OK...since my questions wasn't answered by STAN, but was answered...sort of....I have another.
Jesus was a Jew.....I am correct in saying that, right? Now there are many Christians.....(and I will use it again) many, many Christians that find Jews to be the "downfall of America". These are the same people that are crying morality over what is shown on television, played on the radio and what is appropriate in social situations. But they seem to have misplaced the fact that these were Jesus's beginnings.
Why do these ignorant pushers of morality have so much power? Why do they hate Jews? Is it because it's the cool hip-hop way of life?
Sorry, that last question was a bit sarcastic.
I guess my problem is, why should I have to "Dress Up" to go to church? The part that turns me off the most is that I am looked down upon by most Christians because I don't go to church. And I don't go because I feel it's not necessary to be in a church to find God. Wasn't that part of Jesus's teachings? God is everywhere, you just have to be willing to accept his divine presence. This is why people hate organized religion. It shouldn't cost money to have faith. You shouldn't have to dress up and drive to a material building and have someone tell you what to think and perceive. Those are all material.....and not part of what christianity is truely based upon.
Or am I just wrong?!?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Talkin outta turn....That's a paddlin'. Starin' at my sandals....That's a paddlin'. Paddlin' the school canoe....You better believe that's a paddlin'!" --Jasper
The way I see it, true faith requires absolute dismissal of reason.
Where are you getting this assumption from? I wholeheartedly disagree with the truth of this statement (at least without some major qualifiers on your definitions). Without it the rest of your argument/question falls apart.
Something I'm interested in: I know many Christians, but I only know a few who I intellectually respect enough to make me seriously question myself. Extremestan, you seem like this type of person, based on what I've read.
How do you reconcile yourself with faith? As you've said, god does not use "gross coercion" (that would invalidate the whole process, presumably) and instead relies on an individuals faith. Was Kierkegaard wrong when in saying there is a necessary leap of faith to be made?
The way I see it, true faith requires absolute dismissal of reason. I also see reason is the one faculty by which we can define our existence. Ergo, I cannot have faith. Or is the ability to have faith some divine quality of the soul, a fact that can never be reconciled with our rational mind?
I'm not trying to debunk faith. But that's just the thing: I feel that all forms of the spiritual are incompatible with argument and discourse. To say something is right, wrong, knowable, unknowable, provable, or unprovable says that it is essentially rational.
Is irrationality knowable?
Here's the nomenclature I use:
Belief - The intellectual subscription to the validity of a claim.
Assumption - The practical subscription to the validity of a claim when the validity is not practically knowable.
Faith - Assumption with conviction.
Reason - The critically- and logically-tempered utilization of experience.
Reasonable faith - Assumption, with conviction, borne of the critically- and logically-tempered utilization of experience.
Jesus was a Jew.....I am correct in saying that, right? Now there are many Christians.....(and I will use it again) many, many Christians that find Jews to be the "downfall of America".
The part that turns me off the most is that I am looked down upon by most Christians because I don't go to church. And I don't go because I feel it's not necessary to be in a church to find God. Wasn't that part of Jesus's teachings? God is everywhere, you just have to be willing to accept his divine presence. This is why people hate organized religion. It shouldn't cost money to have faith. You shouldn't have to dress up and drive to a material building and have someone tell you what to think and perceive. Those are all material.....and not part of what christianity is truely based upon.
Or am I just wrong?!?
Yeah, you are a bit off the mark. Christianity is all about the New Covenant. A Covenant is a "contractual" relationship between God and man. Although one might pray to God and interact with him in one's daily life, there was established in the 1st century a more formal method of interaction in addition to this "unofficial" interactivity -- the New Covenant.
Under the New Covenant:
~ God's primary favor is no longer ethnically exclusive.
~ The gates of heaven are opened up wide, and salvation from death is put on the table.
~ The old law is no longer effective, in favor of the "law written on men's hearts." A man is now responsible for his own public social law and private spiritual "law."
~ Overt methods for the transmission of Grace are established: the Sacraments (Baptism, the Eucharist, etc.).
~ The Church is instituted to evangelize and act as temporal authority for the spread and maintenance of true revelation and the administration of the Sacraments.
This is Christianity: inclusivity, salvation, a new legal paradigm, the Sacraments, and the Church.
So can we agree that Faith, "Reasonable" or otherwise, is still an Assumption at heart?
That is, even though one has subjectively valued whatever religious experience they believe to have happened, they still assume that it is proof of a god? That in their proof of a god there becomes a point where there is no evidence, and thus they must resort to irrational belief?
Oh totally. Since "rational" makes a reference, we run into an infinite reference problem with rationality. Observe:
Start with a "lowest layer" decision and go to * for it.
*) This decision L is rational if it appeals to a principle or methodology; if it appeals to a principle or methodology, the decision to do so is itself a decision to be deemed rational or irrational. Go to * for it, inherit and return its result for decision L. Otherwise, return that L is irrational.
The only exit is some ultimate point of irrationality -- some point at which one says, "This decision may be irrational, but it is fundamental to how I seem to work, and denying it in practice has no critically-apparent benefit." This is why irrationality isn't intrinsically bad; it's unavoidable. It's just bad when rationality is abandoned too quickly, at those "lower layers" of decisionmaking.
One cannot Prove or disaprove Gods exsistance it's like asking what was there before the big bang O_o.
With a parametric god, you can practically prove or disprove him to yourself.
