Suffering and the futility of faith

When this runs dry I will switch to Susan's Obama blog. That is the next to present blog.

Another thing Onofrio,

Revelation 5:9 makes this point too, in that all kinds or all types are saved,

"You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seal, because You were slain, and with Your blood You PURCHASED men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Do you catch the difference? Every tribe does not necessarily mean every single man, woman and child of that tribe, neither does every language or every people or nation.

So I could say 'all' and be speaking in generalities of kinds rather than without distinction or qualification.

The other point to be made in this passage as well as many others such as Matthew 1:21 is that Jesus actually purchases a people, He saves HIS people from their sins, those sovereignly elected by the Father (see John 6:44 or even the whole context of John 6 or Romans 9).

ONOFRIO: "If A, B, and C are all true, then God is conflicted within himself. He wants all men to be saved, yet has also foreordained that only a few will be saved."

As I have shown you, the Scriptures are not in conflict when interpreted correctly. It is true that God wants all men, free and slave, rich and poor, young and old, Jews and Greeks, English and Russian speaking to be saved. And Jesus does just that. He saves, He does not just make salvation possible.

ONOFRIO: "Why does a perfect, all powerful being not get what he wants?"

He does.

ONOFRIO: "Why does he prearrange a situation (the salvation of an elect few) that is contrary to his desire (that all men be saved)?

There again, are you properly understanding Scripture? He arranges that some will come to faith because if He didn't their nature, their natural instinct and natural state would be to reject Him, so He woos them by His word and Spirit. By nature He is what they hate (Romans 7:7). Their own volition will not submit to His grace, even though they may hear it. It requires a change of nature by belief in Jesus Christ.

Hi Onofrio,

Again you show that you do not understand Scripture in your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:1-6

1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 WHO WANTS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for ALL MEN — the testimony given in its proper time."

Your summation:

"A) God wants all men to be saved (according to 1 Timothy 2:4).

B) In the end, not all men will be saved.

In other words, what God WANTS for ALL men will only actually happen for A FEW men.

C) God is sovereign. Nothing can or does occurs unless he wills it."

First of all the passage in context and the use of the word 'all' in relation to this and other Scriptures does not necessarily mean what you are interpreting it to mean. You take the word 'all' as meaning without qualification or distinction (ie. every single man that ever lived), where, in effect, the context is not in conflict with the rest of Scripture that says not everyone is saved.

Since God is sovereign what does He mean by the word 'all?' Could it be 'all' without kind or type, like kings and those in authority? In other words, we are not only to pray for those we love, or those He brings in our path, but also for all types or all kinds of men, including those who rule over us. Remember the early Christians were a persecuted people.

Likewise in the context of Acts 22:15, the apostle Paul does not mean every single man without distinction, but all men of every race and kind. For one thing it would be impossible to reach every man.

Again Paul makes the distinction in Galatians 3:28 when he says,

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are ALL one in Christ Jesus."

'All' here speaks of kinds or types in a generic sense of the word.

When I say that I have been over all the world, you know that I am not speaking of every single square inch of this globe.

Peter Huff,

1 Timothy 2: (CAPITALS MINE)
1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 WHO WANTS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for ALL MEN — the testimony given in its proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle — I am telling the truth, I am not lying — and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

A) God wants all men to be saved (according to 1 Timothy 2:4).

B) In the end, not all men will be saved.

In other words, what God WANTS for ALL men will only actually happen for A FEW men.

C) God is sovereign. Nothing can or does occurs unless he wills it.

If A, B, and C are all true, then God is conflicted within himself. He wants all men to be saved, yet has also foreordained that only a few will be saved.

Why does a perfect, all powerful being not get what he wants? Why does he prearrange a situation (the salvation of an elect few)that is contrary to his desire (that all men be saved)?

Hi Navin,

NAVIN: "THAT is here, now, palpable, immanent and transcendent."

NAVIN: "When you are one with the here, now, palpable, immanent and transcendent, there is no good and evil. There is only Being in That in which state even the I has no being - the void of Being."

How do you know this?

hariaum

THAT is here, now, palpable, immanent and transcendent.

When you are one with the here, now, palpable, immanent and transcendent, there is no good and evil. There is only Being in That in which state even the I has no being - the void of Being.

hariaum

JTTN: "As you have said in certain ways, and Karen as well in more clear language and thought, I likewise believe that the essence and nectar of communion with God is in nurturing our relationship with That."

"That" sounds pretty vague to me. Whatever you want it to mean. For you, even the person that believes in nothing still gets regurgitated back into the system, over and over and over again. If you live a good life you get closer to this elusive light that you speak of, but if you live a life that harms others then you get further from this light. Is that a fair summation? But who gets to determine what 'good' is? As long as I believe I am acting in good intent, in as far as I can determine what ‘good intent’ is, get me closer to ending this constant cycle of rebirth, in which I might come back the next time as an ant rather than a human or be absorbed into this pure light? What happens if I don't believe that stepping on an ant is either good nor bad? Where does that put me now. Further down the trail to slug or amoeba? Maybe not though, after everything is balanced out in the scales of good and bad karma, I may even be further ahead. What is the next step after man - woman?

JTTN: "Written word, to me, is like a muted tenth translation of someone else's relationship. It does little to fulfill my present day life. Yes, they have value, but as a guidepost to learn some strokes from. The real work, for me, is in spiritual practices. Through these I touch and am touched by what is Real."

Why would what 'you' practice determine what is real? Do you make the real? If so, don't bother looking both ways next time you cross the street, or stopping for a red light. Make the color of the light whatever you want it to be, or don't make any color there at all. It doesn't matter.

You first have to have an accurate understanding of what real is before you can determine it. So how do you go about getting there? How does a belief in vagueness get you there, twenty thousand thousand different varieties? How does subjective opinion get you there?

JTTN: "I believe any of them CAN BE THAT,"

Your ‘That’ means nothing or everything. It is unknowable, so how do you know ‘That’ exists?

It does not matter what anyone believes but try living like ‘That.’ That is where the rubber meets your worldview and drives right over it. You are so vague that you can’t make sense of it.

JTN: "...if they work in the heart of the recipient of that wisdom, and the believer releases his/her heart into that Way."

"That" wisdom can be anything or nothing. Again, you speak in such generalities that "That" cannot be made sense of. Each person can make ‘That’ to be whatever he/she wants it to be. Choose your religion. ‘That’ way can mean anything or nothing. Nothing matters. Just do whatever you want to do, believe in whatever you want to believe in. Your wisdom comes from this mysterious light source so whatever you do makes no difference, for as you say,

JTTN: "God, to use your name for Creator, is always there and available. The Light ALWAYS SHINES, CONSTANTLY, FOR EVERYONE, REGARDLESS. It is us, the "Fallen", that are not available of receptive to Divinity."

So getting back to the statement Jesus made in John 14:6, or Luke made in Acts 4:12, these words have as many meanings as there are religions? When the Bible talks about salvation, basically you are saying you save yourself by your good works, or not, and by the principles you practice, regardless of what they may be, or not. There is no room for justice because YOU don't believe in guilt for wrongful actions, or not.

Hi Justillthennow (February 2, 2010 2:16 PM),

So basically what you are saying in your last two replies is you have no evidence for what you believe, since "they [Scriptures] are human conceived and derived, in my error prone mind" and you just choose to believe what you do because it is pleasing to your particular intuition. You don't trust any 'scripture' as anything other than the writings of man, even though you do believe they have wisdom that comes from "That" whatever "That" may be.

JTTN: "Written word, to me, is like a muted tenth translation of someone else's relationship..."

If that is the case, then there is no reliability/verifiability that anything about religion is true. It boils down to what you choose to believe in your mind.

You also dump all religion together as streaming from this unidentifiable, magical, mystical light source that would also be a speculation of your mind. It all boils down to possibility and the product of yours or someone else's imagination. There is no grounding in reality for it. You can't say this is the way it is, for you combine it all together in a senseless mass of confusion.

Something sounds 'good' to you so you accept it as true.

That is some proof you have there! Maybe it is, maybe it is not, but "I" (capital I) believe in my humble opinion.

JTTN: "Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough on my perspective on Sacred Writings. It is not just Christianity and the Bible that I refrain from crediting as literal Truth."

When you speak of literal you are not using it in the same sense that I am. I am not literalistic per say, in the sense that I take every word as a literal interpretation. I take the PLAIN meaning of what I read. If the context is historical narrative then I take it that way, if it speaks in a poetic, or allegorical or symbolic ways then I take it that way. I take it that words in context have specific meaning and that the Author, God, is conveying that special meaning. It is our task to understand His thoughts, not read into them something we want them to say, or something that we prefer them to say. There is a correct way to interpret the author's intent, if language is conveying something that can be made sense of.

JTTN: "I do not believe any faith is Absolute, Pure, Singular, Sovereign Way to God."

At least you are qualifying this statement this time as a personal belief now, instead of stating dogmatically that such and such cannot be so, such as knowing anything as absolute, as you did in our previous discussions.

test

test

I am off, (who did not assume that already, as Truth!), for several days. Doubt I will get a chance to check in, at least if I can keep my hunger and addiction at bay. A few days away from home and the pitfalls I find there, time to time. Go out and do some stargazing to balance out the navel gazing that I've been guilty of recently. Perhaps I will do some Hail Mary's for penance, and guilt will be forgiven.

Guilt is hell on earth, I swear! Profusely.

Best to all, Peace, Love, Union with warring clans. Harmony!

Humanity in Diversity! Living in Peace....

Ah, man. That is a great dream and prayer!

Hello PeterHuff, first course,

Thank you for the reply and the interest. I have no doubt that my logic is flawed. I am flawed. Fallen, I hear.

Unless one were to 'believe', (a very, very big word!, yes?), in certain eastern philosophies that do not tote that barge of the Original Fallen Nature of Man, but see it as a journey of separation from Oneness, or Unity. Then one may not see flawed and besmirched and ignorant in the same light.

Om purnamadah, purnamidam,
Purnat purnamudacyate
Purnasya purnamadaya
Purnamevavasisyate

A stanza from Siddha teachings that suggest that the world is as it should be. No worries.

Om that is perfect, this is perfect.
From the perfect springs the perfect.
If the perfect is taken from the perfect,
The perfect remains.

Now, I know this is unacceptable in your mind. But then that is the way of this diverse world, and that is the point. Infinite dispersion of Light into the Manifest. Infinite paths of return for that diffused and separated spectrum of Light into Original Pure White of Union.

Just a thought to contemplate, if you have not completely run out of the building.

As for the assignment that you left me with, (I got homework! how long has it been since I've been assigned homework?!), I will have to demure. My explanation of "God" could be challenging, particularly if addressed to you. Please forgive. I have responded a bit with Karen on this thread to a similar question and would refer you there for the time being.

And with all the requests for documentation and such I have to say I am little interested in doing so or 'chatting' with you around comparative Scriptures. You will have to look for another victim in your hunt for an infidel to spear with 'God's Word'. I have had enough of that fun.

Peter, seconds

Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough on my perspective on Sacred Writings. It is not just Christianity and the Bible that I refrain from crediting as literal Truth. That blessing would include all Sacred Writings that I have had the pleasure of reading. Not because they are not rife with wisdom, mind you. They all are pregnant with it. However, they are human conceived and derived, in my error prone mind. I do not believe any faith is Absolute, Pure, Singular, Sovereign Way to God. I believe any of them CAN BE THAT, if they work in the heart of the recipient of that wisdom, and the believer releases his/her heart into that Way. It all depends on the neophyte. God, to use your name for Creator, is always there and available. The Light ALWAYS SHINES, CONSTANTLY, FOR EVERYONE, REGARDLESS. It is us, the "Fallen", that are not available of receptive to Divinity.

As you have said in certain ways, and Karen as well in more clear language and thought, I likewise believe that the essence and nectar of communion with God is in nurturing our relationship with That.

Written word, to me, is like a muted tenth translation of someone else's relationship. It does little to fulfill my present day life. Yes, they have value, but as a guidepost to learn some strokes from. The real work, for me, is in spiritual practices. Through these I touch and am touched by what is Real.

I hope that helps you to understand me better. Sorry to withdraw from the invitation to the OK Corral. I don't gunsling with Scripture, as you are prone to do. But sling away if that's what jump starts your joy.

Have good days at work. Peace to you, as always.

Onofrio,

It all makes sense now. It is those foul demi-god devils of the air elements. How could I have missed it. It is always the mind that gets infected with the darkness, being naturally the lighter element and infused with daylight and nightlight. It hasn't the constitution to deal well when the ugly head of self-identification pops up. Starts to think that it is all powerful.

Humble and naturally dark water lives congruent to it's true nature, so is not in conflict.

Evil wind, what we breathe, infects us from the inside, and the devil then is in the unseen details that are borne on the wind.

Pharmaceuticals! That would be the answer. Peace is possible with a chem lab.

Hi Justillthennow,

I'm working today and tomorrow. I won't have time to reply. This thread is probably going to dry up today so I'll continue on the more recent Susan Jacoby thread, probably on Thursday. I see your use of logic as flawed and would like to draw that out more.

