Yes. You can't be serious. That is sweet, but sheepish to the point of being dangerous I hope you have a responsible gaurdian. What reason can you cite that proves me correct in this regard? You now contend that YOU, who asked me why the author of a book would lie, can discern what aspects of the allmighty are comprehensible. Do you have a basis for this claim other than "scripture"? No, science says the scope of the question is beyond logic and is thusly moot. I can make a lot of claims that are beyond the scope of logic which you would dismiss as illogical, the claim of god should be no different. Further, claims that the bible has any relevance in this argument whatsoever are merely based on the farce of argumentative popularity or authoritative epistemology. No offense, but you are obviously unqualified to make that assertion. If you care, you'll figure it out on your own.
Because your girl had a difficult time, it does not mean that Mother Teresa was a bad person or her theology was not good. Mother Teresa chose the way of the poor, but used the money given to her to support all 400+ facilities around the world. If you want to bad-mouth who Mother Teresa was you ought to feel shame. I see why you are the EvilPoet. My oh my -- and you are probably smiling. Mother Teresa <i>"I choose the poverty of our poor people. But I am grateful to receive (the Nobel) in the name of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." -- Mother Teresa Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, 1979 Mother Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiuon on August 26, 1910 in Skopje, in what is now Macedonia. However, she considered her real "Birthday" to be August 27, 1910, the day of her baptism. She went to India at 17, becoming a nun and teaching school in Calcutta. Here, she took the name "Sister Teresa" after Saint Teresa of Lisieux, the patroness of missionaries. In 1948 she left the convent and founded the Missionaries of Charity which now operates schools, hospitals, orphanages, and food centers in more than 90 countries. She was the recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize for Peace. </i>
You're perfectly qualified to say that jcarl. I was implying that you apparently aren't capable of discerning between something that makes sense and something that does not. If you're interested, look up the word "epistemology" and see if you can figure out how it applies in the context of your claims. Once you do that ask yourself why you think you know what you know. I'm interested to know if it's possible to validly justify any of your claims and their assumptions given any other perspective than the bible as authoritative regarding knowledge. If you claim the bible as an authority and ask "why question that authority?" you are stuck in a circular argument. What I would find gratifying is if you could focus on the actual issues rather than the formulation of the scripture based responses I find inevitable from you two. You see, if your response contains something like "god" or "satan" or "job" then you're basing it on scripture. If you are interested in a fair debate, then your claim is baseless unless you can provide evidence of the validity of your assumptions (given that they are brought into question). Am I losing you? If someone asks "what time is it?" and you reply "jesus time.", can you see how that could be considered nonsense?
jcarl, wesmorris - since the topic is related, please read my last post in the thread A conundrum. I fully agree with jcarl. We believe because we believe what the Bible says. Just because the current post-modernist atmosphere won't conclude that the accounts are based on their definition of what consists of "real truth", it by no means disqualify our beliefs.
So then we can adress epistemology? Your claim is then that your scripture is authoritative. That is circular. That is a logical fallacy. I pity your mind.
- "the current post-modernist atmosphere" can't conclude anything as it is not sentient. - You think my contension is a result of "post-modernist" atmosphere? Your presumption is insulting and disgusting. - You think that I claim to know "real truth"? My claim is agnostic in nature. You ignore related epistemological issues because you'll have to admit your fallacy. Authority as a source of knowledge is circular in nature. - Your belief is disqualified as reasonable if it is shown to be illogical, which it has been time and time again. Religions are based on an infinite leap of faith. I say infinite because there is no limit on the claims I can make regarding god(s). As such, you make an infinite leap to choose one from the infinite fray. Again, though a nominal leap of faith of is required to deem reason and logic valid as tools for discerning the validity of information or hypothesis, the distance of the jump is zero, since reason is by definition, reasonable. Further, reason encompasses logic (in that logic is a tool of reason), which is easily demonstrated to be a self-consistent tool. I'm sure you can't see the relevance, because your faith leaves you blind.
