I Vote For Reason

CCNL - Part 4

Because God picked the Israelites to make Himself known to the world, during the times of the Old Testament Israel had His protection. They had everything going for themselves - the Law, the prophets, His very presence, favor and protection and yet they continually disobeyed His commands. God laid down His just and perfect law concerning Israel and gave them warning of the consequences of disobedience (see Deuteronomy 28 and the Ten Commandments).

He warned them about worshiping gods who could not save, and to worship Himself, the only true and living God. Instead they continually turned away to false idols and unknown gods of the wicked nations around them. Some of these nations were practicing child sacrifice and other abominations.

If God had left Israel to her own devices they would have been absorbed into these false practices and there would have been no Savior for mankind; because in their actions and rebellion His promises would not have been fulfilled.

That is why when they went into the Promised Land He told them to kill all the inhabitants of the land so that these inhabitants did not contaminate their beliefs and turn them away from the living God. They failed to obey and as a result these enemies that they did not kill continued to come against them time and again.

If Israel had been destroyed God's chosen Messiah would not have come to save His people from their sins and wrongdoing.

Just as their relationship with God is revealing of our relationship with God (time after time we choose to go after things that are pleasurable for a short time, that have no lasting satisfaction, that are against what is good for us), the punishment for disobedience is a lesson that comes to the rejectors of God.

BUT

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

Do you have ears to hear CCNL?

CCNL - Part 3

Decapitate Them!
"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

CCNL, what translation are you using? You quoted from the NASB earlier, did you not?

"For they invited the people to the sacrifice of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.
So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor [Baal-peor], and the LORD was angry with Israel. [see Psalm 106]
And the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and EXECUTE them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel." vs. 2-4, NASB

CCNL: "Comment
Those who worshipped other gods must die, and even more horribly, their heads displayed publicly. Either God never said anything so cruel, or we truly live in a cursed universe, ruled by a maniac Supreme Being."

Cursed because of man's willful disobedience to what is good. When everyone is a law unto themselves, is greedy, self-centered and selfish for themselves, there is going to be wars and gross inhumanity. You CCNL are highly critical of God but you turn a blind eye to the horrors the other nations were practicing at that time, horrors that are continued to this day in our rebellion towards God.

No, we live in a universe ruled by a loving but absolutely just God. You want God to change His character and nature to suit your evil purposes. You want Him to ignore doing what is right and just and in doing so compromise who He is. So you will not worship God on the grounds that He will not conform to your wicked ways. Instead, you bow down to your image of god - yourself.

CCNL - Part 2

CCNL: "Comment
Chapters 17-19 (17-18-19) tells us that David killed 22,000 Syrians and that Abishai killed 18,000 Edomites. No one expresses shame at such slaughters."

There are many considerations here that you are missing and that I will expand upon in this and the next post.

CCNL: "Here in 20:3, we have David, counted as a great leader of the Israelites, slaughtering captives after the cessation of hostilities. From what high moral ground should we admire this action?"

He protected his people against aggressors and taught the aggressors a lesson that others would think twice before attacking Israel again.

There were many enemy nations bent on the destruction of Israel. These enemies understood might as the language of the day, they were not open to diplomacy and showed very little mercy.

"Now I have been with you wherever you have gone, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a name like the great ones who are on earth.
"And I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place and be moved no more; neither shall the WICKED waste them anymore as formally,
even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. Moreover, I tell you that the LORD will build a house for you.
"And it shall come about when your days are fulfilled that you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up one of your descendants after you, who shall be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. [Messianic prophecy]
"He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. "I will be his father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it away from him who was before you.
"But I will settle him in My house and My kingdom forever and his throne will be established forever."" (1 Chronicles 17:8-13)

These enemy nations hated Israel and the God of Israel and if God had not protected the people of Israel and given them victory God's plans would have been thwarted; there would have been no Messiah to save His people from their sins, but it is impossible to thwart the plans of God for He is the sovereign Lord and the peoples of this earth will once again come to see this. Every knee will bow to Jesus Christ and every tongue confess that He is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Hi CCNL,

CCNL: "The key words are "gods revelation". And just why did god command the likes of David et al to butcher other peoples? Why not simply do the dirty work on his/her/its own."

CCNL: ""David Slaughters Them
"And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes..." (I Chronicles 20:3)"

Well CCNL, let's see what was behind the situation shall we?

"Now it came about after this, the Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon died, and his son became king in his place. Then David said, "I will show kindness to Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me." So David sent messangers to console him concerning his father. And David's servants came into the land of the sons of Ammon to Hanun, to console him.
But the princes of the sons of Ammon said to Hanun, "Do you think that David is honoring your father, in that he has sent comforters to you? Have not his servants come to you to search and to overthrow and to spy out the land?"
So Hanun took David's servants and shaved them, and cut off their garments in the middle as far as their hips, and sent them away.
Then certain persons went and told David about the men. And he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly humiliated. And the king said, "Stay at Jericho until your beards grow, and then return."
When the sons of Ammon saw that they had made themselves odious to David, Hanun and the sons of Ammon sent 1,000 talents of silver to hire for themselves chariots and horsemen from Mesopotamia, from Aram-maacah, and from Zobah.
So they hired themselves 32,000 chariots, and the king of Maacah and his people, who came and camped before Medeba. And the sons of Ammon gathered together from their cities and came to battle." (1 Chronicles 19:1-7)

So David sent two ambassadors of good will to console the sons of someone who had paid kindness to him in the past and his servants were humiliated, degraded and put to shame by their neighbor. Then the neighbor starts to amass an army and prepare for battle with Israel. To stop an aggressor who is seeking to kill you and your people David did what would have been done to him and his people, he eliminated the threat.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

SCOT: "Mike_K wrote: "Peter, you ask "why" when the proper question is "how". Asking why implies agency."

Okay, it is time to define what you mean by agency.

SCOT: "Exactly - another apologist charlatan's trick. Asking "why" frames the issue in terms that beg an answer of a universe that is designed and planned."

Your opinion is only as good as the framework it rests on. What does yours rest on? What are you begging the question on? Science says science so therefore science? Reason says reason so therefore reason? You say so so therefore it is what you say? How many times do I have to ask you to give me your standard so that I can see it for what it is?

SCOT: "If you push Peter to answer his own question, you will get back some version of "because God willed it to be so". This is of course no more satisfying than the creation stories found in any other religion."

You are only as good as your highest standard Scot. Oh, what is yours?

SCOT: "Peter Huff wrote (on an earlier thread): "As Greg Bahnsen said in "Van Til's Apologetics"

SCOT: "Aaah! Now I understand. The world according to Van Til/Bahnsen"

It is not so much what the author says, but whether what he says lines up with what God says, and whether he can explain it in relationship to God's standard - His Word - for God is the absolute standard.

Working on any other standard other than God will get shown for what it is - foolishness. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

Since you will never bow to God's standard without His grace and mercy (and my prayer is that He will have mercy on you and show you grace), all I can do is show you that you have no legs to stand on for you have no way of making sense of the whys and hows of life.

So when you make moral judgments all you have is opinion and preference, not something that has a qualitative standard that you can point to, and yet you continue to makes these judgments all the time. Why? What makes you right (another qualitative word)? What makes your meaning the one that all others "should be" (another qualitative term) interpreted by? How do you measure the qualitative? Do you get what I'm saying???

Have you ever read Bahnsen or Van Til?

Final thoughts on your post Scot,

SCOT: "History has given us many examples of people who had great faith, but lacked morality, and vice versa."

True, and we are all guilty of that in and of our own right. But the difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that the unbeliever will answer to God on his own merit whereas the Christian will answer on the merit of Christ.

Many things are done in the name of religion, but it is only what Christ does in and through us that has any lasting value.

Some people just profess and other possess the relationship with God. Jesus said "You must be born again to see and enter the kingdom of God." That is regeneration by His Spirit in which He takes our old nature and gives us a new nature. (John 1:12; 3:3-8; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:24; Hebrews 8:7-13 - BTW, the last verse of Hebrews 8:13 was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, which ended the old covenant laws and regulations, since the Jewish people no longer had a place to bring their sacrifices to - Jesus was the sacrifice and as He had said earlier, "It is finished", redemption and a rightful standing before God was accomplished for those who would have faith in His sacrifice, His life in place of ours, His merits in place of ours)

Jesus said you would know a fruit by its tree. And on this point, even Christians take their eyes off the Lord and do things of a fleshly or worldly nature when we trust in our own abilities or are enticed by things that are enjoyable and sought after by the world's values and in the short term bring excitement and pleasure but leaves us unfulfilled and constantly wanting more, that God has warned us against.

The difference between the believer and unbeliever is that the believer knows when he has committed a sinful act and is uncomfortable with it because that is going against his new nature, whereas the unbeliever may or may not know he is breaking God's law, but he does not always feel remorse or shame because his heart and mind are hardened to God's laws.

Continuing,

So the Christian worldview is the only one that conforms to reality and can make sense of it.

Furthermore, whose idea of good do you employ? Hitler believed that some humans had not evolved to the point of others, so he took steps to speed the master race along by eliminating six million Jews and five million other less than desirables - all for the future good of mankind.

The second point along these lines is how do you, Scot, determine that your actions will not hurt someone? By you over-eating you deny another some food that may have prevented them from dying. By your actions of stealing a pen from your employer you increase his business expenses and the cost at which he sells his product. By your actions you hurt your wife by looking at another woman with lust in your eyes. By your anger or unkind words you hurt the feelings of another human being and by your hatred may even want that person dead. Why do you not do the good you know you ought to do? And we are all hypocrites in this manner, except for the Lord Jesus Christ who lived/lives a spotless life!

You as a limited human do not see the outcome of all your actions that you do, so you have no way of knowing if what you do will effect someone in a negative and possibly life-threatening manner. So how do you know that your actions are good? Only God can see all things.

The very fact that you are denying God has bad consequences on those you come in contact with and manage to persuade that your philosophy of life is true, instead of what it is - a lie. It has eternal consequences for the bad and to the negative of those who believe and adopt your worldview and to you if you remain unchanged.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

The point I am eluding to in the last post is that if a statement is contradictory there is something that is not right about it, and what is said cannot (by the laws of logic) be both true and not true at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore your statement is false (the original one that is).

ME: "When you are robbed at gun point or someone murders your loved one don't call it wrong, it is just your personal opinion/preference as opposed to theirs."

SCOT: "I'm really tired of people who think there is no such thing as morality without faith."

You have both faith and you have morality. You have faith that your way/interpretation of the world and of morality is valid, otherwise you would not be getting upset or "tired" with me for an opposing viewpoint.

What I am saying and have said all along is without God you have no foundation for your morality, or anything else for that matter, and therefore CANNOT MAKE SENSE of why something is the way it is or why it SHOULD be so. In your worldview morality is just a preference, so on that basis why SHOULD your preference be valid if I think otherwise?

If it shouldn't, then it doesn't matter, it is meaningless, what one human being does to another.

You have no means of explain why anything SHOULD be. What is your standard for "Good?"

SCOT: "No one needs a God to know that things which would hurt if done to them, probably will hurt others as well. "

Sure you do, or else good is relative to the individual and cannot be established as anything but preference.

If my values are different from your values in that I do not see something as hurtful to someone else, or for that matter, if I take enjoyment in hurting others, without an absolute, objective, ultimate, changeless standard there is no good or bad about it. IT IS JUST WHAT ONE ANIMAL DOES TO ANOTHER ANIMAL (and I do not believe that human beings are animals for God has made us different than the animals and given us dominion over the animals and you can see that).

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "First of all you show doubt ("I don't think") in the beginning of your statement

THEN

you make a statement that is either true in itself, or it is false, but it cannot be both true and false."

SCOT: ""I don't think" is merely an acknowledgment that I am referring to my own belief - which is what you asked for."

Regardless of whether it is your own opinion/belief or not does not change the fact that either what you say is an absolute (and true) or not absolute (and false) - that "subjective human minds are [not] capable of grasping absolute truth."

And what you say cannot be an absolute because of its internal contradiction that I explained earlier. Whether you think or someone else thinks such a thought does not change that your statement is either true or false as for humans grasping absolute truth. So as I said before, denying absolute truth becomes self-refuting - you shoot yourself with your own gun.

SCOT: "My statement (as opposed to DITLD's) doesn't deny the existence of absolute truth, only our ability to grasp all of it."

Here again you are re-qualifying what you originally said by inserting the word "all" which completely changes the meaning of the original context (see quote below):

"Peter - I think I have made it abundantly clear that I don't think any of our subjective human minds are capable of grasping absolute truth."

By adding the word "all" the structure of your thoughts change from not being able to gasp absolute truth to not being able to grasp ALL absolute truth (which is something that I totally agree with). But the reason that we can know anything absolutely is because God has made us in His image and likeness and made it known to us.

Without an objective, omniscient standard absolute truth could never be known for in a world of Chance (Evolution) how could you say anything for certain? Laws and principles could change the very next minute. But God's natural revelation - what He has made - shows that this is not so. And His special revelation shows that things will remain so because God has chosen to sustain them. (Genesis 9:21-22; Colossians 1:17)

On His basis and not that of the evolutionist's we can predict that what happened in the past and is happening in the present will happen in the future. All you can predict is possibility and probability which is not certain.

SCOT: "Consequently, all your comments on my statement being self denying are simply a charlatan's trick you learned from one of your favorite apologists."

They are self deluding for you have no means at your disposal to say anything for certain, working within your own framework and worldview. You have to borrow from the Christian worldview before you can acknowledge that there are some absolutes that are in your grasp.