I have two requests for now though. Explain your 'god' as best you can by what you know of he/she/it. I want your explanation. Give me the oldest copies of your Scriptures that you know of and how many and estimate how close to the date of the life of the Buddha they were written. Thank you!

Justillthen,

Who'd have thought it! I've always found the gentle breeze in-spiring, yet all along I was being evilly pneumaticised by the aerial archon. Now, only Holy Huff can save me from the abominated archonic puff.

Ialdabaoth blues ... Abrasax angst ...

Onofrio,

Fascinating bit on Ephesians 2:1,2. Fascinating. It just gets my hands rubbing together, slightly hunched, the edges of my lips twisted up in slight glee, glint of something not quite compassionate in my eyes. Of course it must be so, I squeak! It says so in the Bible! Woe is me for my ignorance of this cosmology. I am trashed.

Yet, the hint of a glint persists...

Ah, would that i'd done been schooled like you... I coulda been somebody.

But then I never had the thirst for wisdom from the Classics. Ahhh, woe is me.

Peter Huff, quoted Ephesians 2:1,2
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient to God."

1 και υμας οντας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις

2 εν αις ποτε περιεπατησατε κατα τον αιωνα του κοσμου τουτου κατα τον αρχοντα της εξουσιας του αερος του πνευματος του νυν ενεργουντος εν τοις υιοις της απειθειας

Have you ever met an archon, Peter? Pauls' remarks here refer to a cosmology which placed the material world at the core of a concentric series of vast revolving spheres, infested by a hierarchy of spiritual beings - the rulers (archons), authorities (exousiai), and cosmic powers (cosmocrators) of Ephesians 6:12. It was a state-of-the-art cosmology in the first century, and persisted (with variations) into the Middle Ages.

The archon of Ephesians 2:2 pertains to the aerial sublunary sphere, the lowest of the celestial spheres, between the earth and the moon. There were also archons governing each of the visible planets. Beyond these spheres and the fixed stars was Ouranos, which English NTs translate as "Heaven". This was thought of as an actual place, literally beyond the stars, where God was thought to reside, and where Christ was supposed to have ascended, having defeated the intervening archons et al. that oppressed the world of matter below (cf. Ephesians 6:12). Ouranos could also be termed the "third heaven" (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2 - τριτου ουρανου), the first being the sublunary sky, the second being the planetary zone between moon and fixed stars.

Given that this cosmology is endorsed by the New Testament - subscribed to by Paul himself - do you believe that the universe is constructed this way? Is "Heaven" beyond Saturn, on the outer side of a star-studded sphere?

JTTN: "Further, you cannot know how God interacts with any other of His children, much less all of them."

PH: "In as much as He has revealed it I can."

JTTN: "You cannot know His relationship with another, Peter, how He appears to them, how He "really Is" with them."

PH: "I cannot know if God will work in your heart Justillthen, but I can know by certain indicators in God's word whether you have a relationship with Him or not if I am observant of the Word of truth."

These statements reflect the belief system that has justified through history some of the greatest atrocities man has visited on man, (and women!). Coupled with the rest of Christianities intolerant (how could intolerance exist in a religion originating in Jesus, Prince of Peace, one may ask) attitudes toward non believers, one has justification for any evil.

Confession before death by torture saves that foul soul!

Flog the devil out of that infidel!

Burn the witch! Fire will purify Satan out of her!

Inquisitions, Crusades I - IV, Conquest of the New World.... Invasion of Iraq! Evangelism is vile.

I return where I started, Peter. Circle of Life and other such blasphemies.

It is my belief that Christians would do well to refresh the practice of essential Christianity and the world would be better, and that they retreat fully from engaging in evangelism. Allow all to realize their own way to God without witnessing their faith for the intent of conversion. Stop trying to change people by proselytizing. Be a living example as you will.

Unless you think God is not up to the job of taking care of the needs of His children without your help.

And with that we get back to arrogance...

Peace, as always.

Peter,

I posted this comment of yours but missed replying to it... Damn, I thought I was done! However, it is good to actually be completed with the past before assuming it to be true. So...

PH: ""Sure you see it that way. It is arrogant if what I state is false. But if what I state is true then how can it be arrogant. It is just stating things as they are and have been revealed by God."

Arrogance is not determined by fact vs. fiction, Peter. It is a state of being, a posture, a flavor. It is an "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance

Synonyms include: pomposity, conceit, crust, hubris, pompousness, swagger, self-importance.

One can state a true thing, (verifiablly so or not!) in a humble way or an arrogant way. Likewise with statements that are false. One can lie arrogantly or humbly. Been done both ways since the Beginning of Days. I am told that it was Eve that was the first to play with this concept (bit ch!), though some women suggest that rot was all a lie from a guilty patriarchy (Adam was a chauvinist!).

Hey, here is some interesting reading:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

Gotta love dictionary.com

Peter Huff,

You to Justillthen:
"It is not a pretty picture, is it? If you don't believe the right things life has terrible consequences doesn't it?"

And there's the rub. All you have in the end is a very big stick. All your scripture-spinning is essentially the preamble to the *ultimate* chamber of horrors.

You are like the king's torturers of old, who would show the prisoner the tools of the trade to frighten them into a confession.

You are addicted to a God of Terrors, the Grand Incinerator, who feeds on holocausts. You cherish Hell, you depend on Hell - the black ace up your sleeve, the flamethrower for every foxhole, the nuke for every citadel. You swagger smugly because you're the sidekick of the biggest bully in the schoolyard.

Have you noticed that your interlocutors here, for all their God-denying depravity, do not invoke eternal flames for you? No doubt you take that as further proof of your objectivity and their futility.

It's not a pretty picture, is it?

Peter, next up, response to your latest assumptive onslaught. Then, peace.

We do start getting more real with some of these statements.

"I argue from a presuppositional foundation to show that without God this is all senseless. ... You would just get your experts and I would get mine. What is that going to solve?"

Yes, presuppositional. Assumptions. Neither expert can prove a thing objectively. Yours certainly not, if proofs of the Biblical God are at the core.

"You are presuming that because you believe differently you are right. ... Or is your philosophy your Freudian crutch?"

I do not presume that I am right at all, in any verifiable objective sense. We will find out when we do come to terms with Origins. You are the one that asserts you supreme rightness. Please do not go to the wimp position that "it is Jesus that shows us". Whatever. I am not talking with Jesus, Peter, I am talking with you and this is your belief system and you negate anything that it contrary to your beliefs. I do not claim any One Way. I do have my beliefs and have reason for them and I state them as I do. I do not presume I am ultimately right.

"As I have said, God is necessary to make sense of anything. Of course I mean this in an ultimate sense, ..."

As you like, from your belief system.

JTTN: "There is no proof of God, much less any validation as supreme any particular religious or spiritual belief system. None are objective, all belief is subjective as is all perception."

PH: "If they are all subjective, how do you know this?"

Show me how any religion is objective and verifiable truth. Proof of God? Are you really making this argument?

Peter, again cont.,

"If none are objective then neither is your statement that none are objective, because you would have to KNOW the objective to state it. Please put away that gun. You have already shot yourself in the foot."

It is you that shows the fool, Peter, by arguing rubbish. None ARE objective, as belief in God is a subjective experience. And one does not need to know an objective to state that something is subjective. Fear is subjective, and I daresay all fear is subjective. It is experienced personally. It is not an objective.

The other thing is, what would you accept as justifiable proof? It would only be proof if it was on your terms."

No, dear friend, it would just have to be.......Proof!

"I've gone down that road before and it is a waste of time until we uncover your starting assumptions. You will not accept any proof I have to give."

Well, we do seem to be wasting time, Peter. At least I am clear the outcome = a negative integer. Much like with your friend and relative Timmy2.

"Your mind is not open to the proofs."

Actually it is, but what you offer are NOT proofs, but a load of assumptions and suppositions and dogmas that have no founding basis in FACT. That does not mean they are ultimately untrue, but they are not ultimately true either, just because you choose to believe them.

And deeper, I believe that metaphorically and symbolically many of these things you believe may be based in truth, but I do not believe they are literally so, as written. Truths are written in every language, in some form of it. In my belief.

Only obvious, in a diverse world, that fundamental truths would be seen, fundamentally, in different ways.

"Everything is faith based. You have to believe in something for anything to be known."

And does that not describe your world view! Beautifully stated.

Thank you, Peter. It may have been a ring around a rosy, (sorry that you didn't get a ring around a rosary!), but ashes!, I've fallen down.

We have all Fallen, right? But for you, in Jesus! The rest are Satans', Damned to Hell!

As I said, vile!

Peter, part 1,

Peter,

"Sure you see it that way. It is arrogant if what I state is false. But if what I state is true then how can it be arrogant. It is just stating things as they are and have been revealed by God.

"JTTN: "Further we are all subject to error. You clearly are. I certainly am. All humans are. Your claimed Original Sin."

PH: "Yes, that is true. Humans are all subject to error. But that does not discount that we cannot know anything truly. If that was the case that we couldn't, how could we have knowledge of anything? Try answering these questions please instead of dismissing them and going on the attack."

It comments on the fact that we are err. Further, none of us have the virtue of being able to know everything about ANYTHING. Individual human minds do not possess that gift. We can gain limited knowledge about anything. Not complete, or all-encompassing knowledge.

You make unfounded assumptions and leaps of conviction in nearly every paragraph you write.

JTTN: "Further, you cannot know how God interacts with any other of His children, much less all of them."

PH: "In as much as He has revealed it I can."

No you cannot, Peter. Negative. To say this you are claiming to know the Mind of God. How utterly arrogant! And false! Reading the Bible till the End of Days will not give you that knowledge, Peter! But then it never would have, in my opinion. Nothing could do so.

JTTN: "You cannot know His relationship with another, Peter, how He appears to them, how He "really Is" with them."

PH: "I cannot know if God will work in your heart Justillthen, but I can know by certain indicators in God's word whether you have a relationship with Him or not if I am observant of the Word of truth."

False and arrogant assumption, Peter. You can know no such thing. You believe you know something but do not know anything. You do not know the way that the Creator works in anyone's life, and your assertion that you do is proof enough of a false heart and false witness. Pinnacle of arrogance, asserting knowledge of how God works in his children. This disgusts me and is revolting. You would do well to find the humility that you claim, but do not display. Ugly.

Peter, cont.

"If you don't mind honesty then why do you call the God of Christianity a liar?"

I do not. I do not embrace the Bible as a literal representation of God, or of Jesus for that matter. I do not claim this as truth, and do not consider the statements attributed to Christ to be words he wrote. They were words written by his disciples, or by those further removed, who were invested in presenting a sellout story.

What this means is that my relationship with Creator is not anchored on the Bible. It does NOT mean I am devoid of a relationship with God, which is your assumption, or that I am empty of the Holy Spirit. Indeed my relationship with 'God' is full and fruitful and deeply fulfilling. I know that you discount this as possible at all, which speaks to your false assumptions and real arrogance. So sorry. You would gain in humility, (my assumption!) and spiritual maturity if you could come to the obvious conclusion that God can fill one in as many ways as are possible in such a diverse manifest world.

But you are a spiritual elitist that has no room for the unlimited possibilities of God, or of His children.

PH: "Yes God created a world of diversity, but only one way to relationship and true knowledge of Him.
Man has made up the rest."

"If you don't mind honesty and you are open minded, why can't there be just one way to the Father, through the Son. For being open minded you have ruled that out."

Actually no, I have not ruled it out. It may well be true for you, and for millions of Christians that find relationship with God through Jesus Christ, or through the teachings of the church they attend. And that is fine with me.

But Christianity is not the central element that is fueling my spiritual evolution, currently. Indeed, though Christianity was foundational for me in early life, it did not propel me nearly as far, spiritually speaking, than other pursuits have. It certainly is possible that is the result of being more spiritually mature and available later in life. But the outcome remains the same.

I have no delusions that there is any single way that one can realize their relationship with God. Your religious view, on the other hand, requires that limitation. You are welcome to it, if it serves you. You are not welcome to attempt to place that yoke on me, or any other free man or woman. To do so crosses a line into personal free will, and carries a cost. And it crosses you away from Light and into Dark, in my view.

Hello Peter,

"JTTN: "Peter, any rational mind can understand that "the absolute is knowable" is impossible."

PH: "You don't understand what I'm getting at JTTN. If the absolute is not possible to know then everything is relative and nothing can be known as certain."

Yes, exactly. Perhaps not purely, as we can "know" much that is removed from the realm of subjective speculation and into the realm of objectively 'known' knowledge. Christian dogma does not reside there. Neither does any belief system describing the spiritual. God is not revealed as fact. Just a fact. If God WERE revealed as fact, known empirically and objectively, we would not be having this discussion.

This world IS relative, and absolutes in terms of the Creation, the spiritual, the soul, the ongoingness of life, etc. are unknown. The afterlife is unknown, unprovable, subject to subjective belief.

