or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Letting Go of God"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Letting Go of God" - Page 7

post #241 of 326
If Christianity had been introduced today, we would have all screamed bullshit.
post #242 of 326
How can you believe in the miracle or claim St. Bernadette's condition is truly as good as it is said to be unless there is rigorous scientific inquiry into the matter?

You're falling for the appearances.

You're as bad as the Lenin worshippers. Look past the wax and makeup and clothing and special containment.

Why would an internally rotted but externally preserved corpse point to the person's holiness if the external beauty is supposed to be the domain of Satan?

For all we know she's an illusion of Satan's designed to make people worship a false church/sect?

These are the same myopes that allege they "heard" Terri Schiavo "say" "I want..." and tried to claim she was trying to say "I want to live."

What makes us so sure she wasn't saying "I want to die."?

This is all Lilliputian in it's pathetic clinging to arbitrary, illusory, divisive, meaningless details.

The glass is neither empty nor full of water. Get over arguing over bullshit myths and fairytales and start seeing the world around you for what it is - conditioned impermanent phenomena - none of it worth hating or killing over.

The living human body is constantly dying in part and renewing itself. There are dead cells all over and in you. That the microscopic processes in a given corpse might (allegedly) sometimes work differently is no more odd than one person getting the flu and another not getting it.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #243 of 326
MACchine, FYI, you are unfriggingintelligible, my friend.

Slow down, quit using all caps and exclaimation points and try to let the quality of your chosen words impart your intended meaning, instead of relying on spamspeak.

I want to read your posts but it all comes out like "Blah blah blah!!! BLAH blah BLAH!!! BLAH blah blah blah?!?!?!?!"
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #244 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
If Christianity had been introduced today, we would have all screamed bullshit.

Basically. I look at Islam as being the most current iteration of this monotheistic 'god' thing, but even islam is really old. Not as old as xianity or judaism, but still plenty old.

So it begs the question, is god going to come down and try again, some new prophet, new book, new rules, new religion. Or, is it all a bunch of hog wash?

This is directly connected to the fact that god has gone from having direct control over our lives to being essentially just a vague cloud over our heads. The more we learn about the world around us, the less we need god.

There is no magic in the world. There never will be, and if I'm wrong, may god strike me down with a magical lightning bolt. hurumph
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #245 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I dunno, maybe if we could get a urine sample?

Heavens above, you don't want that.
post #246 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Heavens above, you don't want that.


SCULLY: We had this wacky nun in Catholic schoolSister Callahanwe used to call her Sister Spooky because she would tell us scary stories all the time.
MULDER: Twisted sister. My kind of nun.
SCULLY: Well she would hold up an old piece of wood with a rusty nail in it, and she would say, "This is an actual piece of the cross that Christ's wrist was nailed to." Or she'd show us a vial of red liquid and say that it was John the Baptist's blood or a liberal conspiracy or something.
MULDER: She'd be in prison today. You realize that.
post #247 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Because if one wants to try and make people believe in over the top miracles to drum up support for their belief system, like a body that doesn't rot for instance, one may go to certain lengths to manufacture that miracle.

At the same time, if no Saint's body ever rotted, there'd be a lot of scientists clamoring to find out why, in which case something less than miraculous would probably be exposed.

There is still no indication of where this knowledge came from...

... from where ALL of you are speeking it just SPANG OUT OF THE EITHER which WOULD ALSO BE A MIRACLE.

I on the other hand have established certain facts of the day that make it differnt from today, and do not support your SPECULATIONS.

SCEPTISM is just another type of SPECULATION. Mac_yoda circa 2002


Give me FACTS or give me your LIBERAL CONSPIRATORIALATIONS otherwise BITE YOUR TOUNG !!!



Upon seeing a body in two pieces.
SCULLY: So, should we arrest David Copperfield?
MULDER: Yes. But not for this.
post #248 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
SAYING SOMETHING THAT IS TRUE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS ABSOLUTE OR IN-TRANSITORY -- and only very weak minds function this way, but alas many mind DO function this way !!!