For instance, a god who has the parameter "does not allow me to exist in any sense" is tautologically nonexistent, since I exist in some sense. This is immutable, absolute "proof" of nonexistence although "proof" is a weird word to use when dealing with tautology.
A god who has the parameter "constantly bombards every point on Earth with visible blue laserbeams" is observably nonexistent, since I don't see those laserbeams. This is strong, practical proof of nonexistence.
It's only impossible to prove negatives with regard to nonparametric claims. Parametric claims can often be proven negative.
Whats with all this evidence of gods exsistense anyways? Illuminati?
Some theists/deists argue "proofs for a god," attempts at demonstrating a god's existence logically (like "the argument from causality" or "the ontological argument"). I think very few of them, if any, have real philosophical merit.
If faith is "The practical subscription to the validity of a claim when the validity is not practically knowable, with conviction", do you then mean that you do not have knowledge of your belief (not necessarily empirical, but simply rational acceptance)?
Furthermore, is rational doubt and consent even necessary in the process? If you agree that there is a point at which reason must be abandoned (not in the whole spectrum of your religious life, only at the crux) then are you able to submit to this passive pragmatism, where you can say it is "fundamental to how I seem to work", and that there is no practical reason to deny it? That line of reasoning is a perfectly good one, and is in effect what I think most people subscribe to (though not specifically aware of it), but I don't see how that could lead to "conviction, borne of the critically- and logically-tempered utilization of experience".
Forgive me if It seems that I reworded my "argument"; but whenever I think about this, I can't keep track of all the loops and layers. But ultimately it must come to a point, and that point is something I have been grasping at for years.
@Stan, about the soul: I've posted this before (and I have to give Einsteinmonkey credit for giving me the link), but if you have the time, I'd like your thoughts about this essay and its implications for the belief in a soul.
I had an early problem with the article when it said this:
"If my soul is the part of me that thinks of itself as 'I', that makes me the person I am, and that bears responsibility for my actions during life, then it must be responsible for three things: identity, personality, and behavior."
There's a subtle non-sequitur there. Replace "must be responsible for" with "must encapsulate."
I believe the soul is the encapsulation of all relevant qualitative identity. It is a fuzzy abstraction that is highly value-dependent (in other words, it's a "soul" that even a materialistic functionalist can believe in).
What I was talking about earlier was the spirit, which like the mind/body, I consider a mesaplanar component of the soul. I am a methodological materialist, by the way, just as I am a methodological naturalist. I do not consider the spirit a demonstrable solution to any functional mystery of determination, which is why I can't confidently say what it does.
I've been leaning toward calling it a conduit of divine interactivity, only because this meshes well with the Word.
If faith is "The practical subscription to the validity of a claim when the validity is not practically knowable, with conviction", do you then mean that you do not have knowledge of your belief (not necessarily empirical, but simply rational acceptance)?
I may have been ambiguous. When I said "not practically knowable," I meant "not knowable in practicality (a.k.a., would require transcendence)," rather than "not knowable in the subdued, practical sense of 'knowledge.'" Something known in that subdued, practical sense of knowledge would be considered held by faith, since that knowledge isn't transcendently ideal.
Let's start our further discussion at that point -- this miscommunication on my part may have led you down a road I didn't intend.
True believers are incapable of reasoning clearly. Because they have surrendered their soul (conscience/reason) to God. They no longuer think by themselves, they simply follow a guide. So "someone else" decides, acts and thinks for them. So in a way, they are possessed, blinded, inconscient, dependent and trapped inside their bubble prison of faith.
They are weak minded, close minded and unable to doubt their guide. Thus incapable of pure, simple, locigal and rational reflexion.
Wow, way to give the believers here an opportunity to prove how much more civil they are than you.
I had an early problem with the article when it said this:
"If my soul is the part of me that thinks of itself as 'I', that makes me the person I am, and that bears responsibility for my actions during life, then it must be responsible for three things: identity, personality, and behavior."
There's a subtle non-sequitur there. Replace "must be responsible for" with "must encapsulate."
I believe the soul is the encapsulation of all relevant qualitative identity. It is a fuzzy abstraction that is highly value-dependent (in other words, it's a "soul" that even a materialistic functionalist can believe in).
What I was talking about earlier was the spirit, which like the mind/body, I consider a mesaplanar component of the soul. I am a methodological materialist, by the way, just as I am a methodological naturalist. I do not consider the spirit a demonstrable solution to any functional mystery of determination, which is why I can't confidently say what it does.
I've been leaning toward calling it a conduit of divine interactivity, only because this meshes well with the Word.
I don't know about Mad Mat, but I don't see what you mean.
True believers are incapable of reasoning clearly. Because they have surrendered their soul (conscience/reason) to God. They no longuer think by themselves, they simply follow a guide. So "someone else" decides, acts and thinks for them. So in a way, they are possessed, blinded, inconscient, dependent and trapped inside their bubble prison of faith.
They are weak minded, close minded and unable to doubt their guide. Thus incapable of pure, simple, locigal and rational reflexion.
What are you, VerzenChaos 2.0?
And how much have you decided all things for yourself? Have you not followed the guidance of your education, of parents and peers, of writers and thinkers? Isn't your psyche "imprisoned" by the confines of this present society, held back from truths that our cultural paradigms refuse to countenance? And isn't the "sheep" mentality evident among militant atheists and political ideologues as well as religious zealots? Moreover, and in regards merely to these forums, through what twisted lens do you see extremestan and Furor and myself (all "true believers," I assure you) as incapable of reason?