If you have no means at your disposal for certainty why should anyone believe anything that anyone has to say? Without absolutes it is all meaningless.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

Peter Huff wrote: "First of all you show doubt ("I don't think") in the beginning of your statement

THEN

you make a statement that is either true in itself, or it is false, but it cannot be both true and false."

SCOT: ""I don't think" is merely an acknowledgment that I am referring to my own belief - which is what you asked for."

Regardless of whether it is your own opinion/belief or not does not change the fact that either what you say is an absolute (and true) or not absolute (and false) - that "subjective human minds are [not] capable of grasping absolute truth."

And what you say cannot be an absolute because of its internal contradiction that I explained earlier. Whether you think or someone else thinks such a thought does not change that your statement is either true or false as for humans grasping absolute truth. So as I said before, denying absolute truth becomes self-refuting - you shoot yourself with your own gun.

SCOT: "My statement (as opposed to DITLD's) doesn't deny the existence of absolute truth, only our ability to grasp all of it."

Here again you are re-qualifying what you originally said by inserting the word "all" which completely changes the meaning of the original context (see quote below):

"Peter - I think I have made it abundantly clear that I don't think any of our subjective human minds are capable of grasping absolute truth."

By adding the word "all" the structure of your thoughts change from not being able to gasp absolute truth to not being able to grasp ALL absolute truth (which is something that I totally agree with). But the reason that we can know anything absolutely is because God has made us in His image and likeness and made it known to us.

Without an objective, omniscient standard absolute truth could never be known for in a world of Chance (Evolution) how could you say anything for certain? Laws and principles could change the very next minute. But God's natural revelation - what He has made - shows that this is not so. And His special revelation shows that things will remain so because God has chosen to sustain them. (Genesis 9:21-22; Colossians 1:17)

On His basis and not that of the evolutionist's we can predict that what happened in the past and is happening in the present will happen in the future. All you can predict is possibility and probability which is not certain.

SCOT: "Consequently, all your comments on my statement being self denying are simply a charlatan's trick you learned from one of your favorite apologists."

They are self deluding for you have no means at your disposal to say anything for certain, working within your own framework and worldview. You have to borrow from the Christian worldview before you can acknowledge that there are some absolutes that are in your grasp.

If you have no means at your disposal for certainty why should anyone believe anything that anyone has to say? Without absolutes it is all meaningless.

CCNL - what is it you mean by “Crossanized” Christians?

I've read much of his work, and I'm not sure what you mean.

Peter Huff wrote (on an earlier thread): "As Greg Bahnsen said in "Van Til's Apologetics"

Aaah! Now I understand. The world according to Van Til/Bahnsen:

A=A, because A says so;
therefore A=A; (how profound)
Not(A) presupposes A;
therefore Not(A) proves A!

Predictions for the next four years in no special order:

- US taxpayer investments in banks, brokerages and the auto industry will help pay off the national debt.

- President Obama and his family will become “Crossanized” Christians.

- Religions will continue to converge and be downsized as historical/archeological analyses, common sense and reality spreads amongst the “pew sitters and bowers”.

- The killing rate of womb-babies in the USA will remain at one million/yr but the rate will become more difficult to ascertain as RU-486 becomes more available without prescription.

- The rate of STDs/yr in the USA will remain constant at 19 million per year.

- Oil prices will moderate as the world turns more towards nuclear, wind/wave power and natural gas to generate energy.

- The globe will continue to get a bit hotter not because of green house gases but because of the small by continuing increase in the size of the Sun which will consume the Earth in about four billion years.

- Governments will become more dominated by the people as e-mails to Senators and Representatives become the driving force for Congressional voting.

Observer12,

We are going to sleep. I just looked in on my brown Jewish daughter, nine years old, and I thought, well maybe a brown girl could grow up to be president, but could a brown Jewish girl?

And then I remembered the night we left Iran. I was numb, confused. My parents and siblings were grim, silent. My father... Everything was silent. Time seemed suspended.

And then my mother looked at and spoke very softly. I swear I don't know where she found the strength. She reminded me about Moses at Mt. Sinai, his saying that the Jews were there for themselves as well as for for all those who could not be with them at that moment--because they had not yet been born.

I asked my mother if we were going to be killed that night. She was very quiet, very thoughtful, and then she said that Moses was there also for the people who would come after us.

Goodnight Observer,

Farnaz,

"Does this mean they have only one testicle?"

Afraid so.

Cher Observer12,

"The OT is the Old Testicle, which the Chrustaceons replaced with the New Testicle. (It gets technical. Best to consult a urologist for the full dope on this.)"

Does this mean they have only one testicle?

CONCERNED CRUSTACEON:

Run along now and read your New Testicle and your Old Testicle.

Go worship your jesus, the famous water skier of New Testicle fame, drink his blood/est his flesh, and move on.
****************************
Farnaz:

Re: Your question about the "OT." The OT is the Old Testicle, which the Chrustaceons replaced with the New Testicle. (It gets technical. Best to consult a urologist for the full dope on this.)

Peter, Peter, Peter,

The key words are "gods revelation". And just why did god command the likes of David et al to butcher other peoples? Why not simply do the dirty work on his/her/its own.

"David Slaughters Them
"And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes..." (I Chronicles 20:3)

Comment
Chapters 17-19 (17-18-19) tells us that David killed 22,000 Syrians and that Abishai killed 18,000 Edomites. No one expresses shame at such slaughters.

Here in 20:3, we have David, counted as a great leader of the Israelites, slaughtering captives after the cessation of hostilities. From what high moral ground should we admire this action?

Decapitate Them!
"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)

Comment
Those who worshipped other gods must die, and even more horribly, their heads displayed publicly. Either God never said anything so cruel, or we truly live in a cursed universe, ruled by a maniac Supreme Being.

Millions of people, today, switch their religions. If God had any interest in this ongoing process, there appears no evidence of this.

Gideon Slaughters
"And Gideon said, Therefore when the Lord hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers" (Judges 8:7)

"Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword." (Judges 8:10)

Then there was the butchery of the Holy Innocents!!

And keep in mind your god is the unknowable god so don't put words in his/her/it's mouth!!!

PeterHuff:

"Let me do some research and show you some of the collaboration on other scholars concerning the OT"

What is the "OT"?

Hi Observer12,

McCain's speech was wonderful, the McCain I'd always respected so deeply, despite never sharing his politics.

Hi CCNL,

CCNL: "You must be related to Thomas, the god-visionaire and Moses of the NT, Baum.

I do not make the claim to be a prophet of God.

"In the past God spoke through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

Christ Jesus is sufficient in every way.

CCN: "How else could you know what the invisible, unknowable god knows???"

Because God has revealed it to us by His Word. I do not claim to know God comprehensively for I can only know Him in what He has revealed about Himself and by the workings of His Spirit in my life. He is infinite whereas I am finite and limited in my understanding.

CCNL: "From one who has studied the history and archeology of the OT:

CCNL: "Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,.....'"

So you have a source of authority in fallible, subjective man, and at that a man who wasn't there at that period of history. Let me do some research and show you some of the collaboration on other scholars concerning the OT if you want to compare scholars. All you are showing me is that you can get someone to back your worldview. I can do the same.

The OT is an historical source in itself and from the Christian perspective, being God's revelation, there is no higher authority to appeal to. To appeal to an authority other than the Bible as higher is to deny the claims of Scripture and places subjective man above the Word of God.

CCNL: "Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, ''clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua.'' What's more, he says, there is an ''almost total absence of archaeological evidence'' backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5639.3984.0.0

I would invite you to study what great archaeologist's like Sir William M. Ramsay or Nelson Glick have said about the lands of the Bible. I will look for links for you when I have more time this weekend.

But all we are doing is matching scholars with scholars. Although history is evidence and confirms God's Word, I favor the presuppositional argument in apologetics for the very reason stated - a he said she said argument. Let's first try and get answers of your worldview as to its ability to make sense of meaning and purpose and values and truth.

Observer12,

It's happened. We're about to open the champagne.
to toast President Obama, David Axelrod, and David Plouffe.

Farnaz

Well, well, well, Concerned Crustaceon, looks like your bigoted antisemitic self is in for a big letdown. Better pull out the New Testicle and the Scotch.

Btw., every commentatot has remarked on the grassroots organization, the fact that this campaign was the best organized in US history, brilliant. Tribute is being paid everywhere to David Axelrod and David Plouffe, their genius, etc.

Truth is unlike what the Christofascists and Islamofascists think, the Jews have no power in this country. What they have is brains, social commitment, and a strong sense of JUSTICE. Comes from skipping the idolotry, cannibalism, etc. Guess all the bigots on this thread are getting it, albeit slowly, Astoria/Bigotoria.

Both Axelrod and Plouffe are Jews.

Peter Huff wrote: MIKE:" "Peter, you ask "why" when the proper question is "how". Asking why implies agency. There is no "why" in relation to most of your questions, only "how"."

There is a why, it is just that the secular, non-Christian worldview is unable to answer it. The agency is God. "

Which depicts how asking "why" begs the question of agency, and thereby asserts the notion of a god simply by asking the question. I realize that's the definition of begging the question, though I feel it necessary to do so.

Notsogreatscot: We agree.

If we get four more years without health care, with more layoffs, with more bloodshed in Iraq--in short if we have another disastrous Republican administration, we'll all know where to look--right to the Vatican and all the Catholodroids of America, along with the right-wing Protestants, their partners in crime.

Mike_K wrote: "Peter, you ask "why" when the proper question is "how". Asking why implies agency."

Exactly - another apologist charlatan's trick. Asking "why" frames the issue in terms that beg an answer of a universe that is designed and planned.

If you push Peter to answer his own question, you will get back some version of "because God willed it to be so". This is of course no more satisfying than the creation stories found in any other religion.

Sorry guys, my posts are going to be few and far between now and Friday (I'm working). I will pick up were I left off, with the next unanswered post in line.

Interesting discussion, although you guys are short on the answers. Where are your explanations to my questions? They are few and far between. Thanks!

Hi Mike_K,

MIKE: "Peter, you ask "why" when the proper question is "how". Asking why implies agency. There is no "why" in relation to most of your questions, only "how"."

There is a why, it is just that the secular, non-Christian worldview is unable to answer it. The agency is God.

Why is there truth? Because there is an absolute standard and reference point for truth.

Why are some things good and others bad? Because God is a benevolent being. His nature and character is good and since He is all knowing His ways are always just and right and good.

Why is there human, animal and plant life? Because the source of life and eternal Life itself has made it to be.

Why are there effects, because there is a cause?

Why is there being? Because God is being and from being being comes. He chose to create beings other than Himself.

Why is there order? Because God is a God of order and logic.

Why is there logic and reason? Because God is not a God of confusion and irrationality.

You get the idea. He is the ultimate reason of everything created.

Peter Huff wrote: "First of all you show doubt ("I don't think") in the beginning of your statement then you make a statement that is either true in itself, or it is false, but it cannot be both true and false."

"I don't think" is merely an acknowledgment that I am referring to my own belief - which is what you asked for.

My statement (as opposed to DITLD's) doesn't deny the existence of absolute truth, only our ability to grasp all of it. Consequently, all your comments on my statement being self denying are simply a charlatan's trick you learned from one of your favorite apologists.

Peter Huff also wrote: "When you are robbed at gun point or someone murders your loved one don't call it wrong, it is just your personal opinion/preference as opposed to theirs."

I'm really tired of people who think there is no such thing as morality without faith. No one needs a God to know that things which would hurt if done to them, probably will hurt others as well. History has given us many examples of people who had great faith, but lacked morality, and vice versa.

Peter, Peter, Peter Huff,

You must be related to Thomas, the god-visionaire and Moses of the NT, Baum.

How else could you know what the invisible, unknowable god knows???

From one who has studied the history and archeology of the OT:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"Equally striking for many readers will be the essay ''Biblical Archaeology,'' by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ''There is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,'' he writes, ''and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect.'' The few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds, ''are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical account.''

Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel. Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says, ''clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest portrayed in the Book of Joshua.'' What's more, he says, there is an ''almost total absence of archaeological evidence'' backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of the Jerusalem of David and Solomon. "

FRED: "2.Since everybody (religionist, scientist, atheist, philosopher) reaches these limits, god is "evident", a well-proved fact: The impossibility to prove the existence of god is brandished as an evidence of his reality!"

Yes, He is the necessary precondition for intelligence and for making sense of this world. Without Him it is all meaninglessness and senseless. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of life all the time denying the Christian God.

FRED: "The greatest minds of mankind knew that "god" is a human concept, nothing else, which in the end explains nothing but itself - as a concept: Socrates, Spinoza, Voltaire, Leibniz, Einstein, Paine etc. etc."

There again, I can supply a list that I believe are the greatest mind such as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Johann Kepler, Jonathan Edwards, Michael Faraday, George Cuvier, Samuel Morse, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, William Ramsay, George Washington Carver, Wernher von Braun, Cornelius Van Til, that believed otherwise.

Matching your scholars and scientist against mine does not prove that God is a human concept, invented by man. It just proves that some people believe and other don't. Big deal.

FRED: "The same circular reasoning is the bible thing: The bible says it is truth, therefore it is truth. Try that sort of logic in court! No bible quotation can ever prove anything beyond its own text! It amuses me all the time when people like PH quote the most preposterous claims of the bible to "prove" anything."