Two things I am certain of in this world:
Only 'weak minds' yell hysterically about all those other 'weak minded' people

and

Two only a weak mind would write a sentence like the one I quoted above.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #249 of 326
But pfflam, it just SPANG OUT OF THE EITHER.
post #250 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But pfflam, it just SPANG OUT OF THE EITHER.

That made me chuckle, too. God, I love MACchine.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #251 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But pfflam, it just SPANG OUT OF THE EITHER.

hmmm... looks like you're all busy perfecting the Ad Phonicum attack.

Innnnntereesting.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #252 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Two things I am certain of in this world:
Only 'weak minds' yell hysterically about all those other 'weak minded' people

and

Two only a weak mind would write a sentence like the one I quoted above.


Whenever someone complains about my spelling or sentence structure they ALWAYS make worse mistakes IN THEIR COMPLAINT !!!


First he uses a colon to denote a list to follow, NO LIST FOLLOWS, while ALL that he wrote could easily have been a single sentence.

Then he capitalizes the word "Two" midstream in the sentence without even attempting to end the previous fragment with a period.

I DID NOT MAKE GRAMMAR MISTAKES LIKE THAT IN 3RD GRADE !!!

You sir are what is typically called a HYPOCRITE !
post #253 of 326
Oh my God, it's priceless! Priceless, I say!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #254 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
Whenever someone complains about my spelling or sentence structure they ALWAYS make worse mistakes IN THEIR COMPLAINT !!!

First he uses a colon to denote a list to follow, NO LIST FOLLOWS, while ALL that he wrote could easily have been a single sentence.

Then he capitalizes the word "Two" midstream in the sentence without even attempting to end the previous fragment with a period.

I DID NOT MAKE GRAMMAR MISTAKES LIKE THAT IN 3RD GRADE !!!

You sir are what is typically called a HYPOCRITE !

And there's the other shoe dropping - the Ad Phonicum DEFENSE...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #255 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
Whenever someone complains about my spelling or sentence structure they ALWAYS make worse mistakes IN THEIR COMPLAINT !!!

First he uses a colon to denote a list to follow, NO LIST FOLLOWS, while ALL that he wrote could easily have been a single sentence.

Then he capitalizes the word "Two" midstream in the sentence without even attempting to end the previous fragment with a period.

I DID NOT MAKE GRAMMAR MISTAKES LIKE THAT IN 3RD GRADE !!!

You sir are what is typically called a HYPOCRITE !

MACchine, I do have to tell you that a colon does not prepare the reader for a list. Conventionally, it stands in for phrases something like 'that is to say...' or 'and here is a perfect example'.

Secondly, the word 'two' is capitalised because pfflam was making two points (as suggested by the first sentence of his post, 'Two things I am certain of in this world.'

Most importantly of all, he wasn't criticising your stye or your spelling. He was criticising your post. Congratulations for blowing your fake duck call with such élan.

You should also know that pfflam's dyslexic. He, at least, has an excuse.
post #256 of 326
By the way, 'You sir are a hypocrite' would read much better (that is, strictly speaking it would actually make sense) if you'd stuck the 'sir' between a couple of commas.

'You, sir, are a hypocrite'. Like that. It's just that if you're going to arbitrarily make a fuss about someone else's punctuation then it behooves you to make sure your own is impeccable.
post #257 of 326
And to the flamers above, if you have lost your argument by all other means change the subject and see if you can win that way and if you CAN'T WIN RIDICULE !!!



I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP RECENT ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN NATURE:

There have been two articles published in Nature recently which report instances of ENTROPY RUNNING IS REVERSE for longer periods of time then current physics would deem natural.

I ran into these because I read science journal articles regularly.

Nano-technologists ran into problems with getting their micro-machinery to run initially because when you first start to shrink things down and enter the quantum level ENTROPY MAY UNEXPECTEDLY RUN IN REVERSE AND IT BROKE THEIR MACHINES.

I believe they have found an easy work around but for a while they thought that micro-machines would not work.

So the universe is bigger then you can imagine and physics is a work in progress like ALL SCIENCE.

