Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, Aug 7, 2011.
actually..i would agree with that Lori..you do like to be the center of attention..
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Most of the books of the New Testament are letters, and it is almost universally believed that they were letters that were addressed (and delivered) to people who were alive at the time that they were written. So aside from everything else I've said, your claim flies in the face of what is generally accepted by scholars and the vast majority of the learned Christian world.
Try as you might Lori, but you're not going to be able to legitimately play this down.
As for your continued character assassination of Signal, there's a report button. Try it. See what the moderators have to say. I doubt that they'll agree with you. Occasionally evasive, sure, but I don't agree with the remainder of your assessment as it's inaccurate. I think you have a little bit too much confidence in your own ability to divine the true intentions of others and not enough wisdom to recognize that it's your own personal bias that is responsible for the errors.
As for your faith, I have no doubt that it has been challenging, but it undoubtedly provides you with a sense of purpose. Since that's something we're all looking for, I think it's fair to call it a pretty big pay-off. So when you imply that it's harder to have faith than it is not to have it, I don't buy it for a second. It's not as if you're in danger of being stoned to death like a first century Christian now is it?
Lori. Hears the voice of God in her head. Has a New Testament letter addressed to her. Has been tasked by God to birth a kingdom on Earth. Is fond of telling tales of her emotional struggle with faith. How romantic. What a heroine you are.
It just doesn't jive with your self-professed humility Lori. It's absurdly inconsistent.
the letters were to churches and their purpose was to educate the churches about what jesus was all about, it is my understanding that the churches were not lining up with what jesus was teaching and that the churches were in error on several issues and the letters were intended to 'straighten' them out...(which brings up the question of 'Did jesus really change anything?')
Damn, wrong again. I apologise for making even more false assumptions about you. Sorry.
Doesn't change my liking you, though.
You could have worse goals in life.
My goal's the same, I guess. Except that I only expect to make a little progress penetrating the cosmic mysteries, and then only if I'm very lucky. I don't have any big expectations any longer. In my own case, I'm probably more concerned with the path than in whatever transcendent reward is supposed to lie at the end of it. Maybe the path is its own reward.
Doesn't bother me the least bit. You ask interesting questions and raise what I believe are important issues. It's a lot more useful to somebody like me than strangers' 'witnessing' about their own private experiences.
My father, a man with a IQ of over 160 and one of the most open minded people I've ever meet, came back from from the States today, (where he now lives), came to my house for a coffee and proceded to attack evolution and argue against the withholding of grants in science to IDers. He is, and has openly said so, that he now believes that ID is the only possible explanation to the existence of life on Earth.
I'm fucking gobsmacked. I tried to argue with him but ended up sitting there with my mouth open in complete disbelief in the transformation as much as anything else. I don't know how to deal with this.
Is there fucking something in the water over there?
Oh, and facts aren't real, apparently. :shrug:
I can't say for sure if the following quote has been paraphrased or not since I can't locate the original source right now, but:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."
To reference another recent discussion in which you eloquently detailed your respect and admiration for Aristotle, my favourite philosopher (or perhaps more correctly 'philosopher/scientist') is Einstein. His deep reverence for the mystery of nature moves me almost as much as my own.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that although I am rather firmly atheistic with regard to the Abrahamic (and similar) conceptions of God, I'm almost theistic when it comes to the broader unknown. To me God is both what is known and what is unknown, with the latter destined to be at least as incredible as the former, and likely more so. The only real difference between myself and your typical theist is that I don't believe that God is a person. Funny how such a detail all by itself can make someone an atheist.
sorry..i didn't know where else to put the holy water,so i flushed it..
