the bible etc. represents absolute truth you believe in the rightness of your path exclusively), then everyone else must be wrong.

Why are they wrong? Because your emotions are in conflict.

[slorider18]

I think a good way to evaluate the various belief systems is based on the fruits of their labor. it is a biblical principle but can be applied universaly i think. paul writes the fruit of the spirit is love and the fruit of the flesh is bad stuff. (paraphrase) anyway, i think when you look at the end result of a lot of religions you can rule them out. as far as i know most religions require you belive uncondtionally or not at all. you have to accept all or nothing. because of that if there are contraditions, or doctrines are taught that are not "righteous"(we'll relate fruit of the spirit as rghteous for the sake of our discusion) then you can begin to eliminate possibilities. I think you are very right that you can never "know" for sure, or else there would be no need for faith. how did you determine which parts of religion to accept and which parts to dissregard. did you have a particular method based on "logic"? if so what was it?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

I think a good way to evaluate the various belief systems is based on the fruits of their labor. it is a biblical principle but can be applied universaly i think. paul writes the fruit of the spirit is love and the fruit of the flesh is bad stuff. (paraphrase) anyway, i think when you look at the end result of a lot of religions you can rule them out. as far as i know most religions require you belive uncondtionally or not at all. you have to accept all or nothing. because of that if there are contraditions, or doctrines are taught that are not "righteous"(we'll relate fruit of the spirit as rghteous for the sake of our discusion) then you can begin to eliminate possibilities. I think you are very right that you can never "know" for sure, or else there would be no need for faith. how did you determine which parts of religion to accept and which parts to dissregard. did you have a particular method based on "logic"? if so what was it?

Ruling out part:

I am not sure what you mean by "end result," as no judgement day has arrived, and no end-of-all-time thing has happened yet.

What we have is a number of different paths to some supposed-spiritual salvation, with a promise to pay off in the afterlife for obedience in the corporeal world.

Method of choice:

You have a bias in favor of your own path, and must then take on an Einsteinian Thought Experiment in order to really view religions. Take it this way:

Instead of assuming your religion is right, and then trying to make someone disprove it, assume for the sake of argument that all religions are wrong, especially about the supernatural aspects, and then compare the actual message from each. The true message is never about how important calling god the right name in the right way is, but is always about how to treat eachother.

As I have said before, the non-supernatural Biblical principles are no different NO DIFFERENT than Talmudic ones, or ones from the Koran, or the Baghavad Gita, etc. All religions attempt to teach essentially the same messages, with differences really limited to "divine source." Either prophets of a different name or location, or slightly different stories, or different names for god or gods (for those polythiestic folks...but can't god have at least three aspects in at least one branch of christianity?) so my fundamental question would be: Who cares? Who cares if the prophet who taught you to turn the other cheek was the supposed son of god, or a goatherd from the steppes of russia? Isn't it a great lesson? Is it made a better lesson or more principled because some guy who claimed to be a shepherd or a window washer taught it to you? I think, given the historical truths of all religions, political alignments of men, and the ideological trouble in which we still find ourselves, indulging in some dogmatic adherence to the supernatural is somewhat ridiculuous.

[slorider18]

i just wrote a decent reply and the computer ate it. i will have to get back to you later tonight. sorry for the delay.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

i just wrote a decent reply and the computer ate it. i will have to get back to you later tonight. sorry for the delay.

Happens to me all the time...My follow-ups are always crappy...Oh well...

[slorider18]

Do you think when the curtin goes down there will be a final judgement? If you think there will be then how can you justify dismissing the supernatural aspect of religion? If you think there won't be then what is the purpose in even worrying about finding a proper balance?

The end result i was talking about was not the judgement, but rather the results of the daily actions of believers here on earth. I have read quotes from the koran that instruct them to kill non believers unless the nonbeliever converts. I don't see the encouragement of such actions as a possitive influence on the world, and therefor i have to dismiss the religion as a whole since they require i accept it as a whole. Hopefully that better illustrates my point. that being said, i don't find those contradictions is the bible which allows me to better trust its validity.

Looking ahead, what is your position on prophecy?

[Custom900]

Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It's that simple. He is the ONLY WAY.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

Do you think when the curtin goes down there will be a final judgement? If you think there will be then how can you justify dismissing the supernatural aspect of religion? If you think there won't be then what is the purpose in even worrying about finding a proper balance?

The end result i was talking about was not the judgement, but rather the results of the daily actions of believers here on earth. I have read quotes from the koran that instruct them to kill non believers unless the nonbeliever converts. I don't see the encouragement of such actions as a possitive influence on the world, and therefor i have to dismiss the religion as a whole since they require i accept it as a whole. Hopefully that better illustrates my point. that being said, i don't find those contradictions is the bible which allows me to better trust its validity.