I obviously don't jump to conclusions, I work with EVIDENCE, this forum like all others I have been when confronted with a will claim, counter with illogical wild claims and avoid evidence, and are often irrational.

Why do I say St. Berna is a miracle of God, it is the simplest solution and having very little information so in the absence of more information there is no reason to contradict the highest authority the Catholic Church ( Much more credible then you guys. ), And I have NOT been given a bit of evidence to the contrary HERE, only very weak arguments.

Einstein said either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle.

I am sure I could build an argument to say it is a hoax but I have reason to do that. Actually I can't I just searched on the St. with "hoax" and there was surprisingly little there.

I am sure many are thinking its wax, I have been to many wax museums and her face easily surpasses anything I have seen in wax and how would they do this in 1879.

Most of the arguments were actually quite incorrect ! Which is a bit surprising.

This reveals childish camaraderie is the primary motivation, which is related to simple selfishness. I DON'T WANT TO JOIN THAT GROUP !!!

I know most or ALL of you will also deny the above, its in NATURE, YOU CAN NOT COMPETE WITH THAT LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY !!!



It is very easy to build an argument AGAINST ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS AND MOTIVATIONS YOU ALL GIVE ABOVE because it was just TOO RISKY !!!

What made the church think they could get away with it ? And if you knew anything about her story, which I am sure most don't, you would know that the church had no need for this final miracle, she probably supplied the church with more legitimate miracles, unexplainable mysteries, than any other Saint.

BY THE WAY I AM PROTESTANT NOT CATHOLIC !!!
post #258 of 326
Hassan,

I think you meant to say this:

Quote:
MACchine, I do have to tell you that a colon DOES NOT PREPARE THE READER FOR A LIST. Conventionally, it stands in for phrases something like 'that is to say...' or 'and here is a perfect example'.

Secondly, the word 'two' is capitalised BECAUSE PFFLAM WAS MAKING TWO POINTS (as suggested by the first sentence of his post, 'Two things I am certain of in this world.'

Most importantly of all, HE WASN'T CRITICISING YOUR STYE OR YOUR SPELLING. He was criticising your POST. Congratulations for blowing your FAKE DUCK CALL WITH SUCH ÉLAN.

You should also KNOW that pfflam's dyslexic. He, at least, has an excuse.

I'm just saying.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #259 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
And to the flamers above, if you have lost your argument by all other means change the subject and see if you can win that way and if you CAN'T WIN RIDICULE !!!



I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP RECENT ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN NATURE:

There have been two articles published in Nature recently which report instances of ENTROPY RUNNING IS REVERSE for longer periods of time then current physics would deem natural.

I ran into these because I read science journal articles regularly.

Nano-technologists ran into problems with getting their micro-machinery to run initially because when you first start to shrink things down and enter the quantum level ENTROPY MAY UNEXPECTEDLY RUN IN REVERSE AND IT BROKE THEIR MACHINES.

I believe they have found an easy work around but for a while they thought that micro-machines would not work.

So the universe is bigger then you can imagine and physics is a work in progress like ALL SCIENCE.

I obviously don't jump to conclusions, I work with EVIDENCE, this forum like all others I have been when confronted with a will claim, counter with illogical wild claims and avoid evidence, and are often irrational.

Why do I say St. Berna is a miracle of God, it is the simplest solution and having very little information so in the absence of more information there is no reason to contradict the highest authority the Catholic Church ( Much more credible then you guys. ), And I have NOT been given a bit of evidence to the contrary HERE, only very weak arguments.

Einstein said either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle.

I am sure I could build an argument to say it is a hoax but I have reason to do that. Actually I can't I just searched on the St. with "hoax" and there was surprisingly little there.

I am sure many are thinking its wax, I have been to many wax museums and her face easily surpasses anything I have seen in wax and how would they do this in 1879.

Most of the arguments were actually quite incorrect ! Which is a bit surprising.

This reveals childish camaraderie is the primary motivation, which is related to simple selfishness. I DON'T WANT TO JOIN THAT GROUP !!!

I know most or ALL of you will also deny the above, its in NATURE, YOU CAN NOT COMPETE WITH THAT LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY !!!