PH: "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY ABSOLUTES WITHOUT STATING ONE, because you imply one in the act of denial."

I agree with you. Until it is know to be impossible the possibility must exist, theoretically. However in this example it is an utterly reasonable statement, as I was referring to Knowing God, which is a proposition that is beyond the ability and bounds of an (effectively) ignorant human mind. We hardly know how to maintain our own lives in balance, much less comprehend All That Is. This seems an elementary assumption.

PH: "If you didn't know everything then there is always the possibility. Therefore necessity dictates that an absolute, objective Being is necessary to know anything..."

"necessity" dictates no such thing. You make a huge assumptive leap here. Next:

PH: "In the same manner, objectivity is a measure that needs to be constant."

You do work at bracing up your justification for your beliefs, Peter! However, objectivity is not "a measure", or a measurement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

JTTN: "You do nothing to forward the benevolence of Jesus or Christianity be retreating (attacking!) into such arrogance."

Sometimes it takes tough measures to get someones attention, "PLEASE don't do that, it will kill you!"

As I have just shown, God's word does that in itself. It condemns and it sets free. It condemns those who refuse to believe and obey in His means to save. It sets free those who do believe from condemnation and gives them peace with God. Since you chose not to know these things I point them out to you, again.

And I point them out by trying to go to your basic core ideas and values to show that you ultimately cannot sustain them and still make sense of them. We are just cutting through the Bull and sidestepping the evidential argument for now.

JTTN: "You argue repeatedly from YOUR ASSUMPTION that yours is a perfect and valid Truth, but have no validation for that IN THE LEAST."

I argue from a presuppositional foundation to show that without God this is all senseless. It cuts to the chase. I could argue from an evidential or classical apology, but what would that solve. You would just get your experts and I would get mine. What is that going to solve? You are still going to believe what you want to believe because you don't want to deny that you are wrong. So we go a little deeper into metaphysics, epistemology and axiology and the ultimate questions of life. Until you go there you will never find any ultimate reasons for existence. Until you go there you will never be able to prove one view is better than the rest, because God has revealed the truth through one Person, life through one Person, the way to Him through one Person. This is what the whole OT was pointing to since the Fall. The Messiah will come and He will save His people!

JTTN: "Please spare me the insulting presumption that because I believe differently I am wrong."

You are presuming that because you believe differently you are right. Please spare me that unless you are willing to show why. Do you have the courage to look deeper? It could mean that you would have to change the way you currently look at things. Are you willing to go there? Do you have an 'open mind' to going there? Or is your philosophy your Freudian crutch?

If not then consider these words,

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Or consider this,

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient to God. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of the sinful nature and following its desires and THOUGHTS. Like the rest we were objects of wrath." (Ephesians 2:1-3)

It is not a pretty picture, is it? If you don't believe the right things life has terrible consequences doesn't it?

Hi Justillthennow | January 31, 2010 11:01 PM,

JTTN: "...your presumptions and assumptions are far too overwhelming to be so invested in refuting others spiritual convictions while uplifting your own. The very arguments that you go to in refutation of others are the ones you pay no attention to in claiming as valid your own."

As I have said, God is necessary to make sense of anything. Of course I mean this in an ultimate sense, since you and I both are capable of saying things that are true and sensible. But when you dig up the underlying philosophies of why anything can make sense and of how you could possibly know, when all is said and done, you see the necessity of God, and not just any god.

JTTN: "There is no proof of God, much less any validation as supreme any particular religious or spiritual belief system. None are objective, all belief is subjective as is all perception."

If they are all subjective, how do you know this? This is the problem of your assertions - they state things such as 'none are objective' which is self-refuting. If none are objective then neither is your statement that none are objective, because you would have to KNOW the objective to state it. Please put away that gun. You have already shot yourself in the foot.

The other thing is, what would you accept as justifiable proof? It would only be proof if it was on your terms. I've gone down that road before and it is a waste of time until we uncover your starting assumptions. You will not accept any proof I have to give. Your mind is not open to the proofs.

JTTN: "That is why religions are called faith based. But of course you would know that. Or should."

Everything is faith based. You have to believe in something for anything to be known. It is just what you base that something on that determines your outlook, and if it is not based on truth, your foundation rests on nothing ultimately. You are the emperor without clothes. It takes the little child who has the courage to bring this to your attention. 'Sir, you are naked. Your ideas have no backbone.'

JTTN: "This argument has been banged around in these rooms ad nauseum. God is unprovable, and experience of God is ALL SUBJECTIVE, as is belief in God."

Sure, experience is subjective, but that does not mean that we can't know what is objective in so much as God has revealed it to us or insomuch as we think His thoughts after Him. THESE are the necessary conditions for objectivity. If you think otherwise, please list them. This is a challenge.

And the reason these arguments get banged around so much is because you don't want to peel back the underlying causes of your belief. You and others don't want to account for the underlying reasons we can make sense of anything. If you want to, then justify/account for why you know what you know as true.

Hello Peter,

I started my last postings to you with this:

"There is no proof of God, much less any validation as supreme any particular religious or spiritual belief system. None are objective, all belief is subjective as is all perception."

You argue repeatedly about my perception being subjective and so flawed, while you argue from the assumption that yours is objective, and true. How you can support this false stance I do not even care to hear, (of hear again!). It is presumptive without objective and verifiable support. To whatever degree that you BELIEVE you are in the right, it is an assumption held up by air. That would mean by THOUGHT, but by nothing substantial.

My assumptions regarding God and the spiritual have the same support issues, regardless of my certainty based on personal experience. There is no proof for God, and less for a 'specific and personalized God' as is Yahweh Jehovah.

You accuse others of having no objective source for their beliefs while you proclaim the truth of your beliefs while having no objective source for them. You cannot prove the Bible as valid. You only continue to use in house (Biblical) quotations as supports. These are not objective in the least. It is self validation.

I can self validate my actions, but that is not objective. It is subjective and subject to bias.

Your position in claiming knowledge of what is unknown to the collective, (that is, qualified, quantified and verified from various objective and unbiased sources of empirical data), is no different than anyone's. It is unsubstantiated, so subjective belief. As is mine. I know you cannot stand this fact and fight against it through these discussions, but it is true.

I will follow with more.

Continuing JTTN,

And in submitting to Him and believing His Word by trusting in the Savior, by His grace, I have that relationship with Him that was denied in the Garden after man decided to be his own god, knowing the difference between good and evil.

Jesus is the restorer of souls. He sets the captives free, and you have been captivated by the vain philosophies of your mind, a mind that determines what it will and will not believe. Once you start down that road you have nothing but subjective opinion as your guide. And you filter everything by that subjective opinion, not by something objective outside yourself. So why are you right?

There is more in the line of proofs, since all things are here because of the Creator, such as proof of the consistence of His word, the Bible. But before that subject is tackles we have to start with the basics. One of them is how do you know what you know is true? Knowing implies something, does it not?

JTTN: "This is not objective assertion, and the only 'proofs' you offer is quotes from Scripture. This stands no objective test. You cannot prove your claims of Jesus or God as valid. Everyone knows this."

I point to Scripture as the standard God has given that we may learn about Him, about ourselves, about why things are the way they are. How does your worldview answer these questions? Let's put it to the test as you do Christianity.

Give your explanation and we will examine it.

Hi Justillthennow | January 31, 2010 10:38 PM,

ME: "I have found that many claim there are many ways to God and to know God, but always point to their own system as the best, most relevant, and yet don't know this with any certainty."

JTTN: "This is exactly what you are doing, Peter."

For one thing, I don't claim many ways to God, only one. But yes, I point to the God who has revealed Himself. What can you point to?

JTTN: "You do not know with any objective certainty, only in personal, subjective belief, that your system is "best"."

Since we are both bound by logic in making sense of anything,logic states that two contradictory things cannot both be true in the same relationship and at the same time. It goes against all we see. It is not true that a red light means Go and also Stop at the same time. Try living like it does for a few days. Yet you want God to be whatever your mind makes Him to be instead of who He is.

The reason I could know with objective certainty is because such a Being exists and He has revealed Himself to us. Without Him we are all in a sea of aimless philosophy on what might be. And any given thought about God could not be true, because they all say different things about Him, contradictory things.

Without the written, preserved revelation of God man is lost in his relativism and subjectivity. God is the necessary measure, the unchanging measure by which it is possible to measure all else by.

By discovering the laws He has put in place in nature we come to understand the natural world better. Laws are not material, therefore they must come from something other than the material.

And by understanding the non-physical laws of logic we can reason because we are created in the image and likeness of God. That is why we are different than inorganic matter. We have mind, we have intellect, we have personality, we have intent, we have purpose, we have meaning, we remember information. A rock or a tree has none of these, do they? They do not have brains, and although a living thing such as a tree can react to stimuli such as fire, or heat, or cold, it does not have emotions that love of hate, that think thoughts about their Maker.

You won't find these things stemming from blind, random, indifferent, chance evolutionary processes. They come from Mind with intent, purpose, intellect, reason, creativity. They come from a Mind that is powerful enough to create and sustain what is made. The universe does not hold together by chance or stem from chance beginnings.

You as a Buddhist believe it is eternal. Science believes it had a beginning in time. Who is right?

God is the necessary Being that binds it all together. And not just any god, but the living and true God in whom you reject.

Karen,

I understand what you are describing.

The Ramayana is the story of God becoming incarnate to demonstrate to us how to live life as a good person. It is born as two elements: Rama and Sita. This also can be seen as the communion between the supreme being and the personal soul. Rama and Sita suffer tremendously throughout their lives. But the demonstrate the equanimity of universal love throughout their lives. And the suffering is not just for three days on a cross, it is their whole adult lives that they are confronted with the world as it is.

So now, you and I could argue that the right name to call god is jesus or Rama or Krishna or Devi or Durga or Earth or Athena ... or we could put aside names and recognize the God is manifest here and now in every being. It is our need to hold on to titles and differentiation that demands this is god, this is not. (Of course, once we can see beyond these words, we want to see how others have fallen in love with the supreme being as that helps us feel closer to Tat Sat and so, some of us read and talk to people from every religion recognizing those that love the Being and those that love the name.)

Once we enter into the ego form of understanding god, again this is not damning, we want to name god. For those of who love god, the name is but a reminder of the love we have for the being behind the name: does a rose not smell as sweet if it were not called a rose, etc.

hariaum

ONOFRIO (mimicking/mocking me):
Who made you the ultimate judge, Onofrio? What gives you the right to decide? Admit it, you have no foundation, nothing but empty rhetoric....

First of all, establish that you do have the right by pointing me to an ultimate, objective, absolute source of knowledge, a measure that is true that other things can be measured by. Point me to a standard or reference that can make sense of comparison, a qualitative reference. Then we will see how ultimate it is. But, if all you have is your 'opinion' then I have made my case. That is, you are borrowing from the Christian God in order to make sense of anything.

ONOFRIO (mimicking/mocking me):
God's revealed Word the Bible, fulfilled in Jesus Christ and comfirmed through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, can alone provide the true foundation for your cup of tea. You are digging in your heels against God. The point is that unless you have an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging basis to rest this or other assertions on you are just guessing...."

No, the way you dig your heels in against God is that you discount Him, you mock Him, you call Him Word untrue, all through your own wisdom and by your own understanding, unless of course you think you have a 'better' god that can explain evil???

And you keep mocking me and avoiding my questions without answering them or without as much as any better explanation, and certainly nothing that can be tested as yet. If you think there is a better explanation or a better god have some courage and present him/her/it.

Ultimately the God of Christianity is necessary for truth and sense and knowledge and life and being and language and everything else in all creation. He gave you the ability to think sensibly. It didn't happen by chance.

ONOFRIO: "Peter Huff refutes afternoon tea"

No, I do not. I had one this afternoon.

What I refute is that without God's unchanging nature, His making us in His image and likeness in that we can think His thoughts after Him, and His revelation to us, both natural and through the written word, that we would have a knowledge of what truth is. And without truth you can't make sense of anything.

Onofrio:
I have, in my infinite and damnable presumption, judged that it is a good idea for me to walk down the corridor and make myself a cup of tea.

No what you have done is presume that without God, and specifically the Christian God for there is only one, there would be such a thing as logic in which to formulate coherent thoughts, such a thing as uniformity of nature, such a thing as good, such a thing as truth, such a thing as knowledge, for without this fixed/unchanging measure where do you get a true standard from? Where does logic come from?

You would have to first think or be made aware of His measure to have certainty. Without it you're guessing. What you believe today could change tomorrow unless something besides chance holds it together, a Mind with almighty power to hold it together, a Mind with intent and purpose to hold it together. If not, you could not predict what would happen in the future based on what happens in the present or from the past.

Since you possibly do believe in a god, the question is which one have you constructed, because no other God makes sense.

If you believe in the God of Christianity then we have a measure to compare what you are saying to what is said. That measure is His word.

Since language has specific meaning in context, or else you would not be able to understand the thoughts I am conveying, God has said what He means and means what He says because He is most able to. So Scripture interprets Scripture.