Why? "to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt" would suffice I think. If you could demonstrate that it is beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you take it on faith that you owe me $1,000,000 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!? Why do you think there is an afterlife? Have you really really thought about it you would want one? So you assume christian's know how to do that? That's a dangerous road. What if the Hindu's have it right? What about the Hari Krishna's? What about Jews? If you're that concerned about your post-human fate, don't you think you might put a little consideration into how you came to the conclusion that your particular brand of faith is the right one? *sigh* What makes you think that heaven exists? Correct. It merely pertains to avoiding giving non-sequiters as a response to an earnest question in a debate. Welcome to critical thinking. Please man, THINK about that question for a while and get back to me. THINK man, don't accept. THINK. Use your mind! If you there exists a "god" of some sort, how could you argue that your MIND isn't the most precious gift that he could have given you? USE IT. Continue thinking critically!
the more i think about your post here JENYAR, the more despicable I find it. it is my contension that you saw that jcarl actually employed his mind for a second rather than regurgitating scripture and you took the role of the sheep herder. how DARE YOU attempt to keep this poor kid's mind in nuetral to satisfy your theistic sense of responsibility to the herd. that is simply despicable, deplorable and devoid of character. frankly, i'm shocked but expect no more I suppose. I think you mean well Jenyar, but when your sick dependency on your theistic presumption bleeds over to others.. that's just sick. IMO you are hurting people by promoting your ignorance - why? Because the effects of your successful good intentions are to degrade the greatest gift a human has - their mind.
You say that we ignore the epistemological issues. I'll put some attention on it. Is it entirely impossible that something could be beyond all human understanding, beyond the range of reason of all mankind? Isn't it possible, and probable, that there are some things the carnal mind can't comprehend?
It is situationally dependent. It depends on the size of the claim, it's impact, the credibility of the evidence, etc. Probably not since a note attached to a rock would burn up on entry of the atmosphere. What if I put a speaker in your filling so you heard my voice in your head commanding you to do things? Would you think it god, me or a mental disorder? That's silly because it is sufficiently realistic that you will be DUPED. Is your scroll bar broken or something? Find it yourself. That's circular logic. Then you admit that you cannot think critically. If so, why do you post here? Simply to promote your lack of ability? I was thinking you might actually be looking to LEARN something and have put forth effort to that end. Please allow me to stop that if learning something or an honest debate is not your intention. No, you've answered a question. Of course you failed to address the meat of my objections to your arguments, but you have answered the question "why?". It's called "learning". It's also called "exploration". If you choose to stagnate based on the bullshit you call knowledge, so be it, but don't waste my time pretending you're interested in honest debate. Further, you apparently lack the tools for honest debate, so you need to get some (which can partially be accomplished by questioning what it is that you think you know). Yet you accept it. That should be a clue to you. Which merely means you have low standards for your pursuit of truth. I don't have much of a problem with that until you start making proclamations regarding your truths, because your low standards have led you to UTTER NONSENSE. Jenyar too. He's just apparently more verbally talented than you. Are you referring to my comments to Jenyar? I'm not sure what you mean. (oh, and though you may feel comfort in the thought, it is impossible that you believe the "exact same stuff" that someone else does)
It IS, yes. In fact it's I would consider it probable. Yet you make claims that implicitely contain presumption as to that which you JUST claimed is NOT COMPREHENSIBLE. You cannot make a valid claim (unless you just get lucky, which is astronomically improbable) about that which you cannot comprehend.
Certain aspects of God are comprehensible(such as his love and grace), while others aspects of him aren't(why he gives us such grace and love.) We cannot comprehend somethings He does, so we simply take it on faith.