It is very easy to build an argument AGAINST ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS AND MOTIVATIONS YOU ALL GIVE ABOVE because it was just TOO RISKY !!!

What made the church think they could get away with it ? And if you knew anything about her story, which I am sure most don't, you would know that the church had no need for this final miracle, she probably supplied the church with more legitimate miracles, unexplainable mysteries, than any other Saint.

BY THE WAY I AM PROTESTANT NOT CATHOLIC !!!

You don't listen. It's impossible to debate with you and believe me people here love an argument. People here love the point-by-point rebuttal. They love a bit of back and forth. You complain you're getting flamed when you're acting like the online equivalent of someone who buttonholes you at a party, talks in a loud voice and won't listen to a damn word you say.

And the way you type in capitals is really irritating.
post #260 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Hassan,

I think you meant to say this:

I'm just saying.

You're QUITE RIGHT.

Hey, midwinter, if capitals make you, like, really really right, what if... what if you used CAPITALS and REALLY BIG LETTERS?

I HAVE A GIGANTIC WEENIE! CHARLES DARWIN RUNS A MICRO BREWERY! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BALDNESS!

We are changing the physical world through the power of THE WORD! Someone call A LINGUIST!
post #261 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Someone call A LINGUIST!

Not a linguist, but I'm probably close enough.

Um. Present!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #262 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
By the way, 'You sir are a hypocrite' would read much better (that is, strictly speaking it would actually make sense) if you'd stuck the 'sir' between a couple of commas.

'You, sir, are a hypocrite'. Like that. It's just that if you're going to arbitrarily make a fuss about someone else's punctuation then it behooves you to make sure your own is impeccable.

NO WAY, I could see adding it after sir but it is NOT mandatory, all English teachers I have had say leave commas out. I usually use WAY too many.

When I was in university they were still saying the same thing they told me all through highschool, if the comma isn't need BADLY don't use it.

I don't try to be grammatically correct though, I combine outline form with regular writing to create as much EMPHASIS as possible.

AND I will continue to do as I please.

People have said I undermine my arguments with my Tom Fullery, that's my choice.

If I was a credible as I could be you people would hate me more than you could even imagine, because I COULD ARGUE THE WORLD IS FLAT AND WIN !!! But I don't want to do that.

I just brought up St. Berna because I think she is one of the true legitimate mysteries in the world right not, there are not very many.

She is a mystery because trying to supply a factual account of how she could be the way she is would probably be very difficult. The story of her life is also VERY INTERESTING !!!

On the other hand I might go to vatican city and find that she is in hyperbaric glass crypt and previously was dress in salt and has been painted, and that would be the end of it ...


... but in the absence of evidence.



IS THIS GUY YOUR BUDDY ???
post #263 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
If Christianity had been introduced today, we would have all screamed bullshit.


Absolutely TRUE statement, it makes NO point.
post #264 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
NO WAY, I could see adding it after sir but it is NOT mandatory, all English teachers I have had say leave commas out. I usually use WAY too many.

Actually, to my bourbon-tainted eyes, that was an appositive, which MANDATES commas to offset it.

And your English teachers have told you to lave commas out because, frankly, most students mangle them so badly that the odds are that leaving them out will be the correct way to write the sentence.

Quote:
When I was in university they were still saying the same thing they told me all through highschool, if the comma isn't need BADLY don't use it.

Doh! You've broken character. You seem to want to come across as an idiot Yank, but you wrote "in university," which is a typically British idiom. It clashes with "highschool."

Quote:
People have said I undermine my arguments with my Tom Fullery, that's my choice.

HAHAHAHAHA! Tom Fullery! Hahaha! I've always taken it for granite that people knew how to spell that, but I suppose in a doggy dog world, anything goes. Throw a wrench in the sticky wicket, I say!

Man, you're great! Keep it up!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #265 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Hassan,

I think you meant to say this:



I'm just saying.

Making up your own rules DOES NOT HELP.

The bottom line is it could have been a very NICE sentence without the colon or capitulation.


If you MUST use colons they are used for lists and I like to make REAL lists with number in front an period to end but that is NOT correct...