In denying much of what I have said I challenge you to show it isn't true of Scripture, that is if you hold to the Christian God.

JTTN: "I do not mind honesty and I am happy to speak truthfully. I was raised Christian, and loved it and love my continued connection to real Christians and Christian community. Your version of is is, however, bitter, for it has lost the Heart of It."

If you don't mind honesty then why do you mind the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6) If you don't mind honesty then why do you call the God of Christianity a liar? If you don't mind honesty and you are open minded, why can't there be just one way to the Father, through the Son. For being open minded you have ruled that out.

JTTN: "What is it about you Absolutists? God created a world fixated on diversity. Fixated. How can it be but there are billions of ways back to Union with God?"

Yes God created a world of diversity, but only one way to relationship and true knowledge of Him. Man has made up the rest.

JTTN: "And yet you and your self-important relations think that you have the only way! Did you not get enough growing up?"

I submitted to His Word as truth, not mine, and that only by His grace. His grace found me out. I was a beggar looking for peace and rest and surety and He found me.

JTTN: "That just looks different, as it should through different eyes, than it looks to you. But you, a conformist, do not see that fact."

Sometimes the most open minded are the most closed. They close themselves to the truth, for truth is narrow.

"Salvation is found IN NO ONE ELSE, for there is NO OTHER NAME under heaven given to men BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED." (Acts 4:12)

That does not leave the option of Buddha, or 'his way.'

JTTN: "Further, you cannot know how God interacts with any other of His children, much less all of them."

In as much as He has revealed it I can.

"Yet, to all who received Him, to those who believe in His name, He gave the right TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD - children not born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." (John 1:12-13)

I could go on and on with this thought, like where Jesus told Nicodemus that he MUST be born again to either see or enter the kingdom of God, that Jesus called the Jews who did not FOLLOW His teaching children of the devil, not Abraham's descendants.

JTTN: "You cannot know His relationship with another, Peter, how He appears to them, how He "really Is" with them."

I cannot know if God will work in your heart Justillthen, but I can know by certain indicators in God's word whether you have a relationship with Him or not if I am observant of the Word of truth. God does not change, so neither does His Word. We know by the fruit. To those who deny Jesus, they never really knew Him, but hopefully they will.

JTTN: "And insulting someones relationship with God and their "knowledge" of God lacks any of the Compassion and Love that Jesus presented as His Way."

Well then by comparison you are saying the Jesus is lacking compassion because He in turn called some of the Jews who did not follow or know God children of the devil. He did not mix His words. He was quite harsh to the Pharisees (Matthew 23). He called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. He said that to deny who He claimed to be would result in their death still in sin, and the list goes on.

JTTN: "The absolute, in the way you are using the term, is utterly unknowable. Beyond our comprehension."

God is not beyond our comprehension to the extent that He has revealed Himself. So we can know objectively to that extent or by thinking His thoughts after Him, like discovering the laws of logic or gravity.

JTTN: "That is why Christianity puts a nice beard on God and gives 'Him' a name."

God is Spirit and to worship Him we must worship in spirit and in truth (see John 4:24). You can't see spirit, therefore those references to God are either there to convey in figurative language God so that finite beings can have some comprehension and relate or they are in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ who became Man and still has that nature along with His God nature.

JTTN: "Further we are all subject to error. You clearly are. I certainly am. All humans are. Your claimed Original Sin."

Yes, that is true. Humans are all subject to error. But that does not discount that we cannot know anything truly. If that was the case that we couldn't, how could we have knowledge of anything? Try answering these questions please instead of dismissing them and going on the attack.

JTTN: "So that you, perchance, could see from another perspective I end with one of the most arrogant insults and assumptions that you make, as an example of the corrosive and destructive influence that Evangelical dogma is responsible for."

Sure you see it that way. It is arrogant if what I state is false. But if what I state is true then how can it be arrogant. It is just stating things as they are and have been revealed by God.

ME: "Okay, you deny the true and living God. Since to know God would imply that you have a relationship with Him and that you know Him as He really is, the statement is accurate. If you don't have an accurate knowledge of God you don't know Him, just about Him."

JTTN: "You are so wrong, Peter, but you think you are righteous."

Christ is righteous and I have been counted righteous IN Christ. He lived on my behalf the life that it was impossible for me to live and He substituted His life in my place in paying the penalty for my sins - the great exchange.

JTTN: "You are not, here, and you fail utterly in carrying the Heart of Jesus while believing you witness Him. I embrace the true and living God."

To you God is incomprehensible. You have said it yourself. So how would you know if the god you worship is the true and living God? You keep contradicting yourself.

Hi Justillthennow ( January 31, 2010 10:34 PM)

JTTN: "Peter, any rational mind can understand that "the absolute is knowable" is impossible."

You don't understand what I'm getting at JTTN. If the absolute is not possible to know then everything is relative and nothing can be known as certain.

But you deny this by your very words if there is truth in them. In order for you to say 'impossible' you would have to know absolutely, because in order to count it impossible you would have to know everything. If you didn't know everything then there is always the possibility. Therefore necessity dictates that an absolute, objective Being is necessary to know anything, since you certainty don't, and that through Him we can know what is absolute in as much as He has revealed it to us.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY ABSOLUTES WITHOUT STATING ONE, because you imply one in the act of denial. The prime example is like saying 'Never say never.' You just did.

That is what you are doing here. You are denying that absolutes are possible all the while stating one in order for your denial to be true. But at the same time you are refuting your original premise that absolutes or absolute knowledge on an issue is impossible, so basically you have shot yourself in the foot with your own gun.

Let me put it another way. If your statement is true that absolute are impossible at least one absolute, your statement of denial has to be true, which means that there is, after all an absolute, so it is no longer impossible. I hope you follow the reasoning.

Something has to be changeless before we can measure the change in something else. Is everything is changing then you can never have a reference point that is meaningful. The measurement is different constantly. God is that changeless reference point, and not just any idea of God.

In the same manner, objectivity is a measure that needs to be constant. If objectivity is not constant it likewise cannot be measured. Therefore our ideas have to correspond to Gods ideas to be truly objective, for God is unchanging, at least the true God of Christianity.

Objectivity also corresponds to truth and truth does not change, or it would cease to be true. The minute you have two opposite claims that simultaneously say they are true about the same thing, whether that be God or absolutes, at least, AT LEAST one of them has to be false. It is either/or not and/both.

Interesting site. The lecture starts out slow but poses some interesting problems for atheists,

http://www.evolution2100.com/

http://www.randommutation.com/

Peter Huff refutes afternoon tea

Onofrio:
I have, in my infinite and damnable presumption, judged that it is a good idea for me to walk down the corridor and make myself a cup of tea.

Peter Huff:
How can you know it's a corridor, Onofrio? How can you have certain knowledge that there are tea-making facilities at the end of it? Does it even have an end? What is an end anyway? The truth is, Onofrio, that you have no absolute reference point for knowing any of these things for certain. The very words you're using are impossible without the ultimate reference point of the God who has revealed himself in the Bible.

Onofrio:
Yes, but I'd really like a cup of tea right now. Do you want one?

Peter Huff:
Who made you the ultimate judge, Onofrio? What gives you the right to decide? Admit it, you have no foundation, nothing but empty rhetoric. You cannot know for certain the source of the tea leaves and the porcelain of the cup, you cannot prove the logic behind the serial numbers on the plastic pipes that carry the water to the tap. Hot or cold? You have no ultimate foundation for choosing one over the other!

Onofrio:
I'm going to get my cup of tea now. Bye.

Peter Huff:
God's revealed Word the Bible, fulfilled in Jesus Christ and comfirmed through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, can alone provide the true foundation for your cup of tea. You are digging in your heels against God. The point is that unless you have an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging basis to rest this or other assertions on you are just guessing....

Hello Peter, part one,

this first paragraph was written long before I spouted on and on. sorry!

There is just too much that you have said that I have issue with that if I were more interested in or had the time to burn I would post on. Cannot do and don't want to. But your presumptions and assumptions are far too overwhelming to be so invested in refuting others spiritual convictions while uplifting your own. The very arguments that you go to in refutation of others are the ones you pay no attention to in claiming as valid your own.

There is no proof of God, much less any validation as supreme any particular religious or spiritual belief system. None are objective, all belief is subjective as is all perception.

That is why religions are called faith based. But of course you would know that. Or should.

This argument has been banged around in these rooms ad nauseum. God is unprovable, and experience of God is ALL SUBJECTIVE, as is belief in God. You argue repeatedly from YOUR ASSUMPTION that yours is a perfect and valid Truth, but have no validation for that IN THE LEAST.

Please spare me the insulting presumption that because I believe differently I am wrong. You do nothing to forward the benevolence of Jesus or Christianity be retreating (attacking!) into such arrogance.

Peter, part two,

You:

"Unless there is an ultimate objective reference that has been revealed to us by God."

"How do you know that? Again you are making absolute statements that depend on them being true for them to be valid."

"There again, because you place yourself as the ultimate judge of good and evil, just like Adam and Eve, I can see why there are many things that you find immensely displeasing.

I place myself as the ultimate judge of nothing. I, like you, judge. Ultimate? Don't be silly.

"Well, in order for you to make that statement true, you would have to know truth."

"I question and confront those who deny the only true and living God, the Christian God'.."

"Arrogance is making claims without knowing the truth, calling what is true false. Arrogance is stating an absolute just after you have denied we can know any. Arrogance is claiming any old god will do or that all is god. Arrogance is attacking exclusivity all the while being exclusive."

"I have found that many claim there are many ways to God and to know God, but always point to their own system as the best, most relevant, and yet don't know this with any certainty."

This is exactly what you are doing, Peter. You do not know with any objective certainty, only in personal, subjective belief, that your system is "best". This is not objective assertion, and the only 'proofs' you offer is quotes from Scripture. This stands no objective test. You cannot prove your claims of Jesus or God as valid. Everyone knows this.

Peter, part 3 I think,

"Actually Timmy has confessed that no one can be 100% certain. That opens him up to the possibility of error and also Timmy has the same problem that you do. He doesn't believe the absolute is knowable."

Peter, any rational mind can understand that "the absolute is knowable" is impossible. The absolute, in the way you are using the term, is utterly unknowable. Beyond our comprehension. That is why Christianity puts a nice beard on God and gives 'Him' a name. To personalize the Unknowable. It is akin to calling a Saint the "Spirit of Christmas" and making him fat and wear red and slide down chimneys. To make something that is Incomprehensible more available to the human mind.

Further we are all subject to error. You clearly are. I certainly am. All humans are. Your claimed Original Sin.

So that you, perchance, could see from another perspective I end with one of the most arrogant insults and assumptions that you make, as an example of the corrosive and destructive influence that Evangelical dogma is responsible for.

"Okay, you deny the true and living God. Since to know God would imply that you have a relationship with Him and that you know Him as He really is, the statement is accurate. If you don't have an accurate knowledge of God you don't know Him, just about Him."

You are so wrong, Peter, but you think you are righteous. You are not, here, and you fail utterly in carrying the Heart of Jesus while believing you witness Him. I embrace the true and living God. That just looks different, as it should through different eyes, than it looks to you. But you, a conformist, do not see that fact.

Further, you cannot know how God interacts with any other of His children, much less all of them. You cannot know His relationship with another, Peter, how He appears to them, how He "really Is" with them. And insulting someones relationship with God and their "knowledge" of God lacks any of the Compassion and Love that Jesus presented as His Way.

I do not mind honesty and I am happy to speak truthfully. I was raised Christian, and loved it and love my continued connection to real Christians and Christian community. Your version of is is, however, bitter, for it has lost the Heart of It.

What is it about you Absolutists? God created a world fixated on diversity. Fixated. How can it be but there are billions of ways back to Union with God?

And yet you and your self-important relations think that you have the only way! Did you not get enough growing up?

Navin,
Quick clarification. I do not view Jesus as an intermediary. We Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. The trinity is not an easy concept to understand. I have read it described as follows and it makes sense to me: God above us, God with us, God in us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
In becoming human, God entered into our suffering and experienced pain, hunger, loneliness, weariness etc. so we believe in a God that knows us intimately because at one point he walked among us. That is why to me Christianity is not a religion but a relationship. It is not about dos and donts, no matter what the modern day pharisees would have us believe, it is about trust and love.

Oh sorry for breaking this up,

the petty point was that god does deceive us (as opposed to the nature proposed below). Regardless of the fall or other hypotheses as to why, the conditions of our ignorance were established by the creator.

hariaum

My use of scripture is to refer those that have not read to previous descriptions of God outside of the christo-islamic setting. It is not to say that is the only way to see God. It is an education, not an ideology.

1+1=2... The point is that the original premise affects your outcome. You decide the rules of logic, truth, etc and that will determine your conclusions. Wo/men commonly do this and find a rationalization to justify their beliefs afterwards. A seeker of truth looks at the assumptions, premises, as well as the logic.