There again, what is your highest and final appeal? What standard can you appeal to that is objective? Why is what you say right and true and certain? As a subjective human being what do you appeal to that is higher than yourself - science? Science is not infallible. It is the conclusions of fallible human beings who continue to tweak their craft. Why are you right in what you say? Who made you god? Please make sense of this.

Hello Frederic2,

FRED: "The concept of god is nothing but the result of an (understandable) circular human reasoning"

Your reasoning is circular too. You use the reasoning of others to substantiate your reasoning which in turn proves the reasoning of others. No worldview is constructed in a vacuum. You build on one of two presuppositional core values - either God or something else. Then you filter everything that comes into your mind by either one or the other presupposition. And you keep building your foundation and the whole house of your being as you sift through ideas based on the web you weave and how it is constructed. It is only when the core belief(s) is/are undermined that you have to start again on another foundation, a different web.

But my point is that your foundation rests on mid-air. It is a foundation that is constructed on the fig-newtons on your imagination. When pressed to the core of your web, you have no answers, therefore you continue to substantiate what the Christian weorldview says,

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20b)

The question comes down to can you make sense of reasoning or logic or life or mind or values or meaning or purpose or truth or uniformity in nature or knowledge from your worldview. In a Chance universe why and how does anything reason; how does life come from non-life, logic and thinking from anything but being, truth and knowledge from abstract matter, order and design from chaos and chance, good and evil from an immoral process, purpose from chance and possibility?

God made a covenant with Bush to invade Iraq. Covenants? How are the details to be imagined and assessed? "God" and the "burning" Bush? Unsubstantial fantasies of gullible believers in superstition and miracles.

SCOT: "Some interesting reading you posted though. It doesn't seem to address the part about everlasting possession of the land of Canaan though. I guess the period from 70 CE to 1948 CE wasn't a part of everlasting?"

It all depends on the covenants that God makes, for He is a covenant God and He makes many throughout the Bible. Some are conditional on meeting certain requirements, (the "IF, thens") others are unconditional in that God solely provides for their conditions; they depend solely on God's grace through His Son.

For those in Christ have an everlasting covenant and He has possessed the promised land for those who will believe and one day, when the Christian dies, he will go to be with the Lord forever and one day live in the Promised Land and the New Jerusalem, and the land of Canaan will again be settled.

In a sense we already have possession of it for all God's promises are yes in Christ Jesus and God does not lie. We wait for the day that what has been promised will be seen, just like Abraham had to wait on God's promises. (see Hebrews 3:1-4:11; 11:1, 6; 2; Romans 10:17-11:36; Corinthians 1:18-20; Ephesians 1:3-23 for further reading if you are interested. They deal with why the generation that was told to go in and take the promised land failed - only Joshua and Caleb believed God - and also the significance of those promises for those who are in Christ, both Jews and Gentiles)

It is a subject we can go into in depth if you wish.

The question, as always, is are you going to believe God or harden your heart to His revelation of Himself? You either become your own ultimate, yet limited authority or you trust God as the highest authority of appeal and of understanding. With your own you cannot make sense of this world - of the hows and whys because it just becomes personal preference, the question is whose and why should it be believed? Can you answer that question?

Hi Notsogreatscot,

SCOT: "Peter - I think I have made it abundantly clear that I don't think any of our subjective human minds are capable of grasping absolute truth."

Is that absolutely true Scot? The only thing clear is that your statement is false.

First of all you show doubt ("I don't think") in the beginning of your statement then you make a statement that is either true in itself, or it is false, but it cannot be both true and false.

You see what you do Scot when you deny absolute truth is that you refute your own statement, making it nonsense. For you are making a statement that is either absolutely true, that subjective humans cannot know absolute truth, and in itself is an absolute truth, or it is false. It becomes false and nonsense if it is absolutely true because at least one thing is absolutely true, your statement about not being able to grasp absolute truth.

To put it another way, either your statement is true that subjective human minds cannot grasp absolute truth, making at least one thing absolutely true in order for the statement to be true (for truth to be true it must always be true and absolute or it would be false), thus making what you say itself not a true statement.

To DanielintheLionsDen,

ME: "You have yet to demonstrate how you can account for logic or anything else without supposing God. I can make sense of it, how do you? That is my point, the intellectual impossibility of the contrary. Come on Daniel, let's get some accountability from you."

DANIEL: "Why do you think that I am accounting for logic? Why must I account for the nature of reality and existence as we perceive it? Just open your eyes and take a look; there; it's accounted for."

You can use logic without accounting for it, but to make sense of logic you need to account for it, just like you can live without accounting for reality, but as soon as you start to pontificate the "hows", the "oughts" and "musts" of life the question falls back on you as to how do you know?

That is the point I am making. You don't know anything as a certainty without presupposing God. To come on an atheist forum and tell me the Christian worldview is wrong and then say that it is just wrong because you do not like it is being intellectually dishonest. You are living in a fools paradise. I am showing you that on the impossibility of the contrary your worldview is wrong. You are just saying to me that Christianity is wrong because I say it is wrong, or your ideas on reality and logic are wrong because I say they are wrong.

"Opening your eyes" and looking does not account for it. You haven't explained anything by looking.

It is your business if you want to hold to your views, but mine when you challenge my views or the views of Christianity. That is when I ask you to explain yourself. It is your choice if you want to go through life in a funk, unable to account for reality or knowledge or logic, the issue is when you start to say what is and what should be so.

DANIEL: "You're talking in circles that don't make sense. Maybe you are trying to prove the existence of God to yourself, or perhaps it is your Sunday School project, to try and convert people."

They may not make sense because you are not tackling the tough questions, you are living on the surface, taking things for granted.

As for converting someone, God alone can open eyes and ears and hearts to the truth. It is not that there is no evidence, or even lack of abundant evidence for the whole universe screams of God, it is just what you do with the evidence, how you interpret it, where your starting point is for interpreting anything - God or yourself.

It is your starting point that causes you confusion, because you have a finite mind that is only capable of seeing in part. But even if we, as humans, only see in part, the question still remains as if to what we see, we see truly. God, in His revelation, both natural and special (the Bible) shows us the truth. When we look at origins, does our interpretation match God's revelation, for He does not lie?

Peter Huff wrote "If morality differs between people and cultures, how can it be objective?"

Morality is based on what is functional or disfunctional for a society. As societies differ, so does morality.

One can have a different opinion, but opinions can be wrong. Judging an action based on its level of function or disfunction to a society is objective, however.

"We have disease because God cursed man and the creation when man sinned or did what was unlawful/disobedient to God's revelation."

So your god punishes humans by inflicting newborn children with spina biffida? Or allowing and/or causing millions to die as a result of a tsunami?

It makes far more sense that those things occur without supernatural intervention. Again, how vs. why.

Peter Huff - why make this more complicated than it needs to be? Let me re-state - the concept of 'objective reality' is based on the perception of an apparent world APART from ourselves - pure dualism. Perception/perceiving is of the nature of conscious awareness - while this could be said to be 'real' it's nature is fundamentally subjective.

The great Buddhist dialection Nagarjuna stated that the ultimate nature of things was 'awareness and emptiness' - the world of phenomena was apparent, but was not real. Why would he have reached that conclusion?

Objective 'realities' are projections of that subjectivity - consequently, objectivity is a convenience and a conceptual contrivance, but cannot be truly established - apart from consciousness.....the true basis of all life.

Because of our own conceptual and thought-based cognitive nature, we name the vast multitude of objects and phenomena that we perceive to be 'apparently' existing, and yet not a single one of these attributed nouns and pronouns have any inherent connection with the 'perceived' reality - each is simply a nominal mental construct that serves as an identifier.

This is both useful and confusing, because we use names to separate, order and organize our universe, all the while assuming that 'reality' is tied to a name .... an example of complete subjectivity becoming 'objectivized'.

Taking the Buddhist view, a practical person accepts the relative & apparent reality of phenomena and objects without attributing an 'absolute' objective nature to anything whatsoever - the ultimate nature of things cannot be described or conceptualized.

For a succinct encapsulation of this view, see the link below. As for Christian scientists, they see and experience the very same things as other scientists and then make an arbitrary decision to include God in the equation - again, a completely subjective decision based on faith rather than fact. Believing is obviously not proving - and that's where your 'logical' argument falls apart.

Your logic is not my logic, as regards matters 'absolute'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

Hmmm, Peter Huff's "omnisciencing" again needs some "Schillebeeckxing":

From Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian:

from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Peter, you ask "why" when the proper question is "how". Asking why implies agency. There is no "why" in relation to most of your questions, only "how".

Mike - Final thoughts,

MIKE: "The ability to predict the future with some degree of reliability doesn't presuppose a designer. It's a reflection that patterns exist, nothing more."

Why do patterns exist in a universe that happened by chance, by happenstance? How can chance ever predict the future? How can you be sure that what happened in the past and present will happen in the future in a chance universe?

CHANCE:

1.
1. The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
2. A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.
2. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?
3. An accidental or unpredictable event.
4. A favorable set of circumstances; an opportunity: a chance to escape.
5. A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me.
6. Games. A raffle or lottery ticket.
7. Baseball. An opportunity to make a putout or an assist that counts as an error if unsuccessful.

No the universe shows order, design and intent and only a mind is capable of those three qualities for you would have to show me a rock that thought since the elements of the earth, the material of the universe, is supposedly how personality and intent and mind came about, with the magic ingredient of billions of years. Show me how chance can order and design and sustain the universe? Your magic ingredient is "natural selection, but that begs the question in a chance universe for there are too many problems posed and questions left unsaid by it.

MIKE: "To suggest that those things are evidence of a god, are the following evidence against?: Childhood cancers, spina bifida, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, earthquakes, tsunamis,"

Actually, all that you mentioned are evidences for God since evil has an explanation - man operating as autonomous instead of dependent on God for wisdom and knowledge and truth and morals.

We have wars because man cannot agree on what is good (without God). We have disease because God cursed man and the creation when man sinned or did what was unlawful/disobedient to God's revelation. Man has also done his own damage to this world by not living as God requires and by not understanding the consequences of his greed, hatred, malice and neglect of God's world. So a just and righteous God inflicted a penalty for sin, death, just as He said He would and He cursed the ground so that man would have to work hard to make a living, and He cursed the woman as a reminder in childbirth of her willful disobedience, and He cursed the serpent, the devil. But God has a purpose for the curse as He has a purpose for everything He does.

Mike - Part 2

MIKE: "Morality is purely objective and situationally dependent. It also doesn't require divine intervention. Morality differs between and among people and cultures, proving that it's objective and situational.

Can you explain how morality is "purely objective." What makes it so? It is easy to make a statement, so please support it and make sense of it.

If morality differs between people and cultures, how can it be objective? If I believe something in my culture - Canada - and you believe something different and contradictory in your culture - the USA, then which culture is objective; yours or mine?

If morality is situational, then why do two people disagree on right and wrong for the exact same situation? In such a case, who is right?

If one woman believes that a baby is not living until a certain month of pregnancy and another at conception, who is right? Does it depend on the situation since both have a nine month unborn baby? What makes it human and when does it become so?

No, without God as the objective standard (since He is the giver of life and determines when life begins) it is subjective opinion. There is no objectivity to it, just preference as with any thing called moral. Again you are going to have to tell me how you can make sense of morality for I don't see how?

Hello Mike_K,

ME: "Here are four areas for you to make sense of, truth, logic, morality and the uniformity of nature (i.e. the ability to predict the future from what has happened in the past and present in a universe that supposedly came about by Chance)"

MIKE: "Truth simply is what is. Nothing magical or requiring an explanation."

Whose "what is?" Since our "what is" are different are you the one who decides or is something true regardless of whether you or I believe it, as long as it is measured against an absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard - God? Is something true only if it conforms to the reality that God has created, or do we all create our own reality, in which case it is all different?

Since we as finite minds can't know everything how do you know you perceive reality and truth as it really is?

REALITY:

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

MIKE: "Logic: A method of reasoning and formulating reliable inferences. It requires only an understanding of likely outcomes and an understanding that correlation does not imply causation."

What is your test for reliability? Your "likely outcomes" are different from my likely outcomes because we operate from two distinct worldviews.

Logically we both cannot be correct because our worldviews are contradictory. We are both stating opposites.

Without logic thinking would not be possible, but how do you know that your logic applies to reality - to what is true? There must be some truths that are dependent on themselves or else you have an infinite regression that rests on nothing? What does your logic and your truth rest on? If it is not God then explain how your foundation (if you have one) is stable?

PERSIFLAGE: "Agreed upon standards of (relative) objective truth are merely based on consensus, and do not constitute an actual objective reality."

That is an oxymoron - relative objective truth.

Whose "objective" truth is the true truth when two consensus' disagree? Again, you cannot make sense of truth if it is constantly changing. How can something be true and not true at the same time and in the same way?

You are living in a fantasy world. Without an objective, absolute, unchanging standard why should your definition or the definition of the consensus be the true definition? What makes the majority the ones that get to decide?

Which is true, a country that defines gay-marriage as wrong or one that defines it as right? Who makes the decision in the first place and why is their's the correct one?

PERSIFLAGE: "It is doubtful you'd find anyone in the world of science to dispute this observation - whereas you'd find plenty of religious folk that would claim God as an objective reality existing outside of and apart from human consciousness."

Let me find you a Christian scientist then. Whose "relatively objective reality" are you going to use? God is the necessary condition for true science, since facts need to be interpreted and interrelated and when you connect them you don't always see every facet of the facts.

Take evolutionary science then. Why is it constantly changing its views on the age of the earth and universe as "new evidence" reverses the old?