... grammatically correct is number or word number to start and the statement just ends with no period and then two returns for the next item.

NO ANDs adding an "and" is BAD form.

BUT CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT I AM NOT THE EXPERT FIND AN EXAMPLE ON THE WEB.


You don't call LINGUISTS to fix the problem, linguists practice the verbal art, you would call an English teacher or a novelist with a PHD, I don't know what they are call, probably English instructor !!!
post #266 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, to my bourbon-tainted eyes, that was an appositive, which MANDATES commas to offset it.

It is perfectly understandable without it, pausing is NOT mandatory to speak it, therefore it is NOT mandatory.

It is also NOT an Appositive. Definition of Appositive...

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/appositive.htm
"An appositive is a noun or noun phrase that renames another noun right beside it. The appositive can be a short or long combination of words. Look at these examples:
The insect, a cockroach, is crawling across the kitchen table."

As I said, making up your own rules does NOT HELP !!!
post #267 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
you would call an English teacher or a novelist with a PHD, I don't know what they are call, probably English instructor !!!

Um, present!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #268 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
It is perfectly understandable without it, pausing is NOT mandatory to speak it, therefore it is NOT mandatory.

Appositives, sir, require commas to offset them. And that's a comma splice you just wrote there.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #269 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Appositives, sir, require commas to offset them. And that's a comma splice you just wrote there.

Its NOT an appositive, definition above


YOU little BOYS are about as much FUN as a barrel of MONKEYS !!!
post #270 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
Its NOT an appositive, definition above


YOU little BOYS are about as much FUN as a barrel of MONKEYS !!!

Oh man, you're rich.

"An appositive is a noun or noun phrase that renames another noun right beside it."

You [pronoun], sir [appositive renaming that pronoun which is right beside it], crack me up.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #271 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Basically. I look at Islam as being the most current iteration of this monotheistic 'god' thing, but even islam is really old. Not as old as xianity or judaism, but still plenty old.

So it begs the question, is god going to come down and try again, some new prophet, new book, new rules, new religion. Or, is it all a bunch of hog wash?

This is directly connected to the fact that god has gone from having direct control over our lives to being essentially just a vague cloud over our heads. The more we learn about the world around us, the less we need god.

There is no magic in the world. There never will be, and if I'm wrong, may god strike me down with a magical lightning bolt. hurumph

In any religious system 'God' has to be dynamic and subject to change - obviously or else he wouldn't be God.

For example - in the Xian mythos it is believed God will return in the form of Jesus at a date only He knows. Fair enough - but God must also have the capacity of over-ruling this and changing His mind. If He does not then it means that God is subordinate to this 'carved in stone' dictat just as we are - and that would make Him not God, particularly as one of the definitions of God is the one who creates such rules and is all powerful.

So God must be 'dynamic' - ie He must be capable of saying (metaphorically) 'I felt like changing the rules, here's a new set'.

Xianity denies this dynamic aspect of God, which is strange because it is explicit in the OT. God changes His mind all the time, He evolves and reacts to situations. Then He stops. Curiously at about the time a rigid and inflexible religion developed around the concept.

When such 'corruption' and misunderstanding creeps in then it transforms a teaching into its opposite. That's why new revelations of the same thing are always needed.

In the case of Islam, it is believed that new revelations are necessary because people pervert and corrupt the old ones and because times and people change so new formulas are needed.

In fact, Islam holds that the same corruption will happen to Islam at the 'end of time' (ie - now, imo). This is a quote from Muhammad:

Quote:
The Apostle of God said: `There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return.'

As you ask about new prophets and books then the answer is perhaps yes. Islam also claims that a new revelation and scripture will also be revealed which will be vastly different from Islam and Muslims will find it difficult to accept.

God doesn't do lightning bolts and there is magic in the world. In fact, the whole world is nothing but magic. We are communicating now in such a way.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #272 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
If you MUST use colons they are used for lists

Facts aren't terribly important to you, are they?
post #273 of 326
Optical organ.

Apine insect.

&#108 (HTML).