I apologize to Karen for mixing you up with the usual christians who only believe there is one way. I would not attempt to invalidate your experience, I hope you would not attempt to invalidate mine. As such though, you are correct, the exclusionary position of jesus becomes redundant. He then becomes one of so many entities that tried to guide humanity to a better light and didn't quite make it. I am, of course, ok with jesus being just another guy trying to do his best. I am not ok in believing my personal relationship with the supreme needs to mediated through him (or anyone else) as I have had the direct experience.

As a friend of mine likes to say, you have met the son of god, now meet God Itself - (he is talking about Krishna).

The bible may provide a path that is useful for a few. Even the Gita says the path to realize oneness with the Being that is (Tat Sat = that which is, kind of like "I am" of the OT) is not for everyone.

But the Truth includes everyone. From the dinosaurs that preceded humanity to the Timmys of the world. Like light, we may not understand it (as particle or wave, as material or immaterial) but you feel it all around.

I hope someday you can look into that face and see the glory beyond intermediaries.

hariaum

Navin, Peter,

In answer to Navin's question:
NAVIN: "Do you believe that people can have just a valid experience of God that denies the saviorhood of jesus - I would be in that category. Would you consider this a delusion or does your theology accept alternative experience of Tat Sat"

I am not sure what Tat Sat means?

If I believed that there were many ways to
God beside Jesus, then I would likely be a Unitarian. Furthermore, a multitude of valid paths would negate the necessity of Jesus's death and resurrection, wouldn't it? So what would be the point of calling myself a Christian? I don't think that this makes me narrow minded, intolerant or limited. It makes me a follower of Christ, the son of Man and the Son of God.

Having said, it may be possible for people to have valid spiritual experiences without believing in Jesus' saviorhood because it may be God's way of reaching out to them. How can I speak of God's mind and the way He chooses to act? I am not one of those people who is constantly saying: God would do this, God would not do that, that would be awfully presumptuous of me.

The NT is a composite of human tales. Even the keepers of the bible did not find it sufficiently holy to keep from editing it. One would conclude that it is a human concoction even in the minds of those tht preserved it. It has become literal in an ego / ethnocentric attempt to objectivity in the face of historic evidence against the sanctity of jesus' teaching and students.

My objective: my relationship to god. No book... My subjective relationship to god: wherever god chooses to show me truth.

Our objective measure:

If god hates, do you want to worship him? If god creates hatred, do you want to worship him? Thus history of the followers as a statistical study of generating hate is a measure of the "sacrement." The history is clear, an ideology that says god hates creates a peoples that hate: christianity and islam (and communism and consumerism...) An ideology that says, the priest and the books don't know the supreme reality and you should look beyond any book, validates the individual relationship to the supreme.

So christians look upon the muslims, pagans, etc and say that those books are not the right book. Likewise the muslims look upon the christain, infidel, etc and say the same thing. It would be silly for the supreme being to choose sides based on a name. If a powerful being picks sides, then you call the one on your side a god, the one on the other side a demon.

Or you could say, whatever this thing is that we refer to as god, is beyond human categories. I refuse to say s/he is on this side or that. It must be on the side of the totality of creation since it created the totality.

Now you can certainly project that this book is really awesome or that. But everybody does that. How do you know that you are not locked into a book? - you go for the heart of the meaning - you see beyond the book or the name. Words are good tools, not the only. Practice, service, karma, gyana, rajas, ... are other tools that are actually more profound than words. (after all, if jesus came down and said I am jesus, kill your neighbors - I hope you will pause and ask yourself is the devil in disguise or the real jesus - how would you know?)

hariuam

Further, Peter,

Trite to say, but, wordwise, often less is more. Hell, One is All.

For all your hacking, the ground is locked, sealed against all but demon seed, that mocks your sweat with sturdy windsown green.

Peter Huff, hangin' tuff,

You made a turgid slough of my stream. You who claim the source of all sense, make none. You crank out anxious, constipated pomp, O autodogmaton, stomping and shrill.

Your sister has gone further with a handful, than you have with a laden wain.

Hi Navin,

I find it humorous that you go to great detail as an advocate to go beyond Scripture and then at the end slide in your Scripture, the Bhagvad Gita ch 8, as the key to going further than Scripture.

NAVIN: "I hope someday you will look beyond one scripture or another and look for the Truth itself (see Bhagvad Gita ch 8 for a mystical experience of the reality beyond realities)."

NAVIN: "The truth that is God has no limits. Not even a book or an ideology."

He has chosen to limit us to the one written revelation of Himself. If you think otherwise, then please explain how the NT describes Jesus as the only way to know God, and truth and the life. Explain why it proclaims there is no other name given under heaven by which men must be saved? If there is only one, how can there be many?

Karen, I would be interested to see your response to Navin on his original questions that addressed the both of us (January 30, 2010 5:02 PM).

NAVIN: "Do you believe that people can have just a valid experience of God that denies the saviorhood of jesus - I would be in that category. Would you consider this a delusion or does your theology accept alternative experience of Tat Sat.

JTTN: "Just as I am so you also must be. Greater works must you do in the name of the Father than I have done."

Scriptural verse please?

Hi Justillthennow,

KAREN: "Do you believe in a Creator or a Creative Force behind the universe? If yes, how do you view this Creator?"

JTTN: "Yes, I do. It is the second part that is more challenging. How can anyone really KNOW the answer to that, (given, of course, that there is no objective proof for the first part! it is a personal belief)."

The only way we can know this is because God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. He has told us how He created, for what purpose and why we are like we are, as well as the solution to change.

Just Till Then

Thank you for your response.
I agree with you that we tend to be limited in our understanding of God because we see Him through our limited human mind.

However, the biblical view of God is that He is Spirit, and that He contains in Him both feminine and masculine attributes (created man and woman in His image). That a lot of people imagine God as an old white man with a beard is not at all based on the bible but again, on our inability to imagine the Creator otherwise, because all we understand is the human dimension.

I understand your perspective that One Way Theology is very destructive and thus you refuse to buy into it. Who can deny the destructiveness of one way religion looking at the past 20 centuries? But again, that is because we humans take what is good and twist it to accomplish our own ends and in doing so, we completely stray from God's teachings. Jesus lived very humbly, befriended prostitutes and sinners, refused to use violence even when attacked. Yet somehow we end up with a Pope and bishops living in splendor, vicious wars commited in Jesus' name, and a righteous judgemental attitute towards those that we consider "sinners", as if that is not all of us actually.

Yet I still believe in Jesus' primacy in leading us to God and that is because I do not view Christianity as a religion but as a relationship, my relationship with my God who came to earth and suffered for me to reconcile Himself to me and take away from me the impossible task of earning my way to Him. That is to me the essence of Christianity. The rest is often manmade stuff. Jesus said that he came to set us free but no sooner did He leave earth that humans rushed to put themselves back in chains with man made rules and rituals.

For many years after I became a Christian, I hardly ever went to church because I was so turned off by organized religion: its misogyny, its greediness, its rules and hierarchies, and its bloody history. But then a friend invited me to attend her church, a small local non denominational church and I discovered the richness of a christian community trying to live up to Jesus's 2 main commandments, a community of believers that truly cared about each other, with the financial books wide open for all to see and deep love for God and neighbor. I now attend a larger church that is very similar. I can see the good being done by the congregration as they live out the true christian faith and I am thus better reconciled to church life.

NAVIN: "(In Hinduism we call such finite beings as devas - gods(ie the god of israel, the god of babylon, the goddess of Athens...) , but they experience themselves as separated from (forsaken) the supreme being by their own claim to ego - they want to be worshiped. Our scriptures remind one to go beyond such limited entities, with respect, but beyond)"

The Christian God is not a deva. He is humble, gentle and noble in character, but also worthy of worship, for He is holy, pure, good, loving and just. And He is a conscious, thinking, reasoning Being, but also objective, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, unchanging. That is why we ourselves have personalities, each different, each unique, because mind and personality come from BEING. They don't come from matter. They don't come from nothing. And in the unchanging God we find truth.

He is not a cosmic principle, a force of nature, a thing. He is Person. And persons have ego. You are using the word throughout your discourse.

NAVIN: "The truth is unbound. a finite god is just another finite entity. Some more worthy of our worship than others based on our projections onto that being (including the ego/ethnocentric self love that claims god is known in the way I know him)."

A finite god is a figment of the imagination. There is no such thing except in the mind. There is only one true and living God, not millions. You can worship a figment of your imagination, I prefer the real God.

NAVIN: "But the Supreme that is the totality of Being, TAT SAT, is beyond all such categories. A categorical being is just that. An unconditional devotion has no room for such conditions / categories of god, no more than a lover is satisfied with a smell of the beloved. The lover wants the totality, unconditioned - no scriptures, no saviors, no categories, no division between I and My Lord.

As for God being known. We know Him in part because He has given us the revelation of who He is and His Spirit has confirmed this through His Son. We do not know Him comprehensively for it is impossible for a finite creature to know full the infinite God.

And we know Him because He is true. He does not say one thing to one people and another to another. His revelation is consistent, not contrary.

Hi Navin ( January 31, 2010 1:24 AM),

NAVIN: "As I said, I hope some day you will look beyond a scripture. But that is ok if not yet. God loves you beyond any scripture can tell and beyond any savior can deliver."

One day I will, when I see Him face to face, but until that time I rely on His Word of true and on the relationship that comes from His word. I experience Him through His word and by His Spirit in Christ Jesus. The relationship that was broken in the Garden is restored in Christ. Now He teaches and instructs me, as He would have Adam if Adam had submitted to His guidance. And this is all due me because of His grace alone. There is nothing I could do in and of myself to merit His favor. He gave me ears to hear, eyes to see and a heart to believe because He first loved me, not because I first loved Him.

NAVIN: "The evidence of the various spiritual experiences is just that - god doesn't care what scripture you follow - most of God's scriptures in the world declare this, only a few exclusionists claim such ownership of the power of the omnipotent."

That is you subjective opinion. You state this as if it were absolute and objective. God does care what you believe and has made it know throughout His Word.

And I don't claim ownership of the omnipotent. How can a mere creature own his Creator? Omnipotence is God's alone as in the Creator/creature distinction. If I had the same power of God I would be God. I would have the power to know all things and act in anyway I possibly chose to use that power. I would not be all powerful if I did not know all things would I?

Navin,

You said Karen, Infortunate... Actually it was Peter that answered your question to both of us. I was going to try to respond last night but at some point the blog was refusing any additional posts and I thought it was closed for good. Now I see that the conversation is still going and I am too far behind to try to catch up :).

Hi Navin (January 31, 2010 1:31 AM),

NAVIN: "On a petty point: god deceives us by creating bounds to our knowledge of him."

If we had all knowledge and could fathom all things we would be God. There is a distinction between Creator and creature. As Creator, God has the right to determine how a thing will be made and what its boundaries are, just like you do when you make something. God did not replicate Himself, for there is but only one true and living God, but He gave us attributes that He has too, such as will, emotion, reason, ability to love, that we could know Him. He also gave us the ability, in Adam, to choose to have that relationship with Him. Adam chose otherwise. Now God is showing the futility of that chose, that man cannot live without God without knowing and being evil.

NAVIN: "Either that ignorance has in it god's purpose of god is impotent to give us the knowledge he has excluded from our consciousness."

It was excluded because of our choice in Adam. Adam chose to break the covenant, the agreement, the command that God made with Him. God was perfectly honest in telling Adam what his boundaries were. Ignorance is not looking to or obeying Him who is objective.

One of God's purposes is to show man that man cannot live a good life outside of Him.

If man had chosen to obey God, God would have instructed him and continued in that relationship with him and evil would still be outside his grasp as he learned from God.

NAVIN: "God lies (and creates maya) or is impotent (a demigod)."

Neither. The illusion comes when man tries to live independent of God, when man looks to himself as the source, the final reference point in determining what is and how it 'should' be.

NAVIN: "I lie to kids about Santa all the time, no moral compunction what so ever and I am impotent to give Timmy direct knowledge of God. But I do not believe god is impotent and thusly created (miscreated) us."

Santa is fictional, God is not.

You forget the Fall. That is key in understanding the decay in both human nature and nature itself. The curse of God came upon the ground in bearing seed and crops after the Fall, as well as the curse on man in being cut off from the relationship with God in its fullness. Since man disobeyed God, God let him find out just how wise he was, how good he was, since now his ultimate, objective source and reference was marred in the respect that man now became the decider, and a relative, subjective one at that.

By taking of the fruit in the Garden man had decided not to submit himself (put himself under the proper authority) to the command of God. Now man is reaping his just reward. He is learning what a mess he is capable of without proper guidance.

Hello Karen,

"Do you believe in a Creator or a Creative Force behind the universe? If yes, how do you view this Creator?"

Yes, I do. It is the second part that is more challenging. How can anyone really KNOW the answer to that, (given, of course, that there is no objective proof for the first part! it is a personal belief).

Creator means, to me, Causality. Source. Origin.