I don't know about Mad Mat, but I don't see what you mean.
The article spoke of the soul, the thing miraculously preserved after death, as the same thing that prompts "identity, personality, and behavior." As in, the soul is something apart from I/P/B, and I/P/B proceeds from it.
That's a semantic lynchpin for me, though, since I consider the soul an encapsulation of I/P/B, rather than a thing that causes I/P/B. A materialistic functionalist can recognize I/P/B as functional expressions of material things, call the encapsulation of I/P/B "the soul," and thus recognize the soul right away.
Then the soul is, just like I/P/B an everchanging entity. Then the question will arise: which soul ends up in heaven or hell? Which soul will be judged?
I don't think examples are needed: the article provides more than enough of them.
The soul is perpetually changing in numerical identity, but there is generally a qualitative identity -- a "functionalistic" identity -- a soul that enjoys identifying value-imputation from society, God and, recursively, itself, that persists.
Regardless, think of a difficult situation that involves a functional soul change -- as the transcendent onlooker, isn't there often an easy answer about which soul should be judged? If a man suffers a brain injury that turns him into "someone else," with a violent and hedonistic demeanor, wouldn't we say that the man's soul pre-injury should be miraculously preserved and judged? Is there any reason to say that isn't the case under Christianity?
Sure. Functional free will and functional welfare are both good for man. Oppression damages free will, and suffering damages welfare. Under a paradigm in which freedom is abused, creating a circumstantial rifts between perfect (under nature) freedom and welfare, there are three course of action: Complete oppression to prevent all suffering, complete neglect to prevent all oppression, or a "best mix" of the oppression and neglect to maximally mitigate both oppression and suffering.
(When I say oppression and neglect, I refer to proximal oppression and proximal neglect -- under sovereignty, we are transcendently oppressed and there is no transcendent neglect.)
Ok, I had assumed as much, but Leviticus is always the quote that is brought up by Christians. However, I thought you said all levetical law was abolished?
Its words are no longer in literal effect, but that doesn't mean all of what was "not allowed" is now "allowed."
For instance, we no longer adhere to the Sabbath, but we are still required to love God and neighbor!
Re-reading what I wrote it was unclear. What I meant to get at with this point is this: If we believe that is it "more - good" to intervene with free will for some acts, why would it not be "more-good" for God to intervene somehow for more acts. AKA: Wouldn't it be maximally-good to have given Hitler or Stalin a heart attack?
Sometimes it is. In some cases it's better for mankind in general and individuals in particular to intervene -- in other cases, it's better for mankind in general and individuals in particular not to intervene. The causal threads between every event and every consequence create an unfathomably complex system that God alone would be capable of parsing and guiding when appropriate. Stalin's actions, though evil and terrible, would be part of this system. Just as a warrior becomes skilled by tempering himself on the battlefield, future mankind could be said to benefit from 20th century horrors in many ways -- we are now more skeptical of personality cults, we now look skeptically upon certain social philosophies put into practice, etc. Had these things not happened, could it have been much worse? Would mankind even still exist if the 20th century had gone differently?
In God's symphony, the antecedent minor movements increase the potency of the major finish.
I'm not sure this is an effective rebuttal, despite suffering being relative, insults HURT less then torture. We can see absolute not relative amount of suffering from certain actions. Death is also hardly relative, dead is dead.
Absolute states without regard to relative value imputation have no meaning by definition, unfortunately.
If no one cares when someone dies, what sort social utility loss is death? Isn't there a subtle redundancy in that question that makes it answer itself?
It looks like the way you justify natural disasters is that God knows that they provide a positive net utility? In essence he has a plan that will make these natural sufferings and disasters a good thing in the end?
I want to know if this is correct before I move on, as I see *many* problems with this justification.
Yes, that's the long and short of it. Natural disasters will be ultimately good for mankind, though they may be immediately tragic.
Sure. Functional free will and functional welfare are both good for man. Oppression damages free will, and suffering damages welfare. Under a paradigm in which freedom is abused, creating a circumstantial rifts between perfect (under nature) freedom and welfare, there are three course of action: Complete oppression to prevent all suffering, complete neglect to prevent all oppression, or a "best mix" of the oppression and neglect to maximally mitigate both oppression and suffering.
(When I say oppression and neglect, I refer to proximal oppression and proximal neglect -- under sovereignty, we are transcendently oppressed and there is no transcendent neglect.)
I still don't see why revelation would entail so much oppression. Even Doubting Thomas was not oppressed. Why was he given convincing evidence to him and not I?
As far as I can tell, your answer makes a presumption (in this case that God is acting optimally), like many of your answers do. That's fine, but you must have some whopping personal evidence to keep supporting stronger and stronger propositions. I don't have that; at least, I don't think I do, and I can't say I haven't considered it in good faith. And I bet somebody died after having made the same consideration and coming to the same conclusion. Is atheism in God's plan? If I am an atheist and I die, what happens? Or do you think nobody has ever really died a well-intentioned atheist?
As far as I can tell, your answer makes a presumption (in this case that God is acting optimally), like many of your answers do. That's fine, but you must have some whopping personal evidence to keep supporting stronger and stronger propositions.
My solution isn't a positive claim, it is a reconciliatory theory.