(did you know in English, we should really say "trawl" or "trawler" then 'troll' really. attention to detail sir. attention to detail.)
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #274 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Let's try again.

What makes Christianity's allegedly unique "trinitarian unity-in-diversity prototype" and "infinite, personal God" the best solution for humanity?

What makes it "coherent"?

Okay here's an reply, it's mostly quotes, but you have to promise you'll read it before coming back at me. Also, DO NOT FORGET that we are in the realm of presuppositional epistemology, or rather,' epistemological self-consiousness'.

First, the lay of the land:
Quote:
It is customary to speak of the Trinity as thus described as the ontological Trinity. The ontological Trinity must be distinguished from the economical Trinity. By the latter is meant the distinction of persons within the Godhead in so far as this distinction has bearing on the works of God with respect to the created universe. The Father is centrally active in the creation and sustaining of the universe. The Son is centrally active in the objective work of salvation. The Spirit is centrally active in the subjective work of salvation. In all this the triune God is active with respect to the universe. But when God is contemplated as active within himself, we speak of the ontological Trinity.

so, basically we are talking about the idea of the 'ontological Trinity'.

Here's the real crux of why Trinitarian doctrine matters:
Quote:
In the first place we are conscious of having as our foundation the metaphysical presupposition of Christianity as it is expressed in the creation doctrine. This means that in God as an absolutely self-conscious being, in God as an absolute personality, who exists as the triune God, we have the solution of the one and many problem. The persons of the trinity are mutually exhaustive. This means that there is no remnant of unconsciousness of potentiality in the being of God. Thus there cannot be anything unknown to God that springs from his own nature. Then too there was nothing existing beyond this God before the creation of the universe. Hence the time-space world cannot be a source of independent particularity. The space-time universe cannot even be a universe of exclusive particularity. It is brought forth by the creative act of God, and this means in accordance with the plan of the universal God. Hence there must be in this world universals as well as particulars. Moreover they can never exist in independence of one another. They must be equally ultimate which means in this case that they are both derivative. Now if this is the case, God cannot be confronted by an absolute particularity that springs from the space-time universe any more than he can be confronted by an absolute particularity that should spring from a potential aspect of his own being. Hence in God the one and the many are equally ultimate which in this case means absolutely ultimate.

So, presuppositionally, you must have a God who is 'Ultimate personality' -- the best way to understand that is that Man is created in God's image and man, 'understands' himself as a person/personality --- the same way that God relates to Himself. Self Knowledge, like reality, is derivative
From Van Til:
Quote:
This contention that man must know himself in relation to his environment is not merely a general consideration obtained by observation of experience. It is implied in the very bedrock of Christian-theism. This may be seen by again referring to our idea of God and of Gods relation to the created universe. Man exists by virtue of Gods existence. Mans environment precedes man. God is mans ultimate environment and this environment is completely interpretative of man who is to know himself.
In other words mans environment is not impersonal. It is, moreover, not merely personal in the sense that simultaneous with his own appearance there are also other finite persons in relation to which he knows himself to be a person. Back of this relationship of finite persons to other finite persons and to other finite but impersonal things is the absolute personality of God.

and then Schaeffer:
Quote:
.... the Bible says that man is created in the image of a personal God, it gives us a starting-point. No humanistic system has provided a justification for man to begin with himself. The Bible's answer is totally unique. At one and the same time it provides the reason why a man may do what he must do, start with himself; and it tells him the adequate reference point, the infinite-personal God. This is in complete contrast to other systems in which man begins with himself, neither knowing why he has a right to begin from himself, nor in what direction to begin inching along.