PERSIFLAGE: "In fact, every form of sentient life has it's own standard of 'objective' reality - and each perceived world is, without much question, unique to that life form."

Show me how it is objective then? You throw words around but they don't make sense.

The only reality that can be objective is that which is revealed by an Almighty, omniscient God, or by thinking His thoughts after Him.

PERSIFLAGE: "Proving otherwise will be the difficult part."

Yes, it will be for you. Show me your standard, your measure, your highest and final reference point. Show me ultimate truth???

Hello again Persiflage,

PERSIFLAGE: "Peter Huff - Daniel ITLD is quite correct."

He is? I say he is not so how do we resolve the matter? Why is your opinion the correct one? Remember, might does not make right for you have to have a qualitative measurement in ethics.

PERSIFLAGE: "There are no absolute objective standards, because in the final analysis human consciousness itself is the sole arbiter of what is and is not 'real' - and consciousness at every level is pure subjectivity."

In your subjective opinion then you have no basis for right and wrong other than personal preference and what one human being does to another is irrelevant. AS I said before, on that basis you prove that what I have been saying all along is true - you can't make sense of right and wrong for there is no objective standard to judge right and wrong by. Without an objective standard there is no right. You can't even judge it by might because is just a preference too. If a standard is constantly changing nothing other than might or mutual consent gives you the ability to impose your subjective opinion on another. But don't call it right.

When you are robbed at gun point or someone murders your loved one don't call it wrong, it is just your personal opinion/preference as opposed to theirs. When Islamic extremists fly planes into nuclear facilities don't call it wrong. It is just serving to promote the preference of that particular group. Do not talk about justice, or equal rights, or gay rights, or the right to choose because without an absolute, objective, ultimate, unchanging standard there is nothing to base right on - it is just preference.

As Ravi Zacharias quoted Steve Turner "Creed" in "Can Man Live Without God",

"If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker." p.44

The trend is towards Obama. If only he would win.

What a wonderful and glorious day tomorrow will, the greatest day of my life.

I never thought I would live to see this day.

The trend is towards Obama. If only he would win.

What a wonderful and glorious day tomorrow will, the greatest day of my life.

I never thought I would live to see this day.

Pseudo, Great Christian Poet,

Does this night have an end-of-days heaviness? Do you think we will come into the light? Will we see something, that something, that spark of the divine that some Jews have always maintained burns within us all (btw., that would include CCNL)?

Have a good night, my friend, and may whatever Powers be bless you and those you love.

Farnaz

Arminius,

"I think that while the quest to determine what CCNL believes is an intriguing puzzle, he will never tell anybody if they figured it out."

Believe does not apply...

Remember Eliza with whom we could talk
A string data base that never would balk

But do not think that it understands
Its just a string grammar that is not so grand.

A keyword to copy that;s all it does find
But do not mistake just that for a mind.

Its answers tyrannical
'cause strings are mechanical

%-}

I don't know about you folks, but I will be one happy camper when this election is over, when the votes are counted (how long will that take?), and we can put this election to rest.

You know, Quinn and Meacham could use this blog to promote genuine dialogue, interest, and understanding. It could be done, and this week would be a very good time for them to embark on such a project.

Peter Huff said to me:

"You have yet to demonstrate how you can account for logic or anything else without supposing God. I can make sense of it, how do you? That is my point, the intellectual impossibility of the contrary. Come on Daniel, let's get some accountability from you."

Why do you think that I am accounting for logic? Why must I account for the nature of reality and existence as we perceive it? Just open your eyes and take a look; there; it's accounted for.

You're talking in circles that don't make sense. Maybe you are trying to prove the existence of God to yourself, or perhaps it is your Sunday School project, to try and convert people.

Phillie fans direct their boos only at cars with Met stickers and lack of effort on the part of the team!!! And once in a while at Santa Clause but not this year as Xmas has come early to Philly!!!!

The concept of god is nothing but the result of an (understandable) circular human reasoning:

1. We position god, where the limits of our knowledge and understanding appear, individually, socially, tribally, nationally, denominationally etc..

2.Since everybody (religionist, scientist, atheist, philosopher) reaches these limits, god is "evident", a well-proved fact: The impossibility to prove the existence of god is brandished as an evidence of his reality!

The greatest minds of mankind knew that "god" is a human concept, nothing else, which in the end explains nothing but itself - as a concept: Socrates, Spinoza, Voltaire, Leibniz, Einstein, Paine etc. etc.

(Agreed, it still may be useful as a metaphor for all those intensively perceived limits.)

The same circular reasoning is the bible thing: The bible says it is truth, therefore it is truth. Try that sort of logic in court! No bible quotation can ever prove anything beyond its own text! It amuses me all the time when people like PH quote the most preposterous claims of the bible to "prove" anything.

Persiflage - good answer to Peter Huff.

Peter - I think I have made it abundantly clear that I don't think any of our subjective human minds are capable of grasping absolute truth.

Some interesting reading you posted though. It doesn't seem to address the part about everlasting possession of the land of Canaan though. I guess the period from 70 CE to 1948 CE wasn't a part of everlasting?

If CCNL is a Phillies fan it explains much.

I remember reading a story in Sports Illustrated when I was a kid. SI asked Richie Allen (I think) what it was like playing for the Phillies. He made a comment about Phillies fans standing on street corners and booing passing cars, just to stay in practice during the off season.

"Here are four areas for you to make sense of, truth, logic, morality and the uniformity of nature (i.e. the ability to predict the future from what has happened in the past and present in a universe that supposedly came about by Chance)"

Truth simply is what is. Nothing magical or requiring an explanation.

Logic: A method of reasoning and formulating reliable inferences. It requires only an understanding of likely outcomes and an understanding that correlation does not imply causation.

Morality is purely objective and situationally dependent. It also doesn't require divine intervention. Morality differs between and among people and cultures, proving that it's objective and situational.

The ability to predict the future with some degree of reliability doesn't presuppose a designer. It's a reflection that patterns exist, nothing more.

To suggest that those things are evidence of a god, are the following evidence against?: Childhood cancers, spina bifida, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, earthquakes, tsunamis,

Peter Huff - Daniel ITLD is quite correct. There are no absolute objective standards, because in the final analysis human consciousness itself is the sole arbiter of what is and is not 'real' - and consciousness at every level is pure subjectivity.

Agreed upon standards of (relative) objective truth are merely based on consensus, and do not constitute an actual objective reality.

It is doubtful you'd find anyone in the world of science to dispute this observation - whereas you'd find plenty of religious folk that would claim God as an objective reality existing outside of and apart from human consciousness.

In fact, every form of sentient life has it's own standard of 'objective' reality - and each perceived world is, without much question, unique to that life form.

Proving otherwise will be the difficult part.

To Frederic2, Notsogreatscot, or anyone else who would care to respond. I'm just curious, do you too feel, as DanielInTheLionsDen does, that there are no objective standards, no final authority, no certain knowledge?

Remember, this is what he said:
"The answer to your question is that THERE IS NO objective standard; there is no final authority, there is no certain knowledge."

Since we all uses logic in order to communicate and convey ideas and concepts, does logic also come under a subjective standard lacking certainty, or is it a universal standard that is needed in order to make sense of anything? In other words, if logic did not exist as an universal standard, would we be able to communicate or make sense of anything? Since anyone who wants to communicate uses logic would it not apply as a certainty, as a universal?

Since logic is not a material object, but an abstract concept and principle how do your corresponding worldviews explain it. (Again, I am asking how without presupposing God you can account for logic?) To anyone who believes it came about by a Chance, material things/process explain how a concept can originate from matter?

DANIEL: "You cannot prove the existence of God by logic, so why are you trying? Most of your arguments are "gobbledy-gook" and without basic meaning."

You have yet to demonstrate how you can account for logic or anything else without supposing God. I can make sense of it, how do you? That is my point, the intellectual impossibility of the contrary. Come on Daniel, let's get some accountability from you.

Here are four areas for you to make sense of, truth, logic, morality and the uniformity of nature (i.e. the ability to predict the future from what has happened in the past and present in a universe that supposedly came about by Chance)

Hi Notsogreatscot,

ME: "He does not do things arbitrarily"

SCOT: "So, what happened to the covenant that God made with Abraham's descendants? Wasn't it supposed to be everlasting? (Gen 17:7, NASB)"

It is, Scripture interprets Scripture. To put it simply, it was fulfilled in/through Christ for those who believed God. They have an everlasting covenant with God. And it comes just as Abraham's came, by faith. (Romans 4, especially verses 13, 16-25)

"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be the heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith...For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are through the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all, (as it is written, 'A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU') in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, 'SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE.' And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able to perform. Therefore IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Now not for his sake only was it written, that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification." Romans 4:13, 16-25

If you are interested here is some homework for you - Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:7,8,16.

"Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: 'All nations will be blessed through you.'" (Galatians 3:7, 8 NIV)

Farnaz, re Baseball:
"...alternate trance-like, wolverine, and ecstatic states depending on who's playing, winning, and losing."

Yup, me too, as well as my daughter. We both went into mourning when the damn Phillies won the Series.

If CCNL likes baseball, then he can't be all bad. He did cheer for the wrong team, though.

For Spiderman and CCNL

I hope that you two guys will vote for Obama.

Go ahead; take a chance; do something dangerious for a change!

Take a walk on the wild side and vote for Obama.

Congratulations, CCNL! I am very happy for you, and I mean that sincerely! (Personally, I cannot understand the significance of baseball, but my brother goes into alternate trance-like, wolverine, and ecstatic states depending on who's playing, winning, and losing. Ditto, one of my sisters.)

Bravo, the Phillies won the World Series!!! and the Philly fans will vote Tuesday but we will be voting for Ryan Howard for President and Chase Utley for VP!!! Jimmy Rollins and Cole Hamels will be our next Senators from Pennsylvania!!!!

Persiflage,

Damn right McCain is not worthy! One sip of Arrogant Bastard Ale would knock him on his tail! Obama would undoubtedly like it. OBAMA!

I guess what I really meant to say was 'I'm still not voting for McCain - because he's not worthy'.

That makes more sense vis a vis your comment!

Thanks Ariminius - I've met some arrogant bastards but have yet to quaff one. Maybe they have something to offer after all!

PS. I'm still not voting for McCain....

Observer12 and Persiflage,

While we are on this delightful digression of fine brews....

Basically, I am Scots-Irish, an Ulsterman. My father was born in Belfast, of Scot ancestry. So I grew up with Guinness, and wonderful stuff it is. I do have two American brews to add to the list, but ya gotta like real ale. One is Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, which has attracted international notice. The other, my all-time favorite - brace yourselves - is Arrogant Bastard Ale. I kid you not. Their motto is "You're Not Worthy". That brew will raise the hairs on the back of your neck - the first taste of it is best compared to the first taste of a good single malt Scotch.

Persiflage, Arminius,

I doubt that either of you will find a substantive challenge to your Guinness assessment from any person living or dead. As "a warrior in the ongoing civil and public rights wars," I shall seek out Yuengling for skermishes and minor battles.

Yours,
Observer12

Observer 12 - The Yuengling brand was first discovered by myself some 10 or more years ago when I worked in PA - curiously and because of the state blue laws, beer must be purchased in state run outlets (by the case only) with wine and liquor purchased in their own separate state run outlets - one has to work for one's beer in PA, so to speak ..... and of course, Sunday being the Lord's Day, you'd better stock up - just like in the sunny Southland. This is changing, by the way.

In any event, I'm with Arminius as regards the true greatness of Guinness Stout as the world's best beer - being of Celtic extraction probably pre-disposes one in this regard. The price tag per six pack is another matter!

However, the Yuengling Black and Tan is the working man's Guinness - and fortunate it is that this fabled early American brand is making it's way across the nation. Yuengling lager is lighter and for less robust beer appetites - hardened warriors of the ongoing civil and public rights wars will opt for the stout everytime.

That said, an excellent red bordeaux or cabernet sauvignon is true nectar of the gods......

Persiflage,

You're suggestion that we continue this most excellent discussion with Yuengling is intriguing, particularly, since I've not heard tell of it hitherto.

Please to inform further?

Persiflage,

I think that while the quest to determine what CCNL believes is an intriguing puzzle, he will never tell anybody if they figured it out.

You have good taste in beer. They just introduced Yuengling here in Georgia, and it is fine stuff. Beats the snot out of any Bud product.

Persiflage, Observer12,

If I may briefly intrude....

I think Persiflage may have hit it with his monotheist/pragmatist description, although "pragmatist" may imply a sensitivity CC lacks.

I quite agree about Dionysus, Tammuz, etc., but that's the scholarship. Also, while Apollo works in some ways, along the artistic/poetic dimension, it fails utterly. Neither a versifier nor a verse interpreter is our CCNL.

Beer sounds good, the only alcoholic beverage that does not intoxicate yours truly on contact. Moreover, the brand Perciflage recommends is highly appropriate and not only for the reasons Persiflage offers. Gentlepersons, Philadelphia is where CCNL doth perch.

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God (or pagans or atheists); otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Observer 12 - I offer another view of the mythical CCNL profile below. Without doubt an upstanding citizen, but I wonder if we could drink Yuengling together?

I only mention that famous beer from Pennsylvania (the oldest US brewery) because PA seems to have become such a pivotal state in our present election - and because I'm drinking one now...