I don't have that; at least, I don't think I do, and I can't say I haven't considered it in good faith. And I bet somebody died after having made the same consideration and coming to the same conclusion. Is atheism in God's plan? If I am an atheist and I die, what happens? Or do you think nobody has ever really died a well-intentioned atheist?
~ Atheism part of God's plan tautologically, but it does not proceed from his proximal desires.
~ If you are an atheist and die, you either go to heaven or you don't.
~ I think many people have died well-intentioned atheists. There may be many (ex-)atheists in heaven right now.
The soul is perpetually changing in numerical identity, but there is generally a qualitative identity -- a "functionalistic" identity -- a soul that enjoys identifying value-imputation from society, God and, recursively, itself, that persists.
~ If you are an atheist and die, you either go to heaven or you don't.
Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but it's a somewhat interesting little trick of logic that this statement is consistent with 'If you are an atheist and die, you don't go to heaven'. A potential way to sugarcoat conclusions that you know others will find distasteful in reasonable-sounding tautologies: 'If you go out looking like that, you might get laid or you might not'; 'If you shoot yourself in the head, you might die or you might not'. Heh.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but it's a somewhat interesting little trick of logic that this statement is consistent with 'If you are an atheist and die, you don't go to heaven'. A potential way to sugarcoat conclusions that you know others will find distasteful in reasonable-sounding tautologies: 'If you go out looking like that, you might get laid or you might not'; 'If you shoot yourself in the head, you might die or you might not'. Heh.
I'm not really sure what he was asking if not, "is there a strict correlation between being theistic and going to heaven"...
Okay, Stan, I think that it's high time I threw a question out there. Be forewarned, this is highly technical; I'll try and explain myself as best I can, but if you still don't feel in a position to answer, that's cool.
My question specifically regards what is currently called the Gospel of Good Works, but has also been known as the Gospel of Nature. To wit, it is the specifically Catholic religious philosophy that, since God is present in all things, that all things are inherently of God; as such, salvation would not be denied to those that deserved it for reasons beyond their control. It was a philosophy that came about as a tautological resolution for the eternal fate of Plato, Homer, and other ancient philosophers and literary figures that the Church used frequently in its own philosophical and spirituality. In short, using these philosophies begged the question of "how can the Church of the one true God rely on the philosophies and writings of fallen heathen?" The scriptural solution was to resolve that they had, in fact, lived as God willed, and that as such no just God would deny them salvation on account of not being Christian (as there was no possible way that they could have been).
This had some logical repercussions for Christian philosophy. Firstly, it begged the question of what else in the world was of God; in short, if these ancient philosophers could attain salvation for following God's plan and not knowing it, who else could? What was the point of subscribing to the Church itself? These were subsequent questions that the Church wrestled with, and it is the very foundation for the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (and his Divine Framework, which he made in part to address this question more thoroughly). Further, it made the possibility of the Church splitting (as it eventually did) one that did not inherently involve one side or the other being damned to Hell.
Over time, the concept of the Gospel of Nature evolved somewhat; many Protestant religions fairly protested it, saying that there was no real Scriptural evidence to support such philosophy (See Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God for an example of this). However, the Gospel of Good Works became a part of Catholic dogma, and also helped to address, for the Church, all of the myriad Protestant religions in the world. In short, the modern-day essence of the Gospel of Good Works is as such: God, being benevolent and omniscient, understands our inability to comprehend His plans and desires, and further understands the difficulties that our limited minds have in the understanding of His words and actions. As such, salvation, perhaps with caveats, will not be denied to those who act in the spirit of God's will (as Stan would say, they follow the path of God, but not the optimal path of God). Popes have spoken on the subject repeatedly (JP2, in particular, in his statement on the Fundamental Equivalency of Religion).
My question is as follows, Stan: Given the history of the Gospel of Good Works and the silence of the Bible on the concept, I'm just curious as to how you resolve the (seemingly clear to me) contradiction that is inherent in this concept, given Jesus' statement, "None shall come to God but through me."
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
My question is as follows, Stan: Given the history of the Gospel of Good Works and the silence of the Bible on the concept, I'm just curious as to how you resolve the (seemingly clear to me) contradiction that is inherent in this concept, given Jesus' statement, "None shall come to God but through me."
Sure! The solution to acknowledge the mystery of Grace in recognizing a Gospel of Grace rather than a Gospel of Faith or a Gospel of Charity. Just as deeds to not sufficiently merit salvation, neither does faith merit it, but salvation instead is merited by Grace. Jesus's statement is not about faith but about his exclusive catalystic role in the transmission of Grace, a role he occupied from the beginning.
Though mysterious, we know a few things about Grace:
~ We can accept it or reject it.
~ It comes from God.
~ It is a blessing.
~ We can accept it in a mysterious, perpetual way, as well as through prescribed Sacraments.
~ It manifests itself visibly as intellectual conviction, good works and a virtuous constitution; laziness and complacency, misguided skepticism, hedonism, malice, objectification, arrogance, and grave viciousness would indicate a rejection of Grace.
The economy of Grace is transcendent, so while it's good to know about it, we can't "see it" except indirectly through proximal conduits (signs and Sacraments).
The fact of its transcendence is why "absolute assurance" is heterodox.
All of the Apostles' lives and desires were significantly altered by Jesus.
And evidently they are not considered to be coerced.
I don't know why, but there are countless possible reasons, as many as every atom in the universe in every moment in history.