The main problem with the ID/evolution debate is that it's really easy for the ID camp to level what seems like a compelling attack against evolution in the eyes of anyone who isn't an evolutionary scientist, but very time consuming to demonstrate how it's wrong. This is because in order to be able to properly recognize ID bullshit for what it is, one typically has to learn quite a bit more about evolution. I guess the best you can do is challenge him to read a few books. I'd recommend "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne and of course "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. Another useful book that I read a long time ago is called "Telling Lies For God" by Ian Plimer, which rather than focusing on the evidence for evolution like the above two books simply did a fantastic job of exposing the dishonest and pseudo-scientific bullshit that typically goes on in the ID camp.
people, look at this exhibit A of a post.
nmsquirrel, i don't care how she communicates because that is superficial in comparison to the arrogance and presumption that one knows what god is, not what one thinks or believes god is but that belief is not even tempered with the sanity that it is still a personal revelation and it is not a fact.
other people can believe other things about the concept of god and have it confirmed by those who feel or think likewise, should they tell you and lori that you are emphatically wrong and they know what 'god' is and you don't?
this is another example why religionists or theists really should not have any power. if they ever gain a lot of power, they will be prejudiced against any experiences or interpretations besides their own.
god, you people are really stupid. it's just true.
there is some slight danger here. your desperation or need for an ultimate truth can lead you to false conclusions. this is because there is no way to know the ultimate truth. you can only grapple with what is known and also what you personally feel which may not be what another thinks or feels but may or may not be as valid as the next. after that, it's all speculation but speculation is good as it continues to expand awareness and consider possiblities.
Cheers for the response Rav. I'm still a little shaken by the whole thing to be honest. I've never meet a IDer in the flesh, (unless Jehovah's Witnesses count- I don't pay much attention to them), but now that I have I'm shocked it's my own father. I had a hint from him a few months back when he said that when he arrived on his trip we'd have to discuss the "Big Questions". When I asked him what that meant he just replied "Life". I feel he's been bulding up to this and is calling me out or something. The discussion will continue tomorrow apparently and I'm not sure how to handle it. Forums are fine because of the anonymity, but this is new to me.
I've read a bit on evolution, (Darwin, Dawkins, Schermer (sp?) and Dennett), but today the arguments just wouldn't come. He tried to point out that anthropology was all guess work and that there were too many assumptions made, too many gaps. That life had many beginnings, and this meant we didn't evolve from monkeys, (I nearly screamed at this point) There'll be a refresher course tonight, to get the arguments in point form and clear in my head, that's for certain! Once I understood it, (the second time I read On the Origin of Species), really understood it, it was like an epihany to me, so I'm not exactly new to the subject but not a expert either. I'll have to look up the other suggestions, so thanks for them.
He challenged me on two things before leaving:
1. Because I believe in "science" :shrug: I should be able to "prove" to him that the universe isn't infinite and therefore "prove" that all things are not possible. If I can't do that then I must be open to the possibility that a creator can exist. It's madness!! I tried explaining the whole "burden of proof" position with him, but he was having none of it. (I'll point out here that the God he believes in isn't the standard Abrahamic version, as he is anti-conformity and that wouldn't suit his preconceptions on how things work, but more of an "intelligent energy" prevalent throughout the universe).
2. That facts are indeed facts. That just because we know something now, doesn't mean it will always be true and therefore can't be termed fact! He used the boiling point of water here to demonstrate his point(?). That in the future the boiling point might change and that just because it has been the case up until now doesn't mean it will always be so. I can't really get my head around that one tbh.
Question to anyone: Should I be worried? This seems so out of character for him. He was always a non-conformist and believed in spirituality to a degree, (His recently deceased brother helped him choose a golf club today. Not literally, but he felt the presence in a magpie on the course :bugeyePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. But, this is a big jump and he seems to want to...I don't know...make me believe it.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can't argue with that..alot of good points..
but this is just uncalled for..
he is right about this as you can't disprove a possibility. but what he and you should know already is that neither of you can prove either side. a possiblity doesn't mean it's true.
i think he's being nitpicky. facts are dependent on the stability and consistency of what they are built on. he means that can change theoretically.
there is more to life than just cold hard immediate facts. sometimes when people have been living there life just focused on these, they may neglect the more imaginative or creative as well as emotional side of themselves. maybe he is just trying to feed, release or nurture that now. remember, being able to create, even on a personal level is just as real as acknowledging what already is. the creative drive in all of us to feel and express emotions and concepts is legitimate but as long as we are also aware that there is a limit to it's relation to outside objects. our 'aliveness' may be indicative of some deeper truth way out there somewhere and it may not.
what is the boiling point of water and doesn't altitude and pressure affect the boiling point of water?