Humans perceive and understand the world based on their own paradigms. Like anything, I suppose. It is beyond obvious that we would look on the Creator like we look on ourselves. "in our own Image". The Christian view, and maybe (to personalize, as is my point) in a Peterhuff way, is to see God as Manlike. Personalized. Got a beard, lives in the best spread ever! Fabulous mansion all with pearly gates above the clouds.

Like Thor and Odin and Zeus before....

I think this is just human brains trying to contain and limit and define what is Undefinable and beyond human mind's ability to Know.

In seeking to comprehend "Creator" I tend to find the Buddhist view the most compatible to me. Non personalized or contained, by location or bounds of embodiment. More a state of being and awareness that is Unified and Singular. Aware of all, at all times, and infused in that awareness. Not caught is the separations of dualism or right and wrong.

Superconsciousness, perhaps.

No beard. Not white skinned, or even brown. No skin. No body. Not separate from me, or you, or Peter or Timmy or your mother.

We are all interconnected, through the consciousness that is Life.

May be that is too airy fairy for your tastes, and I can respect that. But it makes far more sense to me than other views.

I am no believer in a One Way theology. I consider that to be one of the most destructive human assumptions that exist. All ARE part of God, and all WILL CONTINUE to be a part of God, eternally. For we ARE THAT.

"Just as I am so you also must be. Greater works must you do in the name of the Father than I have done."

NAVIN: "An honest look says, you can only hope to guess what the preconditions of reality are, if you are mystic you can experience them but once you talk about them, you are out of that empirical fact of being."

How do you know your subjective mystic experience corresponds to what is real?

Why is your subjective guess honest? Why is your subjective 'guess' true? Why is what you say unbiased? Why is what you say objective? What is your basis for objectivity?

No, without an ultimate source, measure, reference, standard, that is not contradictory (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2), please show me how it can be true, logically.

NAVIN: "The truth is in your being, your mind plays games."

Well, my inner being says that God is true and every man a liar (Numbers 23:19). Is that true?
My inner being says that Jesus is the only way to relationship with God. Is that true?

For you what YOU feel in your inner being constitutes truth. Why are you that ultimate reference point? Why is your 'guess' the binding 'guess?'

Hi Navin,

NAVIN: "Change the "reality you are looking at, it can be anything you want it to be."

You can pretend it is anything you like, but you can't change what it really is or it wouldn't be real. Truth is not based on ones subjective perspective, it is based on seeing something as it really is. Using your kind logic I can believe that a cat is a dog, or that up means down or that a circle is square. I've changed what it is. I've changed that a circle is actually round; its very definition, the thing that makes sense of what it is. You are defying the real. You may think that empirical existence is an illusion, but I bet you look both ways before you cross a busy intersection.

NAVIN: "Truth is too easy to be dogmatic about without evaluating one's bias."

What measure do you have to evaluate your bias? Your feelings? Your subjective intuition?

NAVIN: "It does not change the truth if your scripture has a bias or not."

Truth is narrow; it is biased. It is not neutral. It takes a stand.

NAVIN: "That is why we go beyond scriptures, because they are conditioned (at least by a history of language and human ideas)."

(^8
As you use language and human ideas to express things "beyond Scripture" and human ideas.

That is how God has chosen to communicate wisdom and knowledge - by human language.

NAVIN: "If you believe your book is the right book, you will always find it to be right."

No, it is the right book only if it is true to what is, only if it is a revelation from an objective absolute Being. How can you have objectivity outside of being? Is a stone objective?

And the point of contention over different religions is they are all contradictory. Language has specific meaning in context and God has communicated to His creatures through the use of language. He says what He means and means what He says.

That is where true knowledge comes from. He is not contradictory. He doesn't say there is only one way to know Him in one religion and then change His mind in another. That would be deceitful. For God to be true He would have to speak the truth consistently. So if all religions are from Him then they would have to agree consistently. Otherwise you could never know if what He is saying is true. In order for Him to be true what He says would have to be what actually is, not on what subjective man perceives it to be.

ME: "Do you not see that knowledge requires an objective source to be truly known?"

ONOFRIO: "To bathe in the river, one need not know its name."

No, but to know what you are doing or what it is you do, and communication is impossible without knowledge, whether by verbal language or by body language.

To know something you have to have a true belief on what it is, otherwise you don't really know it. Whether you can express what you know or not is another matter, but to communicate knowledge to someone about a river or what bathing is you have to know what it is. When you say "bath in the river" to know what you mean I would have to know what bathing is and what a river is. If I did not then I would be helpless in knowing what you are talking about.

If you have a distorted belief or knowledge on what something means you don't have true knowledge of it. You can't justify that you are bathing unless you know what bathing is. You can't justify that you are in a river, unless you know what a river is. You can't communicate in words what a river is unless you know what a river is.

You don't KNOW if you don't know. You may be in it and bathing in it but you don't know unless you know, unless you realize it. Without knowledge it just is. Without language you can't express what it is.

You don't know that you are typing, although you may be doing it, until you know what typing is. So if I asked you to type something we would not be communicating because you wouldn't know what I mean. Knowledge conveys meaning and understanding. Without true understanding how can you say you know something?

ME: "Do you not see that knowledge requires an objective source to be truly known?"

ONOFRIO: "To bathe in the river, one need not know its name."

No, but to know what you are doing or what it is you do, and communication is impossible without knowledge, whether by verbal language or by body language.

To know something you have to have a true belief on what it is, otherwise you don't really know it. Whether you can express what you know or not is another matter, but to communicate knowledge to someone about a river or what bathing is you have to know what it is. When you say "bath in the river" to know what you mean I would have to know what bathing is and what a river is. If I did not then I would be helpless in knowing what you are talking about.

If you have a distorted belief or knowledge on what something means you don't have true knowledge of it. You can't justify that you are bathing unless you know what bathing is. You can't justify that you are in a river, unless you know what a river is. You can't communicate in words what a river is unless you know what a river is.

You don't KNOW if you don't know. You may be in it and bathing in it but you don't know unless you know, unless you realize it. Without knowledge it just is. Without language you can't express what it is.

You don't know that you are typing, although you may be doing it, until you know what typing is. So if I asked you to type something we would not be communicating because you wouldn't know what I mean. Knowledge conveys meaning and understanding. Without true understanding how can you say you know something?

Peter Huff to Karen:
"No, I am digging up their underlying presuppositions in preparing the soil."

Ha! Dream on, digger. Your dogmatic harangues do not loosen the soil, they bake it hard as concrete.

And to Justillthen:
"Do you not see that knowledge requires an objective source to be truly known?"

To bathe in the river, one need not know its name.

While it is fresh, a few last comments.

NAVIN: "An honest look says, you can only hope to guess what the preconditions of reality are, if you are mystic you can experience them but once you talk about them, you are out of that empirical fact of being."

Honest in relation to what? What is your source of honesty?

I am not an empiricist by the way.

NAVIN: "The truth is in your being, your mind plays games."

Is your being the ultimate being, and how do you know this? Where is your proof? Do you just feel it? Many people are sincere about their feelings, some even to the point of defying gravity without a parachute or drinking arsenic believing it will not harm them - mind over matter, feelings over mind.

I said 2+2=4. You on the other hand changed my original premise to this,

(0,1) + (1,0) = 1.41..

I still say that 2 + 2 = 4.

2 + 2 does not equal five, or forty or four hundred.

I agree with the salt and water premise, but not that the number two plus the number two equal anything other than the number four.

Let me think about the rest of your post. I will try to answer it tomorrow night. I have to wrap my head around what you are saying.

Hi again Justillthennow,

JTTN: "You will surely pursue what you need to. I am sure you are not interested in hearing positions that are contrary to your own so to expand, but do so only to negate them as you promote your own beliefs as superior. It is disinteresting to me to go down that road, and profitless for either, if growth is sought at least."

I am interested in why you can justify you belief. That does require some explaining.

And I don't promote my beliefs as superior, I promote God's revelation as superior. I point to Him and if what I say counters His word then point it out to me.

JTTN: "I have respect and love for many aspects of essential Christianity, which I find is profound and it's message at heart is deep and affecting and can be life changing. But there are far too many demands of the dogmatic Christianity that has developed that I find destructive and corrosive, and at the end of the equation the outcome is to me a negative integer."

There again, because you place yourself as the ultimate judge of good and evil, just like Adam and Eve, I can see why there are many things that you find immensely displeasing. (Romans 1:18-25)

JTTN: "You and Timmy are quite alike in some fundamental ways. For one, you are both rationalistic in thought processes, but both fundamentalist in your beliefs."

No actually we believe totally different things about origins, life, meaning, purpose, truth, knowledge and so on. He does not believe in God. For him God is just a possibility. For me God is real and I have experienced Him.

JTTN: "Both certain of your assumptions and certain that others are "deluded"."

Actually Timmy has confessed that no one can be 100% certain. That opens him up to the possibility of error and also Timmy has the same problem that you do. He doesn't believe the absolute is knowable.

JTTN: "And you both listen not for expansion of personal perceptions, but do so from the stance of how to invalidate contrary positions."

I question and confront those who deny the only true and living God, the Christian God, as the question and confront me, just like you are doing.

JTTN: "Arrogance is never a turn on to me. Regardless of how it is cloaked."

Forgive me for being arrogant once again, but here goes.

Arrogance is making claims without knowing the truth, calling what is true false. Arrogance is stating an absolute just after you have denied we can know any. Arrogance is claiming any old god will do or that all is god. Arrogance is attacking exclusivity all the while being exclusive. I have found that many claim there are many ways to God and to know God, but always point to their own system as the best, most relevant, and yet don't know this with any certainty. It is just mere feelings, nothing else and nothing to back this upon objectively.

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

Ah one of my favorite problems:

1+1=2

(0,1) + (1,0) = 1.41...

Change the topagraphy and it can be anything you want it to be.

1 oz salt + 1 glass water = 1 glass salty water.

Change the "reality you are looking at, it can be anything you want it to be.

Truth is too easy to be dogmatic about without evaluating one's bias. It does not change the truth if your scripture has a bias or not. That is why we go beyond scriptures, because they are conditioned (at least by a history of language and human ideas). If you believe your book is the right book, you will always find it to be right. An honest look says, you can only hope to guess what the preconditions of reality are, if you are mystic you can experience them but once you talk about them, you are out of that empirical fact of being.

The truth is in your being, your mind plays games.

hariaum

JTTN: "My view can only be correct for me, which should be kinda obvious. I do not have the belief that Absolutism is functional in dualism."

Again, how do you know that your belief is correct and how do you know that others cannot have a true belief and agree? 2 + 2 = 4 is true regardless of where in the universe we go. It can't be any other or else it would be false. It is universal. You can believe it is 5 all you like, but try coping in the real world believing that.

JTTN: "You could apply those questions to yourself. I would suggest that if you were honest you would have to have the same answers."

I have applied those questions to myself and God is still necessary for truth, because He is the source of truth. An all knowing, all seeing, unchanging in nature, eternal, all powerful Being has made this known.

Why do you think there are so many religions in this world? Because man has tried to fashion a god in man's image, as he would like to believe God to be, each to his own. Why do you think that there are so many wars and injustices in this world? Because man cannot agree on what is good and right and true. Why do you think that man cannot arrive at any ultimate truth, it is all relative, as you yourself have admitted, unless we can know the ultimate source of truth.

As a relativist truth is impossible, unless you think God's thoughts after Him, but how would you know unless He has revealed Himself. You have also demonstrated that you hold to absolutes by your statements, however untrue they are. For them to be true you would have to have that objective standard to check your truth claims by, which you don't.

Hi JTTN (January 31, 2010 12:22 AM ),

ME: "Since you deny God I ask what makes you think that you or your ultimate source of information have any reason for certainty on anything? Can subjective reason ever really know? Look at the course of human history. How many different philosophies on life? How many different views of reality, of origins, of meaning, of goodness and evil, of religion. Why is your view correct?"

JTTN: "Good Lord, Peter, nice question. Have you really thought about this for your own life?"

Yes, extensively.

JTTN: "This is the second time you say that I deny God. This is inaccurate. I believe, actually, in a Creator or Source or 'God', if you will, though our views on God are very different."

Yes, our views are very different.

Okay, you deny the true and living God. Since to know God would imply that you have a relationship with Him and that you know Him as He really is, the statement is accurate. If you don't have an accurate knowledge of God you don't know Him, just about Him.

For instance, what is God like?

JTTN: "I do not believe in God as depicted in the Bible. This is a pathetically shallow presentation and one dependent on the ignorance of human perceptions."

How do you know this?

JTTN: "But in the very general concept of a Creator of Unity/Oneness, I am a believer, Lover and do not deny the concept. Whatever It Is, I know It Is."

That is very pantheistic of you. How do you know that God is an 'it' and not a Person or Persons? Whatever 'It Is' does not cut it. You are making it up.

JTTN: "I have no ultimate source of information. Noone does."

Again you are making an absolute claim that refutes itself. How do you know no one does?

If there is no ultimate, objective source of information then everything is relative and nothing can be known. How can something that changes according to every persons perception ever be known.

JTTN: "Subjective reason and experience are just that, personal and subjective."