Doesn't really help me if I'm screwing up massively for what seems to be no fault of my own. Why would God not reveal himself to any person? You say excessive overt teaching is coercive because it can modify desires (I assume to a large enough degree that we may consider it coercion). Presuming this, there is still some level of revelation which is higher than almost nothing which is fine. But I'm guessing you would claim that God knows the best level of revelation for each individual and carries it out?
My solution isn't a positive claim, it is a reconciliatory theory.
You make claims that, if taken singly, would be rejected, like the idea of a soul. All of these fantastical claims are implications of your belief in Christianity and consequently are supported by your personal experiences. Even if the claims are not contradictory, each additional implication makes Christianity less likely, ceteris paribus.
~ Atheism part of God's plan tautologically, but it does not proceed from his proximal desires.
~ If you are an atheist and die, you either go to heaven or you don't.
~ I think many people have died well-intentioned atheists. There may be many (ex-)atheists in heaven right now.
Catholic teaching doesn't say anything more about this?
I'm not really sure what he was asking if not, "is there a strict correlation between being theistic and going to heaven"...
Answer it in any way you think I may have meant it, I guess...?
I went to the Oregon Institute of Technology and got a BS in Software Engineering. I'm currently a video game designer.
While this thread is on interesting questions, do you think there's a link between what your specialization is and what your religious beliefs are? For instance, could your software engineering make you more likely to see order in things? Or could somebody's atheistic beliefs lead them towards psychology?
Its words are no longer in literal effect, but that doesn't mean all of what was "not allowed" is now "allowed."
For instance, we no longer adhere to the Sabbath, but we are still required to love God and neighbor!
That makes sense.
Sometimes it is. In some cases it's better for mankind in general and individuals in particular to intervene -- in other cases, it's better for mankind in general and individuals in particular not to intervene. The causal threads between every event and every consequence create an unfathomably complex system that God alone would be capable of parsing and guiding when appropriate. Stalin's actions, though evil and terrible, would be part of this system. Just as a warrior becomes skilled by tempering himself on the battlefield, future mankind could be said to benefit from 20th century horrors in many ways -- we are now more skeptical of personality cults, we now look skeptically upon certain social philosophies put into practice, etc. Had these things not happened, could it have been much worse? Would mankind even still exist if the 20th century had gone differently?
I would argue that requiring society learn and benefit from the actions of Stalin, Hitler, etc is a pretty ****** way of doing it, and far less then the capabilities of on all-powerful all-knowing being. If I can imagine better ways of teaching society without such large scale suffering, then you would think a GOD could do so as well.
Not to mention this whole paragraph is kinda a cop out. It is essentially saying "Its too complex for us mortals to see".
In God's symphony, the antecedent minor movements increase the potency of the major finish.
Absolute states without regard to relative value imputation have no meaning by definition, unfortunately.
If no one cares when someone dies, what sort social utility loss is death? Isn't there a subtle redundancy in that question that makes it answer itself?
I think you missed the intent of my argument, we can have death. We can have pain. But we can be limited in how much pain and death we can inflict and we would still have free will.
Yes, that's the long and short of it. Natural disasters will be ultimately good for mankind, though they may be immediately tragic.
This is VERY problematic!!!
This statement says that the ends justify the means.
Already problematic in and of itself, an all-powerful God should never have to follow such logic. What do we gain from natural disasters? And could not God go about those same gains in MUCH better ways.
That just dues ex machinas away natural disasters as somehow being beneficial (yet in a way that we cannot see), despite the seeming reality of the situation.
That logic justifies the large tsunami that killed over 230,000 people! How can such a large tragedy be seen as beneficial and part of God's plan?
If I may brutally ask. Stan and Pandaman, what is/was your education?
Have you visited a christian school? Do you study nature sciences?
My formal education ended in 2001 when I graduated magna *** laude from Carroll College (a private, secular university) with a BA in English and a de facto minor in philosophy (I took several philosophy electives and founded a philosophy club on campus). For the last decade of my life I have read almost nothing besides books on religion, philosophy and/or science. Two of my more recent textual conquests include, The Edges of Science: Where Physics Meets Metaphysics and, Where God Lives: The Science of the Paranormal and How Our Brains Are Linked to the Universe (a book focusing on phenomena associated with the right temporal lobe).
I've never been to a Christian school, unless my childhood Sunday School classes count.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Jesus was a Jew.....I am correct in saying that, right? Now there are many Christians.....(and I will use it again) many, many Christians that find Jews to be the "downfall of America". These are the same people that are crying morality over what is shown on television, played on the radio and what is appropriate in social situations. But they seem to have misplaced the fact that these were Jesus's beginnings.
Why do these ignorant pushers of morality have so much power? Why do they hate Jews? Is it because it's the cool hip-hop way of life?
Sorry, that last question was a bit sarcastic.
I guess my problem is, why should I have to "Dress Up" to go to church? The part that turns me off the most is that I am looked down upon by most Christians because I don't go to church. And I don't go because I feel it's not necessary to be in a church to find God. Wasn't that part of Jesus's teachings? God is everywhere, you just have to be willing to accept his divine presence. This is why people hate organized religion. It shouldn't cost money to have faith. You shouldn't have to dress up and drive to a material building and have someone tell you what to think and perceive. Those are all material.....and not part of what christianity is truely based upon.
Or am I just wrong?!?
Where are you getting this assumption from? I wholeheartedly disagree with the truth of this statement (at least without some major qualifiers on your definitions). Without it the rest of your argument/question falls apart.