Interesting points birch. The last one occured to me and I'm hoping it's true. But man, there are easier ways to do that. Buy me a Deepak Chopra book or something. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
100 degress centigrade at sea-level and normal atmospheric conditions isn't it?
His argument was that that could change, the possibilities are infinite apparently, and that would make what we currently know to be a fact not actually a fact. Thinking about it now he might be trying to equate the word fact with something akin to universal and unchanging truth.:shrug:
well, let's put it this way...i am typically not the center of attention unless there's a good reason for it.
i've known people who have to be the center of attention all the time, and i find that irritating after a while. it might be fun or tolerable in small doses, but over time i've found it becomes rude and embarrassing. it's usually an obvious show of insecurity and it's kind of pathetic.
relatively, i'm pretty secure. i'm ok with myself, and while i don't try to be offensive, i really don't give a shit about what most people think of me, because ultimately i'm the one who has to live with myself 24/7.
i'm definitely not shy, and i'm not overly modest, but that's because i just don't give a fuck, not because i do. does that make sense?
typically in a social setting i am not the center of the conversation or attention. i typically will direct conversation and attention to others, because i'm interested in others, and because it's polite. i can carry on and enjoy a dialog just fine, but do not have some insatiable desire to be heard over anyone else. here on the forum, there's no competition to be heard like in a typical social setting. no one else has to stop expressing their ideas in order for me to express mine and i like that. i'm not a fan of competition at all.
what my friends would say about me is that i'm laid back, and a lot of fun, as long as nobody pisses me off. they would also say that i'm the one who will say what everybody else is thinking, but doesn't have the balls to say.
i think that's a fair assessment of my social skills, as if that needed to be brought up.
well, i certainly hope that someday you do, and more.
My question(s) would be: What constitutes "design"? And how do you know it when you see it?
to my knowledge, scholars and the vast majority of the learned christian world have no idea who the lady in 2nd john was.
have you read rev ch 12? it's very poetic and metaphorical sounding, not as if it's describing any historical figure. and then there's the "tree". you know, scholars are not typically the ones who receive revelation, but the ones who study the revelation of others.
the scholars and learned christians would also tell you that the bible is filled with prophecy.
rav, i'm not trying to play anything down. i'm honestly describing what i was told and what happened to me, and giving an opinion about it. it's not a game, and if you understand what i'm saying you'll realize that there's no debate to be had. it happened. whether you think it's fantastic or not, or whether i do, is completely irrelevant really. it was traumatic at first, but over time it's become the way it is.
the report button is for pussies, unless something is just grotesque, and then someone else usually beats me to it.
we can agree to disagree in our assessments then.
i didn't imply that it's harder to have faith than it is not to have it. what i said is that my faith is not based on some warm fuzzy emotional state as you implied. i also would not deny my faith in the face of death.
what is this supposed to mean? is it a criticism? are you calling me a liar? are you this patronizing and insensitive to everyone who has had emotional struggles? i'm sure as hell not asking for sympathy; i'm glad i went through what i did. i'm just not going to allow you to lie about about my experience, and imply that it was some feel good walk in the park. it wasn't. what an ass you're being.
you think i'm taking credit for it? you think i've contrived this? honey, i don't have the imagination if it's made up, nor the power if it's not. it blew me the fuck out of the water. i thought my head was going to fucking explode trying to keep up. and all i did was offer to help somebody. that's it.
it's common sense rav; you HAVE to be humbled to reach out to god. otherwise, i just can't fathom anybody wanting to. i'm not the only one in the world who's been humbled, and when you have been, you fucking know it, and it's usually a turning point in people's lives. it's usually a time when people learn something.
knowing god is humbling and empowering at the same time. those things seem contradictory, but they're not.
Separate names with a comma.