Is that you SUBJECTIVE opinion? Do you not see that knowledge requires an objective source to be truly known?

sorry,

that should be

...Either that ignorance has in it god's purpose or god is impotent ...

hariaum

On a petty point: god deceives us by creating bounds to our knowledge of him. Either that ignorance has in it god's purpose of god is impotent to give us the knowledge he has excluded from our consciousness.

God lies (and creates maya) or is impotent (a demigod).

I lie to kids about Santa all the time, no moral compunction what so ever and I am impotent to give Timmy direct knowledge of God. But I do not believe god is impotent and thusly created (miscreated) us.

haraium

As I said, I hope some day you will look beyond a scripture. But that is ok if not yet. God loves you beyond any scripture can tell and beyond any savior can deliver. The evidence of the various spiritual experiences is just that - god doesn't care what scripture you follow - most of God's scriptures in the world declare this, only a few exclusionists claim such ownership of the power of the omnipotent. (In Hinduism we call such finite beings as devas - gods(ie the god of israel, the god of babylon, the goddess of Athens...) , but they experience themselves as separated from (forsaken) the supreme being by their own claim to ego - they want to be worshiped. Our scriptures remind one to go beyond such limited entities, with respect, but beyond)

The truth is unbound. a finite god is just another finite entity. Some more worthy of our worship than others based on our projections onto that being (including the ego/ethnocentric self love that claims god is known in the way I know him).

But the Supreme that is the totality of Being, TAT SAT, is beyond all such categories. A categorical being is just that. An unconditional devotion has no room for such conditions / categories of god, no more than a lover is satisfied with a smell of the beloved. The lover wants the totality, unconditioned - no scriptures, no saviors, no categories, no division between I and My Lord.

hariaum

Hi Justillthennow,

ME: "Now what makes you able to pick and choose which words you will attribute to Him and which you will dilute and disclaim He said?"

JTTN: "Fine question. I believe the words related to Jesus are men's words, Apostles memories. They are writings of people invested in Jesus that wrote them. They are shadows of what He said. I consider it foolish to believe otherwise."

The point is that unless you have an objective, absolute, universal, unchanging basis to rest this or other assertions on you are just guessing. You have no way of knowing anything unless there is such a source and that source has revealed Himself to us.

ME: "And I have not found one yet, not one, in the two or so years I've been here, barring of course other Christians who know the light."

JTTN: "I am sure this is what you experience. This is simply because you are biased toward that belief and conclusion."

We are all biased towards something if we can think at all. There is no neutrality. The question is how do you know your bias is based on truth - truth being objective and unchanging?

JTTN: "As you suggested, beliefs and experiences are subjective for all of us."

Unless there is an ultimate objective reference that has been revealed to us by God. The Bible makes that claim as do other ancient books, but they all contradict each other in their revelation of God. Logically two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. If you think so please explain how and give me an example, an objective one, not just opinion.

JTTN: "No one knows the slightest, really, much less what is The Truth."

Well, in order for you to make that statement true, you would have to know truth. Since you deny you can, it is self-contradictory. It invalidates itself. You claim no one knows truth, at the same time making a truth claim. It is a self-defeating argument. It doesn't stand the test of logic, the same test that you depend on to make sense of anything.

JTTN: "And no human could imagine that Awareness, and no book could contain it."

How do you know that? Again you are making absolute statements that depend on them being true for them to be valid.

JTTN: "The arrogance and idiocy of any belief system claiming knowledge or ownership of Truth, and God, is appalling. Insulting, in fact. Couple that arrogance with witnessing for conversion of non-believers makes it revolting."

Only appalling and arrogant if false. Since it is true that God has chosen to reveal Himself through the course of history by the revelation that is the Bible, humbling, that our Creator would care enough about His creatures to make Himself known to them in His Son, by His Spirit, through His word and by what He has made!

JTTN: "Believe in Jesus."

I do!

TTN: "Peace to you, Peter."

Thank you, but where does peace come from in this troubled world? (John 14:27)

Hi Navin,

I disagree with you on this statement,

NAVIN: "The truth that is God has no limits. Not even a book or an ideology."

He does have limits. It is impossible for Him to go against His nature in that it is impossible for Him to lie. That is a limit, a good one, in that He never contradicts Himself, he never says something that is false. His nature is a nature of truth.

And He has decided that He will limit His creatures to the revelation of truly knowing Him in one Book, the Bible and this knowledge by one means, through His Son, by the discernment of the Holy Spirit. Yes, nature itself does speak about Him, but to know Him relationally, Jesus is the only way to the Father.

"Now this is eternal life: that they may KNOW You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)

"Jesus replied, 'If I glorify Myself, My glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the One who glorifies Me. Though you do not know Him, I know Him." (John 8:54-55a)

"No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:23)

"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that WE MAY KNOW HIM WHO IS TRUE. And we are in Him who is true - even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

Hello Karen,

I am happy to respond to your questions, but it will need to be tomorrow. I have some responsibilities yet tonight, and got far more caught up replying to Peter than I expected. But I do believe in our interconnectedness.

Hello Peter, Part 1.1,

Admittedly I did not read all of the Confession of Faith, though I doubt I will agree with them. I thought this was in response to Onofrio. I may look tomorrow.

Thank you for your responses to my comments. Again, they were what I had expected to hear if you replied. As it should be, I am sure.

I remain with my stated position. I will reply to a few of the things that you said so that I remain as clear as is possible when two speak and perceive in diverse languaging.

You will surely pursue what you need to. I am sure you are not interested in hearing positions that are contrary to your own so to expand, but do so only to negate them as you promote your own beliefs as superior. It is disinteresting to me to go down that road, and profitless for either, if growth is sought at least.

I have respect and love for many aspects of essential Christianity, which I find is profound and it's message at heart is deep and affecting and can be life changing. But there are far too many demands of the dogmatic Christianity that has developed that I find destructive and corrosive, and at the end of the equation the outcome is to me a negative integer. I do not need to go into specifics here because 1) you are not receptive to real two sided dialogue, having the prejudged and immovable belief in the veracity of your literal Christianity, so a waste of time, and 2) I am not interested, per #1, to change your mind about anything. Wasted time, from all I have seen.

You and Timmy are quite alike in some fundamental ways. For one, you are both rationalistic in thought processes, but both fundamentalist in your beliefs. Both certain of your assumptions and certain that others are "deluded". And you both listen not for expansion of personal perceptions, but do so from the stance of how to invalidate contrary positions.

Arrogance is never a turn on to me. Regardless of how it is cloaked.

Peter, part 1.2,

You to me: "Since you deny God I ask what makes you think that you or your ultimate source of information have any reason for certainty on anything? Can subjective reason ever really know? Look at the course of human history. How many different philosophies on life? How many different views of reality, of origins, of meaning, of goodness and evil, of religion. Why is your view correct?"

Good Lord, Peter, nice question. Have you really thought about this for your own life?

This is the second time you say that I deny God. This is inaccurate. I believe, actually, in a Creator or Source or 'God', if you will, though our views on God are very different. I do not believe in God as depicted in the Bible. This is a pathetically shallow presentation and one dependent on the ignorance of human perceptions. But in the very general concept of a Creator of Unity/Oneness, I am a believer, Lover and do not deny the concept. Whatever It Is, I know It Is.

I have no ultimate source of information. Noone does. Subjective reason and experience are just that, personal and subjective. My view can only be correct for me, which should be kinda obvious. I do not have the belief that Absolutism is functional in dualism.

You could apply those questions to yourself. I would suggest that if you were honest you would have to have the same answers.

PeterHuff, Part two,

"How can someone be great that lies to you?"

?! There are myriad great men and women in history and everyone of them, (I assume!), has lied. Further they are written about and those stories are incomplete, often inaccurate, and biased by the writers. And if it is autobiographical you can rest assured that it is an inaccurate depiction as it is subjective.

"Now what makes you able to pick and choose which words you will attribute to Him and which you will dilute and disclaim He said?"

Fine question. I believe the words related to Jesus are men's words, Apostles memories. They are writings of people invested in Jesus that wrote them. They are shadows of what He said. I consider it foolish to believe otherwise.

"And I have not found one yet, not one, in the two or so years I've been here, barring of course other Christians who know the light."

I am sure this is what you experience. This is simply because you are biased toward that belief and conclusion.

As you suggested, beliefs and experiences are subjective for all of us. No one knows the slightest, really, much less what is The Truth. And no human could imagine that Awareness, and no book could contain it.

The arrogance and idiocy of any belief system claiming knowledge or ownership of Truth, and God, is appalling. Insulting, in fact. Couple that arrogance with witnessing for conversion of non-believers makes it revolting.

That is something that Christianity and Islam share, very unfortunately.

Believe in Jesus. Celebrate anyone that finds spiritual fulfillment in any way they do. You will find more friends, and will be surprised with a greater communion with the Teachings of the Master.

Peace to you, Peter.

Hi Justillthennow,

Did I answer the statements you made below to your satisfaction when I laid down some of the articles in the Westminister Confession of Faith?

JTTN: It is an inevitable conclusion that God is complicit in the evil of the world, and in the affairs of the evildoers, by design, whether or not the literalist wants to place blame of 'evil' or 'sin' on Adam and Eve, ('specially that bit ch Eve!). Predestination only adds to the strength of the conclusion. Regardless though, the Creator Made It So."

JTTN: "God either is involved in the world, leaving one to wonder in Idiot Land why He caused catastrophes and did not stop them, or He does not intercede, in which case He is careless in the goings on of the world, and yet remains responsible for the inception and grounding of evil in the world."

JTTN: "Blame on humanity, Adam and Eve (bit ch!), and Original Sin is diversion from Original Responsibility for Evil on God, Creator."

Karen,

Unfortunate.

The "soil" of god is the universe, there is no exclusion. You may study the various world scriptures and find various person's claiming to be the one and only way. Or you may find the Varieties of Religious Experience that is an analysis of these types of experiences. Or you may find numerous spiritual traditions that point to the importance of experiences but the self constructed realities. Or you can find out about the Kabbalah, the Sufi, the Taoists, the mysteries, even Mount Carmel.

I hope someday you will look beyond one scripture or another and look for the Truth itself (see Bhagvad Gita ch 8 for a mystical experience of the reality beyond realities).

An important experience opened you, I hope a scripture doesn't stop you on a path.

The truth that is God has no limits. Not even a book or an ideology.

hariaum

Just Till Then

Do you believe in a Creator or a Creative Force behind the universe? If yes, how do you view this Creator?

Unfortunately, I have witnessed too much ugliness in this world to really believe that we are all interconnected... 'cause we sure do not act that way! I think that it takes a tremendous act of will to choose to love one another and treat each other the way we should. And it is a choice that has to be sustained over time. For me, God's love for me and His Grace help me in my effort to love my neighbor. Jesus says for us to love one another as He has loved us. Tough commandement but because He loves me and fills me with HIs spirit, my eyes are opened to the suffering and groaning in the world and I find myself compelled to try to do my part to relieve it.

Hi again Karen,

What you say is very true. We did a short term missions trip to the Philippines in 2005 in which we served in to different ministries - YWAM and OFM. They were totally different in their capacities and with it I saw the bold in your face type evangelism and the gentle investment in a people over many years without expecting anything in return. I can say that OMF definitely impressed me more.

OMF was working day in day out with the Muslims in the poorest part of the city. I remember open sewers and sewage washing up onto the beach that the children played on. I remember a Muslim lady who had converted to Christianity who was radiant and yet secretive about her conversion, wanting to serve her people and her families as an undercover Christian. A few years before an evangelist had tried to witness to these Muslims and they shot him and laid him out like a cross. So she had to serve in other ways, just as we did. And OMF was making a big difference in the community. We brought with us skills that OMF used to help the community, but it was the interaction with these precious people that I remember the most, how they shared their food and hospitality with us and how we shared our medical, computer, hygiene knowledge, sports training and building skills with them.

Then there was YWAM. We did not live fancy, basic barracks. Every morning we would gather together in prayer, then go out into the community to help out, rake yards, help people, mainly the elderly with basic chores. We would come back to the complex and pray and prepare for evangelism in the afternoon and evening. We put on plays, interacted with others in sharing the gospel in the streets, did prison ministries and I witnessed lots of people making a profession of faith in Jesus - I mean lots.

So these two experiences helped me to see that there are many ways to tell others the Good News. God is not limited by one way of speaking to people.

But, as you have said, the most effective way that I have seen is investing in people that don't have the creature comforts we do on a day to day basis, and doing it not expecting anything in return, not even a conversion, even though we prayed for God's mercy in this respect. That is love at its fullest and I think it is what Jesus meant when He said to deny ourselves, take up our cross daily and follow Him, for in losing our life in the service of others we truly find life - His life in us!

Hello Navin,

NAVIN: "Do you believe that people can have just a valid experience of God that denies the saviorhood of jesus"

No but I believe that God can lead you through other experiences to the Savior.

I've also read your correspondence with others and you make some extremely valid points to my mind so I did not want to interrupt. I counted you as an ally in many ways.