Looking ahead, what is your position on prophecy?

Prophecy is too difficult to deal with in spurt-like fashion. If you wish to do PMs at warp-speed at a given time and date, then cool. Otherwise, we will be talking past eachother.
But, as there is ample evidence that space/time may not be as linear as our minds are comfortable dealing with, and as there is also ample evidence that all kinds of energy exist and can be perceived by some people, it is totally possible that someone attuned to some of these energies might have some future-insight. However, putting the physics aside for a minute, the problem here is a cause/effect one at a minimum...If there is prophecy, then is the future set? If so, we have no freewill; if not, then prophecy is going to be really unreliable. What is important about prophecy? The only prophecies that can be accepted are ones that are done in quasi-scientific fashion. No "prediction" made in the beginning of an ancient text, and then supposedly fulfilled at the end of that text can be considered reliable.


You read Arabic?

If not, then you have not read the Koran.

And, to use one small passage or potentially mistranslated quote as a reason to disprove my whole position seems somewhat arbitrary. To use your one passage I don't agree with equals non-truth formula, if there is one passage in the bible that advocates killing nonbelievers, or something like that, then would you stop believing it?

I think our fundamental problem is the same as it is between me and most religious people...You accept the truth of the thing that purports to tell you the truth, using itself to justify its truth. You can't appreciate the message, without buying the magical, so we're not having a real conversation about it; rather than trying to convince me you are in posession of the truth, and rather than me trying to convince you you are'nt, why don't you follow what I am saying: The non-magical parts of all religions are nearly identical...Why then, should we be fighting about the magical? Since we can never really KNOW, why would thinking people allow the UNKNOWABLE to cause extra conflict between people? What god would want his creation at war with eachother over a difference of emotional opinion? You say you believe in the bible, and find no contradictions, and so then believe in the truth in the bible...Beyond circular reasoning, and using an opinion about an item to establish its "truth," itself a wholly suspect method of justification, you accept the truth of the bible with no acceptance of the historical truths surrounding the book itself. How do you dismiss the problems about certainty? How do you know the bible is as god intended? If the book was translated, and the translaters had freewill, how do we know it is accurate? If the book was assembled over a few decades, who is to say any of the new testament is actual text, and not embellishment? Why were only selected passages chosen, and not all of the possible ones? Why are the three basic branches of Christianity (followers of Arius, followers of Sabellius, and the more modern followers of Aquinas) at odds about the very nature of God in relation to Jesus and the creation by man of the idea of the "Holy Spirit" to bridge the Arian/Sabellian gap?

The reason I desire people who are religious to take a step back, and actually think about the larger issues here, is that religious fundamentalism springs from the well of self-righteousness, and self-righteousness springs from the well of certainty, yet, there can be no certainty about religions, only faith, which is an emoton...So, I return to basic questions: Should your emotional opinion trump my emotional opinion? An opinion can't be proven right or wrong, so there can never be a proven-right faith. At the point that god comes down and enlightens everybody at once about the real-deal, there no longer is opinion, but then fact.

Like most other people confronted with this kind of thought experiment, you never responded to any of my earlier posts directly, even the nice argument I laid out for you in respose to your second post. I wish you would, or we are just talking past eachother, and that is pointless. Feel free to take each part of my posts and and address them. (However, I suspect that you will not make an unbiased close-read, and will instead prepare a retort that supports your position without fully getting my point.) Please restate my point, in your own words, so that I am sure we are on the same sheet of music before you attempt to criticize me.

Originally Posted by Custom900

Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It's that simple. He is the ONLY WAY.

OK: I am the way, the truth, and the life...Me saying that is simple too, and certainly no less valid than you saying Jesus said it. Bloody ridiculuous. I am god because I say I am god? Don't they put people in special suits and in soft rooms for saying that stuff? And their followers usually get rescued and deprogrammed or kill themselves...

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by analogbear

OK: I am the way, the truth, and the life...Me saying that is simple too, and certainly no less valid than you saying Jesus said it. Bloody ridiculuous. I am god because I say I am god? Don't they put people in special suits and in soft rooms for saying that stuff? And their followers usually get rescued and deprogrammed or kill themselves...

Generally I would sit and debate the issue. I would do all I could to give proof etc. I've tried to have a reasonable debate with you before though and it's worthless. You can have all the answers any person would ever need and you would still find a way to argue.

I will only say again that Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, and the Savior of mankind. If you believe that, then you are good. If not, well you have made your decision.

That sounds rather harsh. I understand that. I'm in a terrible mood and feel like saying what's on my mind. I don't apologize though. The truth is what it is.