Here's the nomenclature I use:
Belief - The intellectual subscription to the validity of a claim.
Assumption - The practical subscription to the validity of a claim when the validity is not practically knowable.
Faith - Assumption with conviction.
Reason - The critically- and logically-tempered utilization of experience.
Reasonable faith - Assumption, with conviction, borne of the critically- and logically-tempered utilization of experience.
Because they are morons.
Yeah, you are a bit off the mark. Christianity is all about the New Covenant. A Covenant is a "contractual" relationship between God and man. Although one might pray to God and interact with him in one's daily life, there was established in the 1st century a more formal method of interaction in addition to this "unofficial" interactivity -- the New Covenant.
Under the New Covenant:
~ God's primary favor is no longer ethnically exclusive.
~ The gates of heaven are opened up wide, and salvation from death is put on the table.
~ The old law is no longer effective, in favor of the "law written on men's hearts." A man is now responsible for his own public social law and private spiritual "law."
~ Overt methods for the transmission of Grace are established: the Sacraments (Baptism, the Eucharist, etc.).
~ The Church is instituted to evangelize and act as temporal authority for the spread and maintenance of true revelation and the administration of the Sacraments.
This is Christianity: inclusivity, salvation, a new legal paradigm, the Sacraments, and the Church.
Oh totally. Since "rational" makes a reference, we run into an infinite reference problem with rationality. Observe:
Start with a "lowest layer" decision and go to * for it.
*) This decision L is rational if it appeals to a principle or methodology; if it appeals to a principle or methodology, the decision to do so is itself a decision to be deemed rational or irrational. Go to * for it, inherit and return its result for decision L. Otherwise, return that L is irrational.
The only exit is some ultimate point of irrationality -- some point at which one says, "This decision may be irrational, but it is fundamental to how I seem to work, and denying it in practice has no critically-apparent benefit." This is why irrationality isn't intrinsically bad; it's unavoidable. It's just bad when rationality is abandoned too quickly, at those "lower layers" of decisionmaking.
With a parametric god, you can practically prove or disprove him to yourself.
For instance, a god who has the parameter "does not allow me to exist in any sense" is tautologically nonexistent, since I exist in some sense. This is immutable, absolute "proof" of nonexistence although "proof" is a weird word to use when dealing with tautology.
A god who has the parameter "constantly bombards every point on Earth with visible blue laserbeams" is observably nonexistent, since I don't see those laserbeams. This is strong, practical proof of nonexistence.
It's only impossible to prove negatives with regard to nonparametric claims. Parametric claims can often be proven negative.
Some theists/deists argue "proofs for a god," attempts at demonstrating a god's existence logically (like "the argument from causality" or "the ontological argument"). I think very few of them, if any, have real philosophical merit.
Furthermore, is rational doubt and consent even necessary in the process? If you agree that there is a point at which reason must be abandoned (not in the whole spectrum of your religious life, only at the crux) then are you able to submit to this passive pragmatism, where you can say it is "fundamental to how I seem to work", and that there is no practical reason to deny it? That line of reasoning is a perfectly good one, and is in effect what I think most people subscribe to (though not specifically aware of it), but I don't see how that could lead to "conviction, borne of the critically- and logically-tempered utilization of experience".
Forgive me if It seems that I reworded my "argument"; but whenever I think about this, I can't keep track of all the loops and layers. But ultimately it must come to a point, and that point is something I have been grasping at for years.
I had an early problem with the article when it said this:
"If my soul is the part of me that thinks of itself as 'I', that makes me the person I am, and that bears responsibility for my actions during life, then it must be responsible for three things: identity, personality, and behavior."
There's a subtle non-sequitur there. Replace "must be responsible for" with "must encapsulate."
I believe the soul is the encapsulation of all relevant qualitative identity. It is a fuzzy abstraction that is highly value-dependent (in other words, it's a "soul" that even a materialistic functionalist can believe in).
What I was talking about earlier was the spirit, which like the mind/body, I consider a mesaplanar component of the soul. I am a methodological materialist, by the way, just as I am a methodological naturalist. I do not consider the spirit a demonstrable solution to any functional mystery of determination, which is why I can't confidently say what it does.
I've been leaning toward calling it a conduit of divine interactivity, only because this meshes well with the Word.
I may have been ambiguous. When I said "not practically knowable," I meant "not knowable in practicality (a.k.a., would require transcendence)," rather than "not knowable in the subdued, practical sense of 'knowledge.'" Something known in that subdued, practical sense of knowledge would be considered held by faith, since that knowledge isn't transcendently ideal.
Let's start our further discussion at that point -- this miscommunication on my part may have led you down a road I didn't intend.
They are weak minded, close minded and unable to doubt their guide. Thus incapable of pure, simple, locigal and rational reflexion.
Wow, way to give the believers here an opportunity to prove how much more civil they are than you.
I don't know about Mad Mat, but I don't see what you mean.
What are you, VerzenChaos 2.0?
And how much have you decided all things for yourself? Have you not followed the guidance of your education, of parents and peers, of writers and thinkers? Isn't your psyche "imprisoned" by the confines of this present society, held back from truths that our cultural paradigms refuse to countenance? And isn't the "sheep" mentality evident among militant atheists and political ideologues as well as religious zealots? Moreover, and in regards merely to these forums, through what twisted lens do you see extremestan and Furor and myself (all "true believers," I assure you) as incapable of reason?