PS. Were I a betting man, I'd say CCNL would not be the Dionysian type......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian

Perciflage:

"this seems to make him some kind of Crossanized & homogenized non-trinitarian Catholic monotheist pragmatist with a predilection for science - not necessarily a bad thing, but kind of hard to categorize"

Sounds right. Not a bad thing, true, but as you say, "the unwillingness to appreciate," or as Farnaz would say, "apprehend different perspectives, the consequences of perspectives," is not admirable. Yet, I think Farnaz has a point when she says there is a "thread of human decency" in him although I might have said, "shred."

As an alternative to Shillebeeckx et al, I propose the links highlighted below.

Much preferred personal views of my own, over ancient Arian, Deist and Unitarian/non-trinitarian views with a modern twist - while Dzogchen and Kaballah are not pantheism, I also remain a great fan of the pantheist view as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
___________________

Observer 12 - I agree that CCNL doesn't appreciate the 'mystical' view whatsoever - this seems to make him some kind of Crossanized & homogenized non-trinitarian Catholic monotheist pragmatist with a predilection for science - not necessarily a bad thing, but kind of hard to categorize. I just gave it a shot - lacking any kind of self-definition.

The unwillingness to appreciate other views is not a commendable trait, in any case.

Perciflage,

IMO, CCNL is no deist, although not a trinitarian. Not a Merton type for sure.

The 21st Century take once again from Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous Dominican Jesuit educated priest, about the "omniscience" of God:

From his book, In Church: The Human Story of God,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: One of God's greatest gifts to us is that of the Future.

Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??

It has always seemed to me that CCNL is a kind of Catholic Deist. His heroic clerical gadfly the Dominican priest/Jesuit educated Schillebeeckx certainly seems to be.

As regards modern Catholic mystics and seminal thinkers, de Chardin really stands alone.

Thomas Merton is worth a read as well......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Schillebeeckx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Merton

Hmmm, an atheist Jew who protects mythical texts!!! Very strange or is it???

CCNL,

Run along now. Go play with your statues and imaginary friends.

Arminius,

You're probably right, but, actually, I've perceived a thread of decency in CCNL. Otherwise, I'd have given up a long time ago.

Farnaz,

Get a grip. The Bagel will not, cannot, grasp the truth. He is here for one purpose only: to irritate, to goad, to cause people to reply. Then he continues his barrage of nonsense, inviting more response. You have fallen totally into his trap, and his infantile giggling of demented delight echoes in this blog.

CCNL x3

The phrase, or term, "sacred text," does not signify, for many people, that there is a literal entity "sacred text." (Duh)

I am referring to its ethnographic, sociohistorical status, if you will, or should I say, if you can grasp.

At all events, I knew you were a believer, always have in fact. I just hope this puts to rest once and for all any doubt.

CCN,

You've answered the question: You're a believer in God. Spare us the pseudo-science from now on.

An atheist with a sacred text???? Very Strange!!!

CCNL:

Continued from previous my previous post:

What Christians think I care nothing about, except from an anthropoligical/sociohistorical perspective. I care little what Christians believe. What troubles me is the sense of entitlement, that some like your overbaked self have for another people's text, ours, the sacred text of the Jews.

You've asked me for references, and I gave them to you, but you don't want to read them, and therein lies your problem. You refuse to learn, prefer rigidity, self-delusion. What you fail to recognize is that the discussion we're in is POLITICAL, that it concerns replacement ideology, not "science." Your own Vatican is aware of this. Go to their web site. Honorable Catholic and Christian clergy would like to rid themselves of what you have not yet come to grips with. They can't however, until they LET MY PEOPLE GO. Release the Tanakh from their insecure grips and move on.

Rosemary Ruether, Catholic, former Harvard professor, Faith and Fratricide.

She's a good start. Let me know when you've read the book.
_________________________________________________
My question: Do you or do you not believe in God?

To answer is a simple matter of typing three letters or two, respectively, for YES and NO.

If you fail to respond to the question for the third time, we'll have to conclude that the answer is YES.

CCNL:
Poor Farnaz, she still does know how to Google it!! Oh well, for the upteenth time, I am a "Crossanized Catholic"!!! And Farnaz in many respects is a "Crossanized" Jew although she continues to note her atheism except when it comes to protecting the myths of Judaism. Very strange!!!!
__________________________________________
Darling Croissant,

If there's one thing on this earth I am not it is Crossanized. He seems to be a decent enough fellow, an excellent prose stylist, but remains Josephus deluded. Have your Tammuz, Dyonisus Greek man-god as you wish, your made-up Pharisees, your last supper sans bread and wine, which even Crossan accepts was impossible, your phony Passover Sanhedrin, also unimaginable and offensive, which Crossan sees as nonsense, as well.

Bear in mind that Crossan is far from the only Catholic/Christian scholar who sees the wine/bread, blood/flesh ickyness as categorically impossible for any Jew living or dead, that even Wikipedia confines the Sanhedrin trial (on Passover!), as, to be polite, shall we say to the nearest garbage dump?

Where others have more guts, is to say Josephus is junk, Tacitus cribbed from Josephus, etc. Do you not know, Oh Deluded Bagel, that even in Josephus's time, he was doubted, made fun of, had to defend himself? AND NOT ABOUT JESUS. Yehoshua, if he existed, was only one of many, many prophets flocking the streets. They were dropping from the trees in that besieged land. Quite frankly, Jews had much more important persons to concern themselves with, persons such as Akiba, who lived.

The Pharisees, the scholars, the strugglers against temple culture and the Sadducees, more like your present day Christians, together agreed, that the age of prophecy had ended before the possibly fictional JC lived. They recognized that the sudden surplus of soothsayers was due to the land's being under siege by savage barbarians, and let it go at that. The compassion was probably began with the the Pharisees. As far as they were concerned, anyone could call himself/herself Messiah, as Crossan and so many others freely acknowledge. What difference could it possibly make to the Jews of the period?

Q: Why is so much on this and other threads being "held"?

Q2: CCNL, answer the question with a simple yes or no, please. I am not interested in the complexity or lack thereof of your religious beliefs.

Do you believe in God?

Type in YES if you do. Type NO, if you don't. You may also google, copy and paste either of those two words if you prefer.

The 21st Century take on the "omniscience" of God:

In Church: The Human Story of God, Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian, profoundly says,

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Bottom line: One of God's greatest gifts to us is that of the Future.

Schillebeeckx was responding to the Dutch citizens who were blaming God for the North Sea storms that destroyed a significant number of levees resulting in a significant loss of life and severe storm damage. Sound familiar??

Hello gentlemen, I'll have to catch up with your posts on Monday. Just a quick note to you Daniel, for now, since time is limited and yours is the first reply.

DANIEL: "And also, a mistake that you make often, why do you believe that people who disagree with you are atheists? You do not speak for God, nor for Christians and other religious people with a more sophistocated perspective than yours."

More often than not the language is a giveaway that something is amiss. Does sophistication make it right? Do I have to be sophisticated to speak truthfully?

I don't know whether you are an atheist or not, but you speak like one in your denial of the one and only true God. No, God speaks for Himself through His Word (Isaiah 55:8-11). That is the standard that measures what one says.

DANIEL: "To remind you once again, an atheist is a person who does not believe in God. If you are so smart, it seems like you would know this already."

DANIEL: "THERE IS NO objective standard."

Spoken as one who is his own god, determining what is and what is not powssible with no one but himself as the final arbiter, and yet never completely sure of anything.

If you believed in God your knowledge is very limited in who He is since to understand who God is you would believe in an objective standard, for how can an omniscient Being not be objective? He knows all things (Psalm 33:13-15; John 16:30; 21:17; Hebrews 4:13). You are letting your postmodern culture rub off on you when you do not put specific meaning to words in context, but that does not change what they say.

DANIEL: "You object to my use of the words "...there is..."

You did not finish your statement. I objected to more than "there is." "There is" is an incomplete sentence; finish it off.

DANIEL: "that we may not actaully be sure about.

You said it and immediately after shot yourself in the foot again with.

DANIEL: "You are the one that does not get it, not me. You are one who clings to illusions, and psychological constructs that do not really exist..."

DANIEL: "that we may not actually be sure about.

If you are not sure about it how do you know and how can you make such claims, and so boldly? You are telling me that I don't get it when you are not sure yourself?

Are you sure of that?

Your world-view continues to trip itself up in a heap of contradictions. And that is the trouble when you make claims that "THERE ARE NO objective standards." Your words are meaningless for whose subjective standard is then true or right? It is just your mere preference and we will sort it out with who has the bigger gun, if you don't shoot yourself in the foot first like you are prone to do. (-:

Poor Farnaz, she still does know how to Google it!! Oh well, for the upteenth time, I am a "Crossanized Catholic"!!! And Farnaz in many respects is a "Crossanized" Jew although she continues to note her atheism except when it comes to protecting the myths of Judaism. Very strange!!!!

What's a matter Jacoby, is the truth getting to you?

Said it before and will say it again, CCNL is no atheist.

If he were, he would simply answer the question or cut and paste as he usually does, but he won't and he doesn't. Scroll down. He's been asked twice on this thread a simple yes or no question: Are you an atheist?

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL,

Is it a Muffinist ye are, then, and a bit of an hypocrite?

Farnaz x3

Peter Huff wrote: "He does not do things arbitrarily"

So, what happened to the covenant that God made with Abraham's descendants? Wasn't it supposed to be everlasting? (Gen 17:7, NASB)

For Peter Huff

You cannot prove the existence of God by logic, so why are you trying? Most of your arguments are "gobbledy-gook" and without basic meaning.

And also, a mistake that you make often, why do you believe that people who disagree with you are atheists? You do not speak for God, nor for Christians and other religious people with a more sophistocated perspective than yours.

To remind you once again, an atheist is a person who does not believe in God. If you are so smart, it seems like you would know this already.

Peter Huff

You say that any opinion that deviates from your own is worthless and meaningless. So what?

I have not shot myself in the foot. I merely stated that I do not believe as you do. So what?

You object to my use of the words "...there is..."

This phrase is merely a grammatical construction to indicate some form of being or existence, but I am more than willing to admit that it is not particularly meaningful, but sort of a grammatical place holder, to help indicate a state of being or non-being about "things" or phenomena that we may not actaully be sure about.

You are the one that does not get it, not me.

You are one who clings to illlusions, and psychological constructs that do not really exist, and then assign to them a true and concrete reality.

FREDERIC2 - Part 2

FRED: "And as to Goedel: He proved that you cannot make defining statements about any system by arguing within that system. In other words: Bible quotations prove nothing except that they are bible quotations."

So who is he and what makes what he says absolute and objective? It seem to me that he is making self-refuting statements, for if "you cannot make defining statements about any system by arguing within that system" what is he doing? God is outside of me and since He is all knowing He is objective. Is Goebel all knowing to make such claims? How does Goebel know these things?

If science or philosophy is the defining system he is arguing from then does this rule apply to his defining system? Maybe it would be better that he just zipped it since he can't make sense of it? (-:

If Goedel is your highest form of authority stick to him and be happy for as long as your circumstances allow it or until the Judgment!

FRED: "The desire to have "absolute standards" of PH and his ilk is understandable, but it proves nothing except to be a desire. It never can prove that there might be an absolute human standard connected to a god. Just compare Newton's "absolute standards" to today's "absolute standards" in science after Einstein and Heisenberg."

I never believed that science is our highest standard and as you point out, it is constantly revised as new evidence becomes available.

I'm still waiting for you to make sense of things without an absolute, objective, certain standard. DanielInTheLionsDen can't. He has admitted he has no certainty as have many of the other atheists I have conversed with over the course of the last two years.

FRED: "Btw: Do you REALLY believe the earth was made in 6 "days" 6000 years ago? That would end my part of the conversation."

In six days, yes. As to the exact time frame God does not give us to the day, but He has supplied us with genealogies that we can know within a degree that the earth is young (by the genealogies), between 6-10,000 years old.

The reason it ends your part of the conversation is because you have built a worldview that will not give authority to anyone higher than yourself. You are your own judge, your own final and ultimate arbiter. You are not open to God, as the Bible itself points out repeatedly of unbelievers. You need the grace and mercy of God.

You decide what is possible and what is not based on your limited knowledge of this world. So be it.

Hi frederic2,

FRED: "To PH (repeated because the last thread has been cut off)"

Yes, it would have became impossible to finish our train of thought, if not for another forum, and we are not talking of superficial ideas, but the hard questions of life.

FRED: "Your so-called "absolute standard" of course itself belongs to the category you define as "just different preferences as for what one believes."

Well you start from one of two suppositions, either God or something else. But my point has been how can or do you make sense of anything without presupposing the Christian God? You can't. And the Lord willing I can keep demonstrating this, since you always avoid answering my questions. That is because your worldview has no answer for them, as DanielInTheLionsDen has noted (and others).

I am trying to make you accountable for what you say but there is no accounting for what you say unless you presuppose God. You can't make sense of sense without an absolute, objective, ultimate standard - and there is only One. (Isaiah 43:10-13)

FRED: "Everybody is free to put the tag of "absolute truth" to any nonsense he believes."

Sure, but you can test their claims to what they believe by His standard, His Word, for only His Word can cut through the falsehood.

FRED: "There never has been any proof of your belief except your faith."

There is all kinds of proof, of which it would be impossible for any man to give account of it all. I keep pointing you to the Bible, since you need tangible proof.

Another point, every belief requires faith. It is what that faith rests in that makes it true or false.

FRED: "Faith is defined by the impossibility, the rejection to even try to prove its content."