Trying to create a god, Wes? Our faith that God exists rests on evidence you reject, because it contains statements you don't agree with, and therefore logic that does not conform with yours. On the other hand, if God does exist in the form He revealed, and made comprehensible what we comprehend about Him, it is entirely possible that our claims are valid. Your claim implicitly contain the presumption that God does not exist, and as such you claims are equally invalid. When you assume God does not exist, any claim about God - in fact, any claim even that God himself makes - will necessarily sound "astronomically impossible" to you. Comprehension is in the mind of the comprehender. I have no inclination to "herd" jcarl to my beliefs. He can obviously fend for himself. We believe in the same God, and any differences we might have should be secondary. Okinrus disagrees with some of my beliefs, but we too believe in the same God. As a human being, I am bound to hold unique personal beliefs. Only, I choose to submit them to a higher authority, and it is the duty of any Christian to point out to me if I ever contradict Scripture.
You are sorely short of comprehensive power if you think this my motivation or purpose. How do you presume to speak for others of your faith? Isn't that kind of rude? That is based solely on your assertion that I'm trying to create a god, which I'm obviously not. How is it that you presume that "he revealed his form", via your delusion? Why should I give your delusion credence? Why do you? Man this is a matter of basic common sense. Is your mind so distorted from your faith that you cannot see this? Frankly I'm sickened by your twisted interpretation of words that obviously do NOT mean what you think they DO. Your habit of reading more into what is written (as you must do to ascertain your 'spiritual experience' via the bible) has effected your ability to communicate. Logically speaking Jenyar, my claim is that if something is incomprehensible, claims regarding it are MOOT by the definition of something being incomprehensible. It is SICK that you cannot even follow something so uhm.. logically kindergarden. I do not claim that god does not exist. I seriously doubt it. Read Stephen Hawking. Further.. if a "god" were to exist, I'm almost completely sure that it would be beyond human comprehension to a point of being completely irrelevant to any discussion by a human. Even further, I'm ENTIRELY sure that the bible is simply eronious regarding spiritual matters. It's more a historically skewed epic regarding the history of a bunch of people trying desperately to figure out WHY they exist, and basically accepting the most convincing answers available at the time. Now, I could see how one might respectfully disagree, but to label this reasoning illogical or unreasonable can only be indicative of a limited ability to process information regarding this topic. When you assume God does not exist, any claim about God - in fact, any claim even that God himself makes - will necessarily sound "astronomically impossible" to you. Comprehension is in the mind of the comprehender. Please Jenyar, determine exactly where I've implied or stated that the creator doesn't exist. You derive all of this from my statement that I'm pretty sure that things exist which are incomprehensible to humans. Think about that. First, I'm only pretty sure. It simply seems likely. I'm agnostic Jenyar. You should know that by now. Please take it into consideration so as not to waste your words. While I cannot validly argue to the contrary, I doubt your sincerity. First of all, it is obvious to anyone whom can think remotely critically that jcarl is beyond novice. As such shouldn't you assist him? Yet you do nothing but try to justify his obvious retardedness and inability to think remotely logically. From my perspective, that looks like you're more interested in keeping him ignorant than helping him learn to think for himself. It looks to me that you'd rather keep him hooked on YOUR fish than teach him to find his own. The power of your circular logic is incredibly strong. I find it interesting that a in nature a circle is a very strong structure too. The problem I have with circles when it comes to reasoning however, is that when you think in circles, you only learn more about the circle. You'll NEVER be able to see outside of it. Maybe you can address my main contensions to religions: How can you validly presume to know that god exists. How can you validly presume that if it does exist, it is comprehensible to humans in any capacity? How can you validly presume that if it IS comprehensible, the BIBLE is at all relevant? How can you validly presume that IF the bible is relevant, it is the authoritative source for religious dogma? If you're right, isn't everyone else necessarily wrong?