EDIT: And you're... suspended. Nevermind, then.
The article spoke of the soul, the thing miraculously preserved after death, as the same thing that prompts "identity, personality, and behavior." As in, the soul is something apart from I/P/B, and I/P/B proceeds from it.
That's a semantic lynchpin for me, though, since I consider the soul an encapsulation of I/P/B, rather than a thing that causes I/P/B. A materialistic functionalist can recognize I/P/B as functional expressions of material things, call the encapsulation of I/P/B "the soul," and thus recognize the soul right away.
The soul is perpetually changing in numerical identity, but there is generally a qualitative identity -- a "functionalistic" identity -- a soul that enjoys identifying value-imputation from society, God and, recursively, itself, that persists.
Regardless, think of a difficult situation that involves a functional soul change -- as the transcendent onlooker, isn't there often an easy answer about which soul should be judged? If a man suffers a brain injury that turns him into "someone else," with a violent and hedonistic demeanor, wouldn't we say that the man's soul pre-injury should be miraculously preserved and judged? Is there any reason to say that isn't the case under Christianity?
Sure. Functional free will and functional welfare are both good for man. Oppression damages free will, and suffering damages welfare. Under a paradigm in which freedom is abused, creating a circumstantial rifts between perfect (under nature) freedom and welfare, there are three course of action: Complete oppression to prevent all suffering, complete neglect to prevent all oppression, or a "best mix" of the oppression and neglect to maximally mitigate both oppression and suffering.
(When I say oppression and neglect, I refer to proximal oppression and proximal neglect -- under sovereignty, we are transcendently oppressed and there is no transcendent neglect.)
Its words are no longer in literal effect, but that doesn't mean all of what was "not allowed" is now "allowed."
For instance, we no longer adhere to the Sabbath, but we are still required to love God and neighbor!
Sometimes it is. In some cases it's better for mankind in general and individuals in particular to intervene -- in other cases, it's better for mankind in general and individuals in particular not to intervene. The causal threads between every event and every consequence create an unfathomably complex system that God alone would be capable of parsing and guiding when appropriate. Stalin's actions, though evil and terrible, would be part of this system. Just as a warrior becomes skilled by tempering himself on the battlefield, future mankind could be said to benefit from 20th century horrors in many ways -- we are now more skeptical of personality cults, we now look skeptically upon certain social philosophies put into practice, etc. Had these things not happened, could it have been much worse? Would mankind even still exist if the 20th century had gone differently?
In God's symphony, the antecedent minor movements increase the potency of the major finish.
Absolute states without regard to relative value imputation have no meaning by definition, unfortunately.
If no one cares when someone dies, what sort social utility loss is death? Isn't there a subtle redundancy in that question that makes it answer itself?
Yes, that's the long and short of it. Natural disasters will be ultimately good for mankind, though they may be immediately tragic.
I still don't see why revelation would entail so much oppression. Even Doubting Thomas was not oppressed. Why was he given convincing evidence to him and not I?
As far as I can tell, your answer makes a presumption (in this case that God is acting optimally), like many of your answers do. That's fine, but you must have some whopping personal evidence to keep supporting stronger and stronger propositions. I don't have that; at least, I don't think I do, and I can't say I haven't considered it in good faith. And I bet somebody died after having made the same consideration and coming to the same conclusion. Is atheism in God's plan? If I am an atheist and I die, what happens? Or do you think nobody has ever really died a well-intentioned atheist?
All of the Apostles' lives and desires were significantly altered by Jesus.
I don't know why, but there are countless possible reasons, as many as every atom in the universe in every moment in history.
My solution isn't a positive claim, it is a reconciliatory theory.
~ Atheism part of God's plan tautologically, but it does not proceed from his proximal desires.
~ If you are an atheist and die, you either go to heaven or you don't.
~ I think many people have died well-intentioned atheists. There may be many (ex-)atheists in heaven right now.
The soul is changing in numerical identity?
Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but it's a somewhat interesting little trick of logic that this statement is consistent with 'If you are an atheist and die, you don't go to heaven'. A potential way to sugarcoat conclusions that you know others will find distasteful in reasonable-sounding tautologies: 'If you go out looking like that, you might get laid or you might not'; 'If you shoot yourself in the head, you might die or you might not'. Heh.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes.
I'm not really sure what he was asking if not, "is there a strict correlation between being theistic and going to heaven"...
My question specifically regards what is currently called the Gospel of Good Works, but has also been known as the Gospel of Nature. To wit, it is the specifically Catholic religious philosophy that, since God is present in all things, that all things are inherently of God; as such, salvation would not be denied to those that deserved it for reasons beyond their control. It was a philosophy that came about as a tautological resolution for the eternal fate of Plato, Homer, and other ancient philosophers and literary figures that the Church used frequently in its own philosophical and spirituality. In short, using these philosophies begged the question of "how can the Church of the one true God rely on the philosophies and writings of fallen heathen?" The scriptural solution was to resolve that they had, in fact, lived as God willed, and that as such no just God would deny them salvation on account of not being Christian (as there was no possible way that they could have been).
This had some logical repercussions for Christian philosophy. Firstly, it begged the question of what else in the world was of God; in short, if these ancient philosophers could attain salvation for following God's plan and not knowing it, who else could? What was the point of subscribing to the Church itself? These were subsequent questions that the Church wrestled with, and it is the very foundation for the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (and his Divine Framework, which he made in part to address this question more thoroughly). Further, it made the possibility of the Church splitting (as it eventually did) one that did not inherently involve one side or the other being damned to Hell.