No, there are lots of proofs, but your worldview is not open to any of them. You have started your foundation in mid-air, on the belief that there is no God, so all the evidence I could give you, you will intern make it fit into your already presupposed belief system, and if you can't make it fit, you will deny it in order that you are still the perceived one who is in control, the final authority.

FRED: "Stick to it and be happy. If it were provable truth, it would cease to be faith, and your house of cards would instantly crumble."

Not at all. If something is true, whether I believe it or not does not make it any less true. Truth, in order to be true can never be false, or it would not be true in the first place.

Hello DanielintheLionsDen,

DANIEL: "The answer to your question is that THERE IS NO objective standard; there is no final authority, there is no certain knowledge."

You are saying, and I quote, "THERE IS NO objective standard..."

Are you absolutely sure of that?

Again you have an argument that is self destructive for in order for it to be true - there is no objective standard, no final authority, no certain knowledge - it would have to be absolute, certain, unchanging and the final authority. And we both know that you are not the final, objective, certain authority.

You state categorically, in bold letters THERE IS NO...The problem is that when you drew your gun you shot yourself in the foot, not once but repeatedly. It is impossible to deny absolutes without stating one to make an absolute denial. It is like "Never say never." You just did, twice. Your statements are silly. Every relative position has to be based on an absolute in order to make sense of it, wise nothing is real.

DANIEL: "What part of that don't you get?"

The part that you say "THERE IS NO", in which, in order for your statement to be true it would have to be absolute.

DANIEL: "Merely to stamp your foot, and insist that your belief in your God is a true, absolute, and objective vision of reality, does not make it so; but that indeed, your vision is false and deceptive. You are deluding yourself, and seeking to mislead others."

True, my belief does not make what I say necessarily true if it deviates from His Word, so I point you to the God of Christianity and His standard. He is the one, living and true God and apart from Him there is no other. I do not appeal to myself as the ultimate, absolute, objective standard, as you do yourself with your bold claims, but to the One who is true.

Please put your gun away. You are shooting yourself in the foot again when you state categorically that the God of the Bible is false. I will just remind you of your statement, "THERE IS NO objective standard."

Thanks for your opinion and uncertainty! What makes it anything more than worthless, meaninglessness? What makes anything more than worthless if we can't make sense of it? This is your dilemma, for in God there is meaning and purpose in the whats and whys and hows of life.

Part 2,

SCOT: "With some heavy study on my part, I could go into some detail about the origin of forces, and reactions that happen in milliseconds, and the enormity of 14 billion years. You wouldn't believe, or even consider, any of it, so why waste my time?"

The issue would still come down to what makes your determination the true evaluation of the facts. Do you see every aspect of every fact? Can you fathom every relationship involved in the fact that makes it what it is? Were you there supposedly 14 billion years ago when you say it all came about by supposed Chance?

ME: "Because He is sovereign and that is the way He chose to do it. He has a plan and purpose for everything He does. He does not do things arbitrarily."

SCOT: "Now we are into YOUR subjective interpretation of what the bible says."

It is very plain, and I am calling on something outside myself, His revealed Word.

"He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him [Christ]."

"[A]lso we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to HIS PURPOSE who WORKS OUT ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL," (Ephesians 1:9,11 NASB; see also ch. 3:10-11)

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophillus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

Regarding His sovereignty, it stands out throughout the Bible,

"Even from eternity I am He; And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?" (Isaiah 43:13)

"Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW....and that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

Scot, you will one day admit to the sovereign Lord that He is Lord, not you.

Hi Notsogreatscot,

ME: "Can you observe logic? Can you touch, taste, smell, hear it, feel or sense it?"

SCOT: "Not in your arguments!!! (Just teasing, but you walked into it)"

Well you show me how you can observe something that is intangible/incorporeal rather than empirical, immaterial rather than material, noumenal not phenoumenal.

SCOT: "Still your logic seems to be "I have an answer, and you don't, so my answer must be right"

I'm pointing to God as having the answers, and not just any god, the God who has revealed Himself in the pages of the Christian Scriptures. What I'm saying is that without Him you can't make sense of logic, knowledge, truth or "right."

You banter these terms about but you cannot explain why they are so.

And I have asked you to and you keep proving my point with answers like you give - your subjective opinion. What makes subjective opinion right. There is no "right" in subjective opinion. Right has to be based on an absolute standard because the problem with subjective opinion is that whose subjective opinion is the right opinion? And for reasons such as these you must presuppose the Christian God in order to make sense of anything.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Again my beliefs have been published many times on these blog pages. Google it!!!

To PH (repeated because the last thread has been cut off):
Your so-called "absolute standard" of course itself belongs to the category you define as "just different preferences as for what one believes."

Everybody is free to put the tag of "absolute truth" to any nonsense he believes.

There never has been any proof of your belief except your faith. Faith is defined by the impossibility, the rejection to even try to prove its content. Stick to it and be happy. If it were provable truth, it would cease to be faith, and your house of cards would instantly crumble.

And as to Goedel: He proved that you cannot make defining statements about any system by arguing within that system. In other words: Bible quotations prove nothing except that they are bible quotations.

The desire to have "absolute standards" of PH and his ilk is understandable, but it proves nothing except to be a desire. It never can prove that there might be an absolute human standard connected to a god. Just compare Newton's "absolute standards" to today's "absolute standards" in science after Einstein and Heisenberg.

Btw: Do you REALLY believe the earth was made in 6 "days" 6000 years ago? That would end my part of the conversation.

CCNL,

You are a partly (maybe more than partly) good, partially sane, profoundly obsessed, insensitive, defensive, chauvinistic Muffinistic Idolater Christian (MIC), who thinks his Muffinistic Idolater Christianity makes him superior to the rest of us.

Having thus spoke, I now assert that you did not answer DITLD's question, nor have you ever answered said question.

A simple yes or no will do, and if you don't answer, we can only conclude that you are a believer in a God, the Holy Trinity, Zeus, or the like.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

My beliefs have been published here many times. Google it since On Faith does not have a search engine.

Spiderman suffers from some sort of pretty severe phychosis. So just take what he says with a grain of salt, and try not to think too bad of him, although I know it is not easy.

He is not really responsible fo the things he posts here.

Peter Huff said:

"Then show me your objective standard and final authority that makes anything absolute rather than relative and that makes knowledge a certainty?"

The answer to your question is that THERE IS NO objective standard; there is no final authority, there is no certain knowledge.

What part of that don't you get?

Merely to stamp your foot, and insist that your belief in your God is a true, absolute, and objective vision of reality, does not make it so; but that indeed, your vision is false and deceptive. You are deluding yourself, and seeking to mislead others.

PeterHuff wrote: "Can you observe logic? Can you touch, taste, smell, hear it, feel or sense it?"

Not in your arguments!!! (Just teasing, but you walked into it)

Still your logic seems to be "I have an answer, and you don't, so my answer must be right"

With some heavy study on my part, I could go into some detail about the origin of forces, and reactions that happen in milliseconds, and the enormity of 14 billion years. You wouldn't believe, or even consider, any of it, so why waste my time?

You also wrote: "Because He is sovereign and that is the way He chose to do it. He has a plan and purpose for everything He does. He does not do things arbitrarily."

Now we are into YOUR subjective interpretation of what the bible says.

Notsogreatscot -Part 3

SCOT: "You believe an omnipotent God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago. Why couldn't the same God have actually done the job 14 billion years ago, and left it for us to figure out when we were ready to grasp the concept?"

Because He is sovereign and that is the way He chose to do it. He has a plan and purpose for everything He does. He does not do things arbitrarily.

He chose to reveal His plan to us and to the Israelites in order that we/they may understand. The purpose for the Israelites was to set aside a day a week in honor of the LORD, to worship Him. Now if God's days of creation are different from ours then it would be impossible to know how long to set aside or how long to work.

God has no purpose of days or weeks or seasons or years in His own right since He is eternal in nature. For Someone who is eternal, has no beginning or ending, what is the significance of a day? It was set there for an example to His people.

"Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for seasons, and for days and years...and it was so.'" (Genesis 1:14, 15b)

ME: "Faith is the basis for belief in anything. You have faith. Will you own that?"

SCOT: “Sure, I can own that, but science is about putting faith in things that can be observed.”

Can you observe logic? Can you touch, taste, smell, hear it, feel or sense it?

SCOT: “We can observe things like the Doppler effect….. I don't recall any biblical passages that tell us anything about the rate that other galaxies are moving away from us, the ratio of potassium isotopes in the earth's crust, changes in the observed phenotypes of peppered moths, or the emergence of new flu viruses.”

And I don’t recall hearing how these things happened in the first place in a universe that came about by random, chance happenstance. How does Chance order anything and how can Chance ever have cause to predict that what was uniform and happened in the past and present will be so in the future?

To Notsogreatscot - Part 2,

SCOT: "You have admitted in the past that God sometimes speaks figuratively. Why can't Exodus be an example of God speaking figuratively?"

First you have to look at the context of the passage and figure out what kind of language is being used by the writer. We do that every day in order to understand communication.

What is the plain meaning? Is it figurative/allegorical or literal, historic/geographic grammatical narrative, poetic/Hebrew parallelism, parabolic/fable/proverb, etc., etc.

Since God is the source of language and since we are made in His image, He is able to communicate to us using language. So look at the passage and see what it says,

"Therefore God spoke all these words, saying,
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery [historical narrative language]
You shall have no other gods before Me. [command - easy to understand as plain language]....
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. [command]
Six days you shall labor and do all your work, [descriptive command]
but the seventh day...[more detailed description and command]
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh....[explanation and historical description]

If you are unsure of how to interpret these passage, ask a six year old how he/she would interpret it, for it is obvious enough. If you would you care to dispute the plain meaning of these verses further first ask yourself this question - are you reading something into the Scriptures that is not there? Also ask yourself if other Scriptures shed light on the meaning for the Scriptures interpret themselves.

"I am glad that Garrison, Douglas and others saw it as God's mission for them to end slavery in America."

Douglass did not see this. And there is no reason he should have, since ministers actively supported slavery, just as ministers actively opposed it.

Susan Jacoby,

You write:

"Both Nazism and Stalinism were strongly anti-rational."

That view has been hotly contested for sixty years, with the con side winning at this point. The originators of the opposing view were Horcheimer and Adorno, Dialectics and the Enlightenment.

The link below contains a couple of paragraphs on the theory they outline in that highly accessible book.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/adorno/

Hello Notsogreatscot,

The last forum was shut down. I did not have a chance to reply to your last comments.

ME: "I have shown you that everything is relative and subjective outside of knowing God"

SCOT: "No Peter, you have only shown that YOU believe everything to be relative outside of knowing God."

Then show me your objective standard and final authority that makes anything absolute rather than relative and that makes knowledge a certainty? Two points, one is you would have to know everything in order to state without a doubt that something is absolute or you would have to know what an absolute being has said on the subject in order to know it truly, without doubt. Two, in a universe that supposedly came about by Chance you will be hard pressed to do so, but I’m waiting.

I’ve shown you the impossibility of the contrary. Morals are meaningless if they are subjective because whose subjective opinion/standard makes something right, except by might, and that by preference alone. I’ve shown you that your worldview cannot account for how life, knowledge, truth, or being came about.

What I have said is unless you believe in the God of Christianity you cannot make sense of anything and I have asked you repeatedly to make sense of your worldview by various questions on morality, truth, existence, uniformity in nature, laws of logic, etc., which you have repeatedly brushed off. Therefore, up to date, all you have shown is that you cannot or will not make sense of what I have asked you to. Why is that?

You're on an atheist forum pushing your point of view but when you are questioned you refuse to answer. I have not done that to you. If your ideas are valid why not share them so that we can all understand?

CCNL:

The 'small' atheist voting block - which, of course, isn't a block at all - is larger than the 'block' of all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans combined. Smallish, but not that small.

But CCNL, aren't you an atheist?

Isn't it a sad commentary, that you have posted and posted and posted until your mouse is blue in the face, but still, I am not sure what you believe.

But that is your responsibility to make it clear to others what you meant to communicate, isn't it?

To: AJeffrey824
From: Susan Jacoby

On the contrary: the brutality of slaveowners was strongly supported by their religion, and religion was long used as a justification for slavery. Of course, religion was also used in opposition to slavery. That's my whole point: you can use religion to rationalize anything you want.

Both Nazism and Stalinism were strongly anti-rational. The distinguishing characteristic of all antirational belief systems is imperviousness to evidence. Right-wing religious believers don't acknowledge evidence of the harm that extremist religion can do. Stalinists couldn't look at the evidence that communism didn't work. As for the Nazis, they invented a whole world of antirational belief based on pagan myths, cuckoo ideas about the superiority of the Aryan "race," and, yes, traditional Christian anti-Semitism also prepared the way for them.

Fortunately the voting bloc for adherents of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, e.g. Arminius, is quite small significantly smaller than the small atheist voting bloc.

If God kills all things, and you are merely doing right by him so he is nice to you, then you are nothing but a coward.

I'd like to thank Ms. Jacoby for this piece. In tone and content, it expresses what I think much of the other "silent majority" thinks.

To DANIELINTHELIONSDEN:
Aristotle and Aquinas also had theories of natural law, so while I agree that it's a dead concept, its origins are even more archaic than you think.

I never ask my surgeon what religion he practices. I do not need the flight crew to post their religion on the cockpit door.

It is illegal in this Country to make hiring decisions or housing decisions based upon religion.

We "hire" & house the President & VP!