You are envisioning a god that does not exist, cannot exist, or otherwise has no ability to cause any form of understanding or knowledge of His existence in His creation. So it must be a new god - one that is "completely incomprehensible", instead of partially incomprehensible. No, that's kind of self-explanatory. Same God, same faith, same sources. If someone professes belief in a common idea, that idea is what is common to us - i.e. our faith. Since you have already decided that God is a delusion incapable of having a revealed will, or that I am not His creation and therefore incapable of any kind of understanding pertaining to Him, and that Jesus was either a delusion or deluded himself, I presume your last question is rhethorical. But your view that God is incomprehensible pertains to your "god". When Christians say God is incomprehensible, they make that claim from a body of knowledge (contained in the Bible) that makes sense of an incomprehensible God. We don't believe in a God that doesn't make sense, as you seem to think. How do you come to this conclusion? With everything we know about life, it is still a mystery to us. Same thing with love. That does not mean we know - and much less that we will never know - enough about it that we can profess some kind of knowledge and hold sensible discussions about them. ...Similar to what a book called "a history of love experienced" would be. Your definition of love, or your lack of experience of it, does not make those who have come to some kind of understanding of it through their experiences with it, automatically invalid. It will seem skewed from your perspective. You are still assuming that God has no ability to cause understanding that reflects His nature, will, or even intentions. I appreciate your qualifyer "validly". But if you mean by it only "scientifically provable" you'll be disappointed. The God I profess to know anything about does not operate within such parameters. 1. "Knowledge" is corroborated experience of a suggested relationship between myself and a (hitherto) unknown. A relationship has been suggested, the experience has been corroborated, the connection made. The other side of the equation has to be the God that correlates with what the data on this side of the equation. And it isn't just scientific data - we are not just "scientific" beings. 2. Feedback has to be comprehensible or it would not be feedback. It's like an existential sonar ping. The fact that I can have knowledge about God, suggests that there is a God to have knowledge about. What is comprehensible about God is built into the fabric of everything which we can understand and relate to. You just have to look around you - at the laws of creation, at nature, especially at relationships between people - to see what is comprehensible about God and what isn't. In short, God created an incomprehensible world, of which we are able to comprehend much. The ability to comprehend in spite of overwhelming chaos is a clue that perhaps God created us with the ability to know what we should know. Your "ping" won't be the same as mine, so an objective impersonal "knowledge" isn't possible. Your equation (relationship/experience/interpretation) with God will be unique. 3. Comprehension very seldom comes as sudden insight. There is a process of "getting to know". The Bible is the longest running record of any interaction with God. It might not represent the oldest religion, but these people knew elohim before they knew God as one (El) and later by his relationship name YHWH. If you want to learn about any God, you start with the scripture and the people who were closest to Him. 4. It is not about who is right and wrong. More appropriate would be the "right" God, or a reasonably accurate picture of Him, vs. the "wrong" gods, those who don't exist or are invalid representations of Him. Christianity and Judaism have the same God, Islam submits to their God, but deny that His history is accurate. God is the only authority on religious dogma, and His revealed will is that we should love Him and each other. Jesus is the only person who fulfilled God's promise of salvation. If you believe your relationship with God is sufficient, you are welcome to follow any other religion you want. It is only because we admit that we know enough to be dangerous, and too little to be safe, that we accept Jesus as being from God. Every evidence from Scripture indicates that God has recognized the necessity to interfere, and Jesus demonstrated that He has. If you try living your life in accordance with the laws of love, you will soon see that it leaves you frustrated. Then you might realize that being moral is not a complete way of life in itself. Once realize that you are only one side of an equation, and enter into any kind of relationship with God, you'll have trouble keeping God out of your life. A lot of wisdom comes from doing God's will while searching for Him. That is the essence of faith.
man, i agree with you. these people are totally dependent on a book. and the bible is ONLY a book. one can't just take something in w/o analyzing it first. jews follow the kabbalah. Judaism came before Christianity. don't you think that what they say has a little more of credibility than the Bible? the people who felt like distorting the original version of the old testament were called "esenios" (sorry, i have to find out what they are called in english). they were part of a seperate sect of hebrew people that existed between 200 BC- 200 AD. people please meditate upon the following: The truth is that there is no truth (the Bible couldn't possibly be the ultimate truth anyway). We are all God. Beliving in a seperate entity (ex. Christian God) actually veils our eyes and we are unable to reach conclusions on our own. we start to depend solely on the word of another person i leave you with these thoughts. bye.