Over time, the concept of the Gospel of Nature evolved somewhat; many Protestant religions fairly protested it, saying that there was no real Scriptural evidence to support such philosophy (See Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God for an example of this). However, the Gospel of Good Works became a part of Catholic dogma, and also helped to address, for the Church, all of the myriad Protestant religions in the world. In short, the modern-day essence of the Gospel of Good Works is as such: God, being benevolent and omniscient, understands our inability to comprehend His plans and desires, and further understands the difficulties that our limited minds have in the understanding of His words and actions. As such, salvation, perhaps with caveats, will not be denied to those who act in the spirit of God's will (as Stan would say, they follow the path of God, but not the optimal path of God). Popes have spoken on the subject repeatedly (JP2, in particular, in his statement on the Fundamental Equivalency of Religion).
My question is as follows, Stan: Given the history of the Gospel of Good Works and the silence of the Bible on the concept, I'm just curious as to how you resolve the (seemingly clear to me) contradiction that is inherent in this concept, given Jesus' statement, "None shall come to God but through me."
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Have you visited a christian school? Do you study nature sciences?
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
Sure! The solution to acknowledge the mystery of Grace in recognizing a Gospel of Grace rather than a Gospel of Faith or a Gospel of Charity. Just as deeds to not sufficiently merit salvation, neither does faith merit it, but salvation instead is merited by Grace. Jesus's statement is not about faith but about his exclusive catalystic role in the transmission of Grace, a role he occupied from the beginning.
Though mysterious, we know a few things about Grace:
~ We can accept it or reject it.
~ It comes from God.
~ It is a blessing.
~ We can accept it in a mysterious, perpetual way, as well as through prescribed Sacraments.
~ It manifests itself visibly as intellectual conviction, good works and a virtuous constitution; laziness and complacency, misguided skepticism, hedonism, malice, objectification, arrogance, and grave viciousness would indicate a rejection of Grace.
The economy of Grace is transcendent, so while it's good to know about it, we can't "see it" except indirectly through proximal conduits (signs and Sacraments).
The fact of its transcendence is why "absolute assurance" is heterodox.
I grew up in public school under mostly advanced coursework. In high school I focused on biology and geology as my science electives.
I went to the Oregon Institute of Technology and got a BS in Software Engineering. I'm currently a video game designer.
Beginning in high school, through college, and up until now I've studied philosophy, interdenominational apologetics, and science as hobbies.
I have not attended a Christian school. In fact, I don't think I've ever been in one aside from at sporting events or fairs.
It should not be taught in any science course. Philosophy, maybe.
And evidently they are not considered to be coerced.
Doesn't really help me if I'm screwing up massively for what seems to be no fault of my own. Why would God not reveal himself to any person? You say excessive overt teaching is coercive because it can modify desires (I assume to a large enough degree that we may consider it coercion). Presuming this, there is still some level of revelation which is higher than almost nothing which is fine. But I'm guessing you would claim that God knows the best level of revelation for each individual and carries it out?
You make claims that, if taken singly, would be rejected, like the idea of a soul. All of these fantastical claims are implications of your belief in Christianity and consequently are supported by your personal experiences. Even if the claims are not contradictory, each additional implication makes Christianity less likely, ceteris paribus.
Catholic teaching doesn't say anything more about this?
Answer it in any way you think I may have meant it, I guess...?
While this thread is on interesting questions, do you think there's a link between what your specialization is and what your religious beliefs are? For instance, could your software engineering make you more likely to see order in things? Or could somebody's atheistic beliefs lead them towards psychology?
I do not have the same soul now that I did a minute ago? What happened to the old one?
...which, if one is inclined to be a pedantic ass (which I am), you did not actually answer.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That makes sense.
I would argue that requiring society learn and benefit from the actions of Stalin, Hitler, etc is a pretty ****** way of doing it, and far less then the capabilities of on all-powerful all-knowing being. If I can imagine better ways of teaching society without such large scale suffering, then you would think a GOD could do so as well.
Not to mention this whole paragraph is kinda a cop out. It is essentially saying "Its too complex for us mortals to see".
I think you missed the intent of my argument, we can have death. We can have pain. But we can be limited in how much pain and death we can inflict and we would still have free will.
This is VERY problematic!!!
This statement says that the ends justify the means.
Already problematic in and of itself, an all-powerful God should never have to follow such logic. What do we gain from natural disasters? And could not God go about those same gains in MUCH better ways.
That just dues ex machinas away natural disasters as somehow being beneficial (yet in a way that we cannot see), despite the seeming reality of the situation.
That logic justifies the large tsunami that killed over 230,000 people! How can such a large tragedy be seen as beneficial and part of God's plan?
- Enslaught
My formal education ended in 2001 when I graduated magna *** laude from Carroll College (a private, secular university) with a BA in English and a de facto minor in philosophy (I took several philosophy electives and founded a philosophy club on campus). For the last decade of my life I have read almost nothing besides books on religion, philosophy and/or science. Two of my more recent textual conquests include, The Edges of Science: Where Physics Meets Metaphysics and, Where God Lives: The Science of the Paranormal and How Our Brains Are Linked to the Universe (a book focusing on phenomena associated with the right temporal lobe).
I've never been to a Christian school, unless my childhood Sunday School classes count.