I don't care what criteria anyone uses when they are in the voting booth, (more power to them if it is religion or any thing else) but I object to putting it on all our government forms, government websites & making such a big deal about it in the press.

One error of athiests is they reject the fact that everyone practices religion. Your aversion to the right wing is just as reactionary and narrow-minded as others who see their religion as the only way. God may not have been mentioned in the constitution, but religion was specifically addressed. Separation of Church and State was deliberately left out of the constitution.

As an African-American, I am glad that Garrison, Douglas and others saw it as God's mission for them to end slavery in America. Religion is not the force of evil in this world, evil people are the force of evil. They cloak themselves in anything that will soothe their consciences. The brutality of the French Revolution, Stalin, Hitler, slave owners, etc. were born out of reason, not religion. The inquisition, radical islam and many other acts are born out of a corruption of religion. Both are equally dangerous.

Finally, your bias against Palin is irrational. I remember her giving credit to Hillary Clinton and Ferraro for paving the way for her. Just as I remind my rightwing friends that BO being president will influence the courts, but our nation has endured because of the checks and balances. Also, our military is honorable. No dictator will ever rule in America unless we are utterly defeated. I have hope for America regardless of who wins the White House.

We citizens of the hinterlands are in need of a National government less and less. A national religion or any foolish religion we haven't needed since the Stone Age. If Dobson and Richardson and Limbaugh talk to God I'll eat my Tony Lamas. What a crock. Jesus the enslaver is extinct and I don't see him making a comeback tour. HE HAS BEEN DEAD FOR 2000 YEARS. What morons.

castanea:

Please, stop with the tired old canard about killing babies. Most people who are pro-choice would rather avoid unwanted pregnancies using birth control, but still think that the mother should be free to choose.

And what of the one-third or so of all pregnancies that get aborted naturally? Using rightwing logic, one can argue that God kills babies. Why is that?

October 29, 2008 10:56 AM

________________________________________

Many links with high quality essays responding to the library of pro-abortion lies have been posted on the latest blogs of Catholic America, Chuck Colson, Dorinda Bordlee.

O yes, the tired old canard, "Women would not choose abortion, but it is their right, and the baby is only a blob..." has been addressed too.

Every living thing dies. God kills ALL human beings - WITHOUT exception - at one time or another. Should we then allow human beings to do the same, to kill anyone at any time they choose?

The commentary is a little too terse and cryptic to follow, but it looks like people are questioning or wondering about natural law.

I have thought about this alot, so here are my comments, if anyone cares.

It is commonly accepted that such a "thing" as natural law exists; this could be the laws of physics, the laws of science, the laws of nature, or even "Mother Nature." But what is really known about this natural law? Nothing.

"Natural Law" is a philosophical specualtion of the eighteenth century, a reaction to the sudden rapid advancement of science. Yet, science itself, does not commnent on the existence of natural laws, other than to postulate certain observed principles, which others may then classify as natural law.

When you speculate on natural law, you are using the word "law" as a metaphor, invoking the idea of the laws of the state and of some kind of Ministry of Justice. And this metaphor, while really not accurate at all, causes many people to think of natural in this way, as sort of, God's rules. But there is nothing in science to suggest that these laws of nature are God's rules.

What are they? Are they foreces, phenomena, things? No. They have no "existence" such a thing would have. Are they just our impressions of observed order? And if so, does that make them things? Are our impressions of order things that exist? Not really. There is, in fact, no way to define in a satisfactory way, what a natural law is, even though we all feel that we must know that such things must exist.

Science operates just fine without a definition of natural law.

In my opinion, there is no natural law. This is merely our impression of a world as we interact with it to understand it. Natural Law is a sort of short-hand book-keeping or record keep;ing technique, to help us to understand the many aspects and textures of the world. The impression of Natural Law is a mental technique.

This is definitely true for all the laws of science and nature. It is all the more true for the laws that define the scriptures, courts, judgements, dominions, ethics, and morality of any God that we might believe in. And since Intelliegent Design is supposedly a corrolary to the concept of a world ruled by Nature Law, that is God's Rules, the withdrawal of belief in Natural Law also makes Intelligent Design an imposible belief.

Having said all of this, I still do think there is room for a belief in God, just not in a God that is a variation of the human experience, and not a God that is based on any human construct of Natural Law.

Susan, did we have to read all the mumbo-jumbo to learn in fact religion does influence your vote? Please quit acting as though you have a one-up

"Religion, by its structure and endless rules and laws, strives to be a rigid and closed system. Faith, on the other hand, is open-ended by definition, because it is a journey, not a destination."

What word would you use for the type of faith that rejects any contradictory data? One reason often cited by creationists for rejecting evolution and abiogenesis is that these people choose to interpret those hypotheses as life having no inherent meaning. Evolution and abiogenesis may both be incorrect, but whatever someone reads into these about the meaning of life has nothing to do with their accuracy.

Hi, Notsogreatscot,

You might consider dropping the 'Notso'....

For sure, I have had my troubles tonight!

Let us hope His Noodliness comes down and reminds us that His heaven has beer volcanoes and a stripper factory.

I can't really tell what you people have been up to today. It seems there's a lot of conflation out there.

Conflating "natural laws" with physical laws (e.g. gravitation).

Conflating axiom based formal mathematical systems with observation based science.

Conflating 90 with 50. (If 90 is the new 50, does that mean I'm only 9?)

Conflating 7 with 8. (just kidding Arminius)

Hopefully the Flying Spaghetti Monster will set us all straight and the election will be over by next week at this time.

RAmen, Susan. I agree that McCain has sold out his maverick status to the religious conservative base for the nomination. We really need to take a good hard look at this country's origins as a secularist nation, and remember the establishment clause of the first amendment, which makes any use of taxpayer money to promote religious goals (I'd say tax exemption already treads a slippery slope) unconstitutional.

Oops... actually EIGHT non-commandments...

"The seven non-god Commandments/rules..."

Huh? Say what?

How about The seven non-god Commandments/rules of His Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_the_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

They really ain't too bad.

After all the equations, laws, axioms and theorems, there still are only the following rules:

The seven non-god Commandments/rules from 60,000 years of evolution and the greatest Commandment/rule, "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself"!!! and these should be the guides for voting for anyone from dogcatcher to president.

"Hart demolished Natural Law"

Only for those who were watching. I believe putting the word "natural" in front of the word "law" is an attempt to give something that is obviously man-made the authority of being God-made. I.e., an attempt to insert religion into law or politics.

Transcript has been read ever since. Law, Liberty, and Morality is a slim volume that takes a half hour to read. Pretty much closes the discussion.

"Here is a citation for a person who has given us clear evidence for the open-endedness of religion."

I would respectfully submit that this is false on the face of it. Religion, by its structure and endless rules and laws, strives to be a rigid and closed system. Faith, on the other hand, is open-ended by definition, because it is a journey, not a destination.

Carstonio,

"I'm trying to understand how empirical science can have a theorem that cannot be proven within its logical system."

So am I. But Goedel has been accepted. Nonetheless he was dealing with logical systems, and empirical science, while it is based, of course, on reason, is not necessarily a 'closed' system. I suppose by definition science cannot be a closed system. All I can say is look it up on the web. I'll try to pry into my old guy memory and see if anything turns up.

I am a catholic who left the republican party in 2000 as the evangelical right was arriving. I hold the separation of church and state dear, and the past 8 years illustrate the danger of a president whose foreign policy treatise is the bible. The McCain of 2000 would have received my vote. Now, it's Go Obama!

Farnaz2 : "Hart demolished Natural Law"

Only for those who were watching. I believe putting the word "natural" in front of the word "law" is an attempt to give something that is obviously man-made the authority of being God-made. I.e., an attempt to insert religion into law or politics.

Carstonio : "how [can] empirical science can have a theorem that cannot be proven within its logical system"

See Kuhn on the way science handles anomalies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

Natural Law.

The Hart-Fuller Debate
Hart, Law, Liberty, and Morality

Anything by H.L.A. Hart. Thought he demolished Natural Law in 1958. Still think so.

"Again, I stress that I am no expert."

I'm trying to understand how empirical science can have a theorem that cannot be proven within its logical system. That sounds like the Brain in a Jar argument.

"Here is a citation for a person who has given us clear evidence for the open-endedness of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade"

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but having read some of this blogger's other posts, I'm assuming he means this in a positive way.

Eliade gave proof only of his own Rumanian Orthodoxy's open-endedness with regard to fascism and other racisms. This openned him to numerous pig fascists, folks like Salazar, Gobineau, Jung, etc. His anti-Jewish racism, nazi sympathies, Iron Guard membership, etc., are well known.

Took a brief look at the link blogger presented and much, but not all, of his disgusting politics is addressed. Myth, religion, can, but need not be terribly dangerous. More on Eliade another time. For now, I suggest all follow the link the blogger provides to read up on the pig, Eliade.

Not to say all his work is garbage, though some is. He did contribute something, but then so did "scientific" experiments done on humans in the Concentration Camps, quiet as it's kept.

Arminius : "Goedel destroyed that notion"

Exactly, The basic principles are simple. They should be taught in grammer school. (See how I exaggerate!)

Carstonio,

As I understand it, Goedel started with math, but proved that his theorem was true for any supposedly self-contained, axiom-based logical system. Again, I stress that I am no expert. Apparently, he and Einstein were good friends, for what that is worth.

"Goedel destroyed that notion with his Theory of Incompleteness in the 1930's."

I understand that Goedel was talking about mathematics. Would you explain what relevance his theory has for empirical science, where the objective is to observe and devise possible explanations for the observations?

Oh, hell! Sorry - I did not the the 'not' in the sentence. So I support you. Many apologies...!

"Empirical science is not a closed logical system."

No such thing. Goedel destroyed that notion with his Theory of Incompleteness in the 1930's. Within any logical system, there are always well-formed theorems that cannot be proved within the system. Don't ask me to explain - it is hideously complex, and beyond me. But it effectively destroyed the central basis of Russel and Whitehead's monumental 'Principia Mathematica'.

Kengelhart,

"I know my tendency to abstraction is not far from BS, but exaggeration helps to prove a point. I like to see how things are the same rather than how they are different. The latter is much easier."

Yes, I often follow that road. But there are traps. One must consider both sides.

Carstonio : "Your distinction between churches and religion doesn't seem relevant."

The topic "religion" includes but is not limited to "churches." Religions faith does not necessarily imply a closed system, as is evidenced by empirical science (although I understand you do not accept that it is driven by faith). Here is a citation for a person who has given us clear evidence for the open-endedness of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade

"But western churches in particular refuse to acknowledge this."

I don't understand. Your distinction between churches and religion doesn't seem relevant. Any type of religious faith would amount to a closed system, whether it's individual faith or organized religion. Would you explain?

Carstonio : "Empirical science is not a closed logical system."

Exactly, which is what distinguishes them from the texts of churches, which are permanently closed logical systems. Neither is religion, when considered collectively and historically a closed system. But western churches in particular refuse to acknowledge this.

Arminius : "that does not mean that these axioms are the same as faith"

I know my tendency to abstraction is not far from BS, but exaggeration helps to prove a point. I like to see how things are the same rather than how they are different. The latter is much easier.

"All logical systems, like mathematics, are founded on axioms that must be accepted in order for their logic to be effective. Change the axioms and the whole system fails."

Empirical science is not a closed logical system. If a premise or axiom is contradicted by observation and experiment, then the premise or axiom is discarded or revised. What you describe is more like Aristotelian science, which focused on interior logic at the expense of observation and experiment.

Kengelhart wrote,

"All logical systems, like mathematics, are founded on axioms that must be accepted in order for their logic to be effective. Change the axioms and the whole system fails. Earth at the center of the universe? Replacing it with the idea of solar systems is just the next, not the final, step."

We're not always on the same page, but what you wrote (above) is absolutely true. I have put this forth on some of these blogs, only to have it fall on deaf ears. But.... that does not mean that these axioms are the same as faith. I'm a believer, by the way.

Carstonio : "Are you suggesting that physical laws are unproven axioms?"

All logical systems, like mathematics, are founded on axioms that must be accepted in order for their logic to be effective. Change the axioms and the whole system fails. Earth at the center of the universe? Replacing it with the idea of solar systems is just the next, not the final, step.

"However, science is still based on unproven axioms that are accepted by all 'believers' as a matter of faith"

Can you offer examples? I know that science takes no position on why the universe has certain orderly behaviors, which we codify as physical laws. Are you suggesting that physical laws are unproven axioms?

Carstonio : "I've never heard any contemporary religion make such a claim about brain wiring."

I think you are talking about churches here, not religion. You probably hear this kind of claim made by "science." Science does not have a church which is constituted by ideas that are not allowed to change. However, science is still based on unproven axioms that are accepted by all "believers" as a matter of faith. Many ideas about the brain are supported by such axioms.

Three things should lead your reason for voting: Duty, Honor and Country. The moment you put your God before these tenets then it will be a short time before you have none of them, not even your God.

"This is a belief that is common in contemporary religion. It is basicly a matter of faith because, although we have circumstantial evidence, it is not conclusive."

Huh? I've never heard any contemporary religion make such a claim about brain wiring. I've only heard religions claim that natural laws have transcendental existence created by a divine authority. I'm not arguing that natural laws are indeed rooted in brain wiring, only offering that as a possibility. There's a theory that our moral sense is a product of evolution - rudimentary moral behavior has been observed in other animal species.

Freestinker : "reason is based on on facts and logic"

Look closely and you will find that how we define facts and logic is based on unproven axioms. Those unproven axioms are accepted on faith. Combined, those unproven axioms are the foundations for modern religion.