So, essentially you have to have an infinite personal God to cohesively know yourself. Set this up agianst mod philosophy:
Van Til, again
Quote:
.....But Kierkegaards dialecticism is a reaction to the dialecticism of Hegel. It is therefore necessary to inquire into the relationship of these two forms of dialecticism to one another, and to investigate the relationship of dialecticism in general to the critical philosophy of Kant.
It is found that dialecticism in general wants to be more critical than criticism. Criticism wants to be activistic and, in being activistic sought to be anti-metaphysical. It maintained that for all practical purposes man can know nothing of a God whose being is not exhausted in his relation to the universe. Yet criticism did not have the courage to reject the old metaphysic entirely. Dialecticism therefore sought to do what criticism began to do but did not finish doing. And the Kierkegaardian form of dialecticism differs from the Hegelian in that it seeks again to be more critical than its predecessor. In his notion of the Individual Kierkegaard claims to have found a principle of interpretation that embraces within itself unlimited diversity and comprehensive unity. Barth employed this Kierkegaardian notion of the Individual as the main interpretative concept in his first major work, his commentary on Pauls epistle to the Romans.

Buddhism, Islam, etc. by their own admission do not have a personal God at their root. In the case of Buddhism it is a false distinction.
From Schaeffer, in Escape from Reason:
Quote:
If the intrinsically personal origin of the universe is rejected, what alternative outlook can anyone have? It must be said emphatically that there is no final answer except that man is a product of the impersonal, plus time, plus chance. No-one has ever succeeded in finding personality on this basis, though many, like the late Teilhard de Chardin, have tried. It cannot be done. The conclusion that we are the natural products of the impersonal, plus time and chance, is the only one, unless we begin with personality. And no-one has shown how time plus chance can produce a qualitative change from impersonal to personal.

Now, I think if you are fair, this includes all other religions and would make Christianity unique. Schaeffer continues:
Quote:
.......the rationalist ...... [has] determinedly put himself at the centre of the universe and insists on beginning autonomously with only the knowledge he can gather, and has ended up finding himself quite meaningless. It comes to the same thing as Zen Buddhism, which expresses so accurately the view of modern man : `Man enters the water and
causes no ripple.'

...so I think with what you've put forward with Buddhism, you essentially deny that "ultimate personality" is the author of the Universe --- and even Islam shows the wear and tear of "submission in any circumstance", for whatever reason.
more Van Til
Quote:
It is not a sufficient description of Christian theism when we say that as Christians we believe in both the transcendence and the immanence of God while pantheistic systems believe only in the immanence of God and deistic systems only in the transcendence of God. The transcendence we believe in is not the transcendence of deism and the immanence we believe in is not the immanence of pantheism. In the case of deism transcendence virtually means separation while in the case of pantheism immanence virtually means identification. And if we add separation to identification we do not have theism as a result. As we mean a certain kind of God when as theists we speak of God, so also we mean a certain kind of transcendence and a certain kind of immanence when we use these terms. The Christian doctrine of God implies a definite conception of the relation of God to the created universe. So also the Christian doctrine of God implies a definite conception of everything in the created universe.

more Schaeffer:
Quote:
When we talk about the possibility of men beginning from themselves to understand the meaning of life and the universe, we must be careful to define clearly what we mean. There are two concepts or ideas of knowing which must be kept separate. The first is the rationalistic or humanistic concept, namely that man, beginning totally independent and autonomous of all else, can build a bridge towards ultimate truthas if attempting to build a cantilever bridge out from himself across an infinite gorge. This is not possible, because man is finite and, as such, he has nothing toward which he can point with certainty. He has no way, beginning from himself, to set up sufficient universals. Sartre has seen this very clearly when, as a result of finding no infinite reference point, he comes to the conclusion that everything must be absurd.

So anyway that is a brief rundown, in alot of ways this can't really be effectively covered in under 10,000 words, but I hope this gives you and idea.

BUT

All of the this is presuppositional, so if you don't start with God-based epistemology, then you can't get here from there.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #275 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Buddhism, Islam, etc. by their own admission do not have a personal God at their root.

In the case of Islam you are blatantly wrong at your root.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 20 Muslim authorities who claimed direct personal apprehension of God is the root of Islam and of course, this is implicit in the Qur'an.

I think it's time for you to stop venturing opinions on Islam now. You're so far in the minus with your 'hit' rate that there's really no way back even if you became a world authority.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #276 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
In the case of Islam you are blatantly wrong at your root.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 20 Muslim authorities who claimed direct personal apprehension of God is the root of Islam and of course, this is implicit in the Qur'an.