Carstonio : "They could be rooted in our brain wiring."

This is a belief that is common in contemporary religion. It is basicly a matter of faith because, although we have circumstantial evidence, it is not conclusive.

"This is where religion comes in. Religion is what we believe without evidence."

Kengalhart,

Exactly. However, religious belief is based on faith, while reason is based on on facts and logic so to say religion is the basis for reason is to completely confuse the two.

From the CDC-2001 Required reading for all sexually active males:

"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission.

However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot
guarantee absolute protection against any STD.

Furthermore, condoms lubricated with spermicides are no more effective than other lubricated condoms in protecting against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. In order to achieve the
protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly and consistently.

Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their
protective effect. Inconsistent use, e.g., failure to use condoms with every act of
intercourse, can lead to STD transmission because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse."

Susan: "I will always vote for the candidate who stands farthest from the positions endorsed by the religious right"

I see, so you're not really FOR anything, just AGAINST someone else?

"Fundamentally, we believe that democratic government SHOULD be a natural law among people. Isn't a natural law what we believe is intended by God, or divine authority?"

I'll attempt to answer, with the caveat that philosophy is not my strong point...I suggest that a natural law is really a principle and not a rule. Attributing a natural law to a divine authority would not be natural at all, because it would make the law simply another rule. As I understand it, a natural law is assumed to naturally exist or to arise through human interaction. They could be rooted in our brain wiring. In any case, one can be agnostic about the origin of natural law and still support a particular natural law.

Freestinker : "there is absolutely no evidence at all for any of the claims"

This is where religion comes in. Religion is what we believe without evidence.

"Isn't a natural law what we believe is intended by God, or divine authority?"

Kengalhart,

Since there is absolutely no evidence at all for any of the claims that god(s)/goddess(es) exist, how can we possibly know that these hypothetical entities have any intent at all, much less what those intentions are? It is rather fruitless to posit intent prior to confirming their existence.

So you may believe in a particular divine authority but WE certainly do not. Natural laws are called natural laws because they are natural, not supernatural like gods and godesses.

CCNL wrote, And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.

I take strong exception with your contention that condoms are "no protection" against STDs. As a matter of fact they afford excellent protection against most forms of STDs.

The Bush administration, which fosters abstinence above all else, demonstrates tremendous ignorance about STDs. To me, it's as compassionate as Catholic Charities working in Africa and refusing to make condoms part of their treatment of HIV infected people. It doesn't matter that most of the people they are treating have no such prohibition against birth control. It's a matter of their beliefs, not the people they are treating and thus another generation of young people will be lost.

Now, as far as your statement about condoms offering no protection, this is a quote about the use of condoms from the Mayo Clinic.

"Do condoms reduce the risk of STDs?

Yes. By blocking the exchange of body fluids that might contain infectious agents, latex condoms provide the best protection available against STDs. Used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective at preventing the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS, and at reducing the risk of infection from other STDs, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia."

You seem to be hung up as many religious people are about sex. Sex among young people is going to happen. The most charitable thing you can do (and I have 2 teenage boys and one in his early 20's) is to teach them about respecting others but teach them facts about sex and disease.

"government based not not on divine authority but on the consent of the governed"

Susan, Don't you take the value of consent of the governed on faith? In other words, what is your scientific evidence that this is the best form of government? We do have this evidence to some extent, but it tells us that no church can be trusted to run our government. The rest of the conclusion we accept on a complicated foundation of facts and faith. Fundamentally, we believe that democratic government SHOULD be a natural law among people. Isn't a natural law what we believe is intended by God, or divine authority?

As I have said before, with few people listening, religion is the basis for reason. What is not the basis for reason is the obsolete teachings of some church. Reason needs to separate itself from specific churches and deal with what is beneficial to all. This is fundamentally a religious matter. The dominant religion today is democratic government guided by science. If you do not accept this modern belief it is probably because some church is influencing you to believe differently. Churches that do not subscribe to evolving religion will atrophy.

CCNL:

I love your Modest Proposal.

Mike K.

Once Again----

Since it is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control as the following data show, over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone, where is the outrage by BO or JM??

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

Given the context of Susan's article, I don't see any particular evidence for agism and accompanying stereotyping.

We are talking about a person that would begin a first term as President at a particular age (potentially, the oldest on record) and with a recurring history of a medical condition that has killed many thousands - recurring cancers are particularly deadly in this regard.

Politics aside, we are really looking at health statistics, along with other characterological factors. It seems to me that a hx of melanoma and the wisdom of a candidate's VP pick are more important than being 72, strictly speaking - but nothing exists in isolation.

And since nothing stands alone, we have to view the (positive or negative) impact of various factors in light of who would ascend to the Presidency, should such an event become a political reality - as it has in the past.

We may further ask - when did a Speaker of the House last ascend to the Presidency, beyond being a Constitutional safeguard in terms of the line of succession?

Surely there is no merit in further comparing Palin and Pelosi at this point - so we won't go there.

After that, it's all opinion, conjecture, and political preference - and if you want a big helping of religion being dished out from the Oval office. We've been on that diet of late, and I personally don't feel healthier for it.

It does as though folks have a big appetite for something very different than the same old gruel these days.

McCain's age is relevant because he seems old. There are many people his age, especially women, who seem to age better than men, who seem perfectly ok. But Mccain does not seem ok; he seems crotchety, shrunken, and old.

If he is elected, and then dies in office, Sarah Palin's Presidency will be brief, because I have no doubt that the Democratic Congress would impeach her, partly as payback for what the Republicans did to Clinton, and partly to remove a person from officee too dumb to be President.

Then it would be President Pelosi.

Susan Jacoby

It is not "ageism" to mention the fact that a 72-year-old is, on an acturial basis, more likely to die in office than a 62-year-old or a 52-year-old. It is even more incumbent on a president who is already in his 70s, and has a history of a serious form of cancer, to pick a qualified running mate than it is for a younger candidate to do so. The combination of McCain's age with Sarah Palin's far-right views ought to worry any rational person.

Moreover, the people I know who are most concerned about McCain's age are older friends in their 70s and 80s. They are not "ageist." They simply understand, as many younger people do not, that some loss of energy and concentration occurs in most people as they move through their 70s and 80s. This is not a popular view among baby boomers who cling to fantasies about "90 being the new 50," but it is the truth.

Brava, Susan! You said it better than I ever could. Separation of Church and State is the only thing that keeps us from reverting to the dark ages of religious warfare (Crusades, Jihads, Pogroms, Holy Wars, Witch Hunts, Christian on Pagan Violence, Catholic/Protestant Violence, Catholic/Orthodox Violence, Christian/Muslim Violence, The Holocaust, Sunni/Shi'ite Violence, Hindu/Buddhist Violence in Sri Lanka, Muslim on Zoroastrian Violence, Muslim on Baha'i Violence, Hindu/Sikh Violence in India, State Shintoism in WW2 Japan), ecclesiastical tyranny and stifling of personal expression. The founders would have been appalled at the level of religious intrusion into government. Obama is far from perfect, but he (apparently) believes in Church/State separation to a greater degree. Let's keep religion where it belongs; in the private sphere.

"BO and JB fail with respect to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" i.e. their support for aborting children."

***

Please, stop with the tired old canard about killing babies. Most people who are pro-choice would rather avoid unwanted pregnancies using birth control, but still think that the mother should be free to choose.

And what of the one-third or so of all pregnancies that get aborted naturally? Using rightwing logic, one can argue that God kills babies. Why is that?

I share Observer12's distaste for the bashing of McCain's age.

And the scary part about Palin is not her intelligence level but her level of commitment to nonsectarian government. The religious right had an enormous amount of influence in the Bush Administration, and I can imagine them explicitly dictating social policy in a Palin Administration.

Thanks for setting it straight, per usual, Susan. Like you, and as a secularist, I am not excited about an Obama presidency. But the McCain-Palin ticket represents a true religious assault on secular, constitutional values. As they says, "whence then is the lesser of two evils?"

I find myself in the eery position of being in partial agreement with CCNL. There is something offensive, childish, and even primitive about Obama-ists obsession over McCain's age. He hasn't quite reached ninety-four yet, and is still a United States senator. The ages of the Supreme Court Justices? Of all our members of Congress?

And, please, no threats of Palin in the oval suite. She wouldn't be the first scary prez., brain wise. Recall those other great thinkers, Gerald Ford, George Bush. Moreover, these silly comments on McCain as an ancient have been with us since long before he chose Palin as his running mate. As an Obama supporter, I try to dissociate myself from the shrill riff-raff, but, alas, not always with success, and neither the riff nor the raff serves Obama supporters well. Hard to be convincing that your condidate speaks to the plurality of America when so many of his supporters do not.

Ageism, IMO, is as offensive as sexism and racism and equally-how does one say it-stupid?

Jacoby wrote "I Vote For Reason"

Does that mean you're Republican now?

****

HAPPY IDIOTS DAY !!

Sometimes, you have to let idiots decide for themselves so they would LEARN. Instead of preventing them to play with fire, let them play with it. If the idiots want Obama, give it to them.

Democrats had placed us into this mortgage mess which then put us into economic tailspin : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_bi_ge/the_influence_game_housing

Obama is against McCain plans of buying those foreclosed houses and restructure its payment so the homeowners could afford it. These greedy banks are charging as HIGH AS 14% INTEREST from their borrowers. WHY DO BANKERS LOVE OBAMA? THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Democrats are very soft on pouncing on future TROUBLE SPOTS like it did with the Taliban in Afghanistan and pre-911 terrorist attacks until they were successful in 911. That attack pushed us into this war.

Obama plans to get tough with Columbia which is a U.S counter balance against RISING SOCIALISM in South America spearheaded by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. His plan is to get tough with an ally and be soft on leftist Chavez. He even offered to negotiate with him WITHOUT preconditions. GREAT IDEA if you're an idiot.

Obama is not yet president but he is already being tough on another ally, Pakistan.

Democrats enriched communist China by having unfettered trade with them despite the fact that they are still COMMUNISTS and dangerous and oppressive to religion. China is much more dangerous today than it ever was. Thanks to Democrats' FORESIGHT. This too will be a problem of the next president. Im glad the Dems are winning coz they would handle this coming problem. They started it, let them solve it.

Obama has protectionist tendencies so it is bound to create trouble with our now largest trading "partner", China.

Democrats placed us into an OIL CRISIS because of their "green" laws. That contributed much to our economic downturn.

Obama still think that nuke power is dangerous and offshore drilling and clean coal are harmful to environment. As soon as Obama wins, OIL PRICE WOULD RISE UP AGAIN.

Democrats are very tough on trade to the extreme. The world would truly miss the gentleness of the Republicans on this area. Oftentimes you won't give idiots what they wish coz it would spell more trouble. The world want a Democrat so give them the Democrats. When these people start complaining, I want you to remember that they CHOSE this. Stupidity, BIG TIME.

Democrats will fast tract abortion, gay marriage rights and everything liberal. God will not help us when these coming troubles pour at us.

If Bush was "hellish", see what real hell is once the Dems take over.

HAPPY IDIOTS DAY!!

Sounds to me as though Scalia was dissing the philosophy of Deism shared by such early American luminaries such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Thomas Paine (not to mention the pantheism and polytheism of non-christian religious beliefs in general).

Today, a number of the early Founders would more than likely share the atheistic orientation of a good many of our top notch modern thinkers and scientists.

Emerging from the Enlightenment, the (Deist) view of a solitary (non-trinitarian) Creator espoused reason over revelation. Deism (now Unitarian Universalism) is worth reading about.

I can only imagine what Scalia thinks of the somewhat later Transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau! As we know, the potentitally inflexible orthodoxy of Catholicism is well represented in the current makeup of SCOTUS. Closer to home, it is frequently on display on the Stevens-Arroyo blog.

As to Deism, once God had bestowed reason and free will on humans, His job was done and He retired to other ineffable activities. These early Founders were science lovers - wherefore Scalia?

The Deists believed that the laws of Newton ruled an apparent clock-work mechanical universe - these days complicated by the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg!

Scalia's conspicuous (if cynical) display of faith over reason regarding his 'Ten Commandments' statement is what we've come to expect from this particular justice - hopefully we'll be spared more of his ilk in future appointments - an excellent argument for term limits applied universally to all government appointments, including SCOTUS.

To imagine a born-again & theologically driven evangelical as the leader of a secular democracy founded on the separation of Church and State should give any thinking person considerable (and Constitutionalist) pause.

Obeying and supporting the seven non-god Commandments/rules from 60,000 years of evolution and the greatest Commandment, "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself" are my guides for voting for anyone from dogcatcher to president.

BO and JB fail with respect to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" i.e. their support for aborting children.

JM fails with respect to "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery".

SB passes so far but her flip-flopping on the Bridge to No Where and the method of firing of her no-good brother-in-law are troubling.

Please note that Nancy Pelosi, age 68, is only two heart beats from the Presidency. And her medical history is???

And the considering the number of "mean-spirited" pagans and their sympathizers on this blog, getting some protection from witchcraft is probably a good idea for anybody :))

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know whence Scalia's reputation as a "bright fellow." It is true that he has been so acclaimed, yet having read a few of his decisions, I've seen no evidence of attendant light.

Thanks to Jacoby for mentioning Scalia's "unconcerned deities" comment. Would someone here who is schooled in theology or comparative religions explain what that term is supposed to mean? Scalia's argument sounds like sectarian chauvinism.