I think it's time for you to stop venturing opinions on Islam now. You're so far in the minus with your 'hit' rate that there's really no way back even if you became a world authority.

Now Allah is a personal God? Really segovious, you can't have it both ways -- pick mysticism or traditional more Islamic theology and stick with it. And in any case you have not understood the implications with regards to the one/many problem as it is effected by either choice, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

There is a childishness in your approach of clever website slurs, conspiracy theories, and ad hoc philosophy that is unbecoming. It pains me to say this, but I'd suggest making your nonsense work philosophically before airing it out here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #277 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Now Allah is a personal God? Really segovious, you can't have it both ways -- pick mysticism or traditional more Islamic theology and stick with it. And in any case you have not understood the implications with regards to the one/many problem as it is effected by either choice, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

There is a childishness in your approach of clever website slurs, conspiracy theories, and ad hoc philosophy that is unbecoming. It pains me to say this, but I'd suggest making your nonsense work philosophically before airing it out here.

Well, it seems to be fitting somehow - think I'll stick with it, it's way above the general level although there is an element of the juvenile involved I grant you

Re your 'challenge' - it seems like the sort of thing I'd jump at usually but in this case I really can't because I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

If you'd care to rephrase I'm sure I can clear up your problem.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #278 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
Whenever someone complains about my spelling or sentence structure they ALWAYS make worse mistakes IN THEIR COMPLAINT !!!


First he uses a colon to denote a list to follow, NO LIST FOLLOWS, while ALL that he wrote could easily have been a single sentence.

Then he capitalizes the word "Two" midstream in the sentence without even attempting to end the previous fragment with a period.

I DID NOT MAKE GRAMMAR MISTAKES LIKE THAT IN 3RD GRADE !!!

You sir are what is typically called a HYPOCRITE !

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #279 of 326
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
If you'd care to rephrase I'm sure I can clear up your problem.

You wouldn't just convert to Catholicism, would you? This would go a lot faster.

(Also, I'd like to apologize for coming across as a jerk on that last comment, but you really do need to watch the cheap-shots.)

I think I'll just wait for johnq's Buddhist lambasting.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #280 of 326
And the crux of the matter: you need to see God as personality!

Mind is the Buddhist notion of the totality of phenomena. The understanding of Mind can come through contemplation and meditation . . . . basically through reflection.

Reflection is the method and process of Mind itself.

This should be the same sort of understanding that your intellectuals above would have if they were not so desperate to wrap their thoughts around a central misreading of the universe.

It is so obvious when reading intelligent Christians that they were always Christians, raised Christian, probably had their 'prodigal' times then, out of fear, and lack of real daring with regards to their thinking and lack of courage with regards to their willingness to understand, came back to what they never could let go of.

Why is the Christian image of God that of a man? It shouldn't be, it should be the other way around, grounding the dynamics and methods of interpretation and experience in a notion of perception (Ontology/Epistemology) . . . but they need to ground it in a "personality".

I can not tell you how deeply flawed that is!!

I understand what you twist them to be saying, and how they would also explain what they mean, using innordinate amounts of words that need not exist in order to cover over a concept that need not exist: they would say 'Personality' because it reflects how we are made in God's image.

Personality is exactly what must be overcome: the contours of a personality are the contours of our suffering . . . . our personalities are what keep us from opening to the realities of Mind.

We cling to our specialness as a species, and, unfortunately, I think, even intelligent Christians interpret 'Made in God's image' as meaning that God is like a man . . . it is arrogant of us, as if all of matter existed only for our sake?
as if all of the Universe and all sentient beings were here so that we could play out this idiotic drama about 'accepting his word'!?!?

How can we have been taken in by such Tom Phuhliry?!

BTW: DMZ, I am surprised that you have not immersed yourself in =to Hegels triune Dialectics and Christology. Almost everything that you write seems to be some covert form of his Philosophy. I recommend a short but profound dip into his work: its actually very exciting and when your in his system it makes an incredible amount of seemingly inescapable sense. Start with the short Introduction To The Philosophy of History then go to The Logic . . . great psychedelic stuff!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Letting Go of God"