You are sincere. Your belief needs to be planted in the right soil, since we are using that analogy.

In order to be saved you need to believe what is true. Sincerity on its own does not save. Jesus said He is THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE.

That is an exclusive claim.

He also said to the people, "I am the light of the world." Some Pharisees challenged Him and He went on to tell them, "You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, My decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father who sent Me." (John 8:12, 15-16)

He equates His judgments with God's and as being right. He also said, "I told you [speaking to the Jews] that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the One I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24 along with John 8:12-36, 58-59). I invite you to read it Navin, praying that God would speak to you.

Ask yourself this question, 'Who did Jesus claim to be?'

NAVIN: "I would be in that category. Would you consider this a delusion or does your theology accept alternative experience of Tat Sat."

I'm not one to sugar coat, so I will tell you what I believe Scripture says.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

That narrows the field down to one name. And the reason is that Jesus is unique and different from every other man. He did not break God's commands but fulfilled them in every way and then He willingly died in the place of the sinner to set him free of the guilt and judgment that was dew him.

"Whoever believes in Him is not condemned." (John 3:18a) If you are interested, I would invite you to read the rest of that passage to verse 21. I pray that God would speak to you.

One last point. It is important to have an accurate knowledge of who God is. That comes by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. That intimate relationship comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. To know Him is to know the Father. Please see John 1:1, 14-18 along with John 4:23-26; John 14:6-10 and John 20:28.

May God's peace find you and set you free!

Hello Karen2565,

Yes, I had read your story and was touched by it. This must have been such an intense experience for you. And a blessing as well. It certainly sounds like the type of experience that affected you deeply and stays with you in life.

I believe in the interconnectedness of life, and this interconnectedness occurs at the 'spiritual' level, of which consciousness or awareness is the medium that carries it. Just my belief. Your experience sounds familiar to me as an upliftment by spirit by connecting to and plugging in to what is Real, the Spiritual, through a life changing event, and the recognition through that event of Life, (equally Death), and our interconnection to and union with Source.

As I said, I think of us all as children of God, but that is true, for me, with all Life. As created by God, if you like, or OF God or Creator as fits my mind better, we are inheritors of those Qualities. "Just as I Am....." You were "Filled by Spirit", Visited by the Holy Ghost, (Catholic terminology), Immersed in Spirit........ This is a great thing.

Many would call you deluded, having a chemically induced hallucinatory experience, whatever. They would likewise say similar of me, and that I am irresponsible to support belief in delusion. Yet again, science and scientists and rationalists, etc., have no clear evidence that these experiences are delusions. They can say that the mind can and does create chemically induced 'shifts', but a chemical alteration in the brain at the time of a 'spiritual experience' does not invalidate that the twain may go hand in hand, as is the case in all other things. We just do not have an acceptable determination of what is 'spiritual' to see both in action.

I think that it is not only good but essential to support spiritual and intuitive strengthening in ourselves. There is little enough in the world that gives such connectivity to our true selves in the daily life, and plenty that is far more superficial that overwhelms union with the mystical and awesome nature of life. Keep it alive and fresh.

Peace.

Hello Peter,

Yes I agree with you that we have to go forth and witness. As a matter of fact, my husband and I have been supporting a missionary couple in Africa for the past 15 years. It is through their expperiences that I have become convinced that people are more attracted to the witness of God in our lives then to us concentrating on preaching and teaching. They tell us time and time again that people come to them to ask them how come they have such a good marriage, how come they do not fear the spirits, how come they took a schizophrenic into their house when all the villagers shunned him for being demon possessed, etc and mostly: how come they do not live in fear of the spirit world? The daily witness of their lives and their love for the tribe that they live with brought forth people who wanted to know "the reason for the hope that is within them" and many have become believers. Having said them, the husband is an amazing evangelist and filled with the spirit of God so that when people seek his counsel, he convingly gives out the gospel and because his teachings match his way of life, people trust him and then learn to trust in Jesus.
I belong to a church that spends 40% of its yearly budget on missions including many ministries to the poor locally and all over the world so as you can see, I am not shying away from the need to share the good news. I just believe that action, witness and evangelism all have to go together.
It may be that God has called you to do what you are doing here. God knows I would not be able to stay at it day in and day out! I can see what a strong desire you have to share the good news and I find it very compelling even if I am not sure of how effective you can be in this forum.

All the best to you

Hi Karen,

I just read your last post. I agree with you totally. Convincing arguments convince no one, unless they have an inkling alone those lines by the power of God. His word is life. But also think of how many people were influenced along the way by a seed planted here and another one planted there. Eventually one of those seeds germinated and became a mustard tree, or a fruit tree, which in turn also provided shelter and food for others.

No, logic does not win a person, it just plants a seed. God wins a person, and it is in the preparation of the soil by the Gardner. Some soils allow for certain plants and others do not. Some soils need to be prepped for the seed. I just wonder how many people had prayed for my conversion and for God's mercy in my life before my faith in Him was born and sprouted into life?

KAREN: "However, I really do not think that it is by logic and by answering every question that we can somehow convince people to believe."

No, I am digging up their underlying presuppositions in preparing the soil.

KAREN: "I have hardly ever seen that approach work. Think back to your own moment of belief. Was it because someone was able to counter all your arguments and convince you that they were right?"

No, but how many of their arguments prepared the soil? Why did I actually hear the word of God one day? That was by His grace alone after the seeds were put in the ground.

KAREN: "Jesus says that he stands behind the door knocking. But for Him to come in, the person has to open the door i.e, there has to be some element of seeking. Unfortunately, the road to Damascus event happened only once."

Yes, He does and some of these people have been seeking. They want to see that the soil is right for the seed. They are looking for answers but they can't find the Gardener. We are pointing them there.

Some of these people have already been planted. Their plants did not have enough root to establish a living faith. They need nurturing. They need for the entanglements to be weeded up. They are not yet ready to trust, since so much of the fruit they have tasted is bad.

They have to be shown that God's word is the fruit of life by instructing them that the other fruits will kill them. They are in the Garden and they are taking of the same fruit that Adam and Eve partook of.

Karen, Peter,

Do you believe that people can have just a valid experience of God that denies the saviorhood of jesus - I would be in that category. Would you consider this a delusion or does your theology accept alternative experience of Tat Sat.

hariaum

KAREN: "I know that I have been a Christian for about 25 years and I still have plenty of unanswered questions. But I know that God is real, that Christ is risen and that He is my Lord and Savior and I do my best to live my life accordingly, though how well I do it varies greatly because of my human nature."

I have learned something precious in that I can't live the Christian life, for Christ has already lived it on my behalf. In yielding to Him is when Christ Jesus lives it through me. Paul expressed it well in Galatians 2:20-21.

I have also learned that being born anew has given me a different nature than the one I had previously. The old is gone; it was nailed to the cross and crucified with Christ!

KAREN: "Along the way, people have approached me and asked about the source of my hope and why I live my life a certain way. And that opens the door for a conversation and for planting seeds."

That is a great ministry. You are not hiding your light under a bushel.

KAREN: "Wouldn't you agree that we are the best Evangelists when we are being God's hands and feet in our communities and around the world?"

Yes, and that means going into all the world and preaching the gospel and discipline others with the gifts God has given.

As for Pat Robertson's remarks, I did not hear them.

KAREN: "All the best to you Peter. I know that you are sincere in you faith and you come across as a kind and respectful believer. Just always remember that it is the Spirit that leads people to Christ and that even the best logic will not convince the way a true Christian witness can."

I have never forgotten that Karen. Unless God is working in a persons life no words are going to save or convince them.

KAREN: "Blessings to you and your family (I hope that your wife is doing better)"

There is always a purpose for the hard times in life. Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. May God's grace and peace fill you and your family with joy!

Peter Huff
Thank you for your response.

For the record, I do not think that you come across as triumphalist or boastful in these blogs. And I do understand that if you do boast, it is of the power or Jesus and His Word, not about your own
abilities. I do believe that God is still at work in the world and that His word still cuts. I command you for your desire to witness and for the amazing amount of time you spend here. However, I really do not think that it is by logic and by answering every question that we can somehow convice people to believe. I have hardly ever seen that approach work. Think back to your own moment of belief. Was it because someone was able to counter all your arguments and convice you that they were right? Jesus says that he stands behind the door knocking. But for Him to come in, the person has to open the door i.e, there has to be some element of seeking. Unfortunately, the road to Damascus event happened only once.

Blessings to you

Hi Karen,

KAREN: "You Peter are to be commanded for abiding with the gentleness and respect that this verse recommends.

Yes, we both know that that is not always the case, not even close. I have offended some when I sought and pressed them to give their reason for the hope and also justification for what they believe. I'm like a bull in a China shop.

Not all of us have been given the same tasks. As Paul said, "What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow." (1 Corinthians 3:5-6)

Some plant the seeds and dig up the weeds, others water and nurture the plant as God makes it grow.

Not only are atheists deceiving themselves, but they are vying for a spot in the marketplace of ideas, and their ideas do have consequences, consequences that kill the plant before it can take root.

KAREN: "But how many of our fellow Christians out in the public light adhere to it? Even on these blogs, look at the vicious posts by some self proclaimed christians? And doesn't this verse imply that if we behave in a Christian way, living our faith and letting our hope shine then people will approach us and ask?"

Yes, that works in our private lives, living in gentleness and kindness before others. But in the marketplace of ideas how do you confront falsity and foolish ideas? (Proverbs 26:4, 5)

Sometimes you have to show a person where the underlying pull of their ideas takes them. Jesus did this on occasion, such as the rich young man and the camel passing through the eye of the needle, or in losing your life on behalf of the gospel and others is where you truly find it. Sometimes you have to take their ideas to the logical conclusion and show them how absurd they are.

Hi Karen,

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

Karen: "I do not disagree with you with regard to the need for sharing the Gospel. What disturbs me greatly is the manner it is often done in the US, in a trimuphalist and very political way."

Yes, I realize that the gentle Christian life is the draw for bringing people to Christ. But on an atheist forum, in which many of these people have already discarded the Christian message I come here as Paul did when he entered the Synagogues or entered the market place. He sought them out and he reasoned with them, in the power of the Spirit. He confronted the philosophies of the Greeks and pointed out the Messiah in the Scriptures to the Jews. He was attacked and beaten to almost the point of death for proclaiming, in season and out, the gospel message. And for those who professed Christ and yet practiced another lifestyle, he cut the ground from under them. He demolished their arguments that set themselves up against Christ and God.

And look at Jude, he reminded Christians to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. That does come with a cost, as so often truth does.

Jesus confronted many a religious leader with what seemed like harsh words. I believe they were used to challenge those who were stubbornly resistant to Him. It cut to the heart. Look what He said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23.

I think I understand you underlying message here. True, that might be the way I come across, but I boast about God, the Christian God, the one and only true and living God.

As Paul said, "Yet, when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16)

ONOFRIO: “It was "being honest with myself" that led me away from the dogmas you revere. You equate "honesty" with opening up to your polemical agenda.”

First of all, you have to establish that your system, your dogmas are more reasonable by stating what they are. Until you are willing to do that you are hiding behind them. You ask me what I’m afraid of. I ask you the same thing? I have opened up what I believe to your ridicule and contempt. I did that at risk to myself. I put myself in a vulnerable spot because I believe that my God can give adequate explanations. Because you don’t like the reasons did not stop me in speaking the truth, in as much it is possible.

ME: "I'm grateful for people like Timmy and Pam and Walter, and others who are willing to put their worldviews to the test. That is honesty."

ONOFRIO: “Manipulative and patronising. You're gratified that they seem to provide grist for your ideological mill. If their style of argumentation suits your agenda, fine. But according to your "system", they and I are all equally damned, regardless of how "honest" we may be. We may as well be the most pathological of liars - it's all "filthy rags" in the end.”

It is not for me to determine who is damned and who isn’t. That is God’s prerogative alone. Honesty implies truth. We are accountable before our Maker. What or who are you accountable to? Show me that what you believe is reasonable and honest. Let’s examine to see how it conveys truth. You have already admitted you have no guarantees of anything. You have no guarantees that you are right, so how can you say that Christianity is wrong??? You can’t from your framework. It is hopeless. It is senseless, and yet you use sense, one of the very things you deny when you say that there are no guarantees of anything. Sorry, you are a walking contradiction.

ME: "The great thing about a secret belief is it is safe. No one can test it. No one can see its contradictions, or at least that is what you probably believe."

ONOFRIO: “My choice not to cast my pearls before you does not make my beliefs "secret". For me, discussion of such things is not a matter of proselytisation, but of trust. You have not shown yourself worthy of my trust. No subterfuge; just caution and self-respect. “

You mean cast your pearls before the ‘swine.’ Thank you for being so polite and not saying the dreaded word in reference to me! If your belief is so great why would you not share it with others, with the world? Is it not worth sharing, it is not worth contending for, is it not worth shout out? No, the Christian has good news for those who will believe.

Continued,

All worldviews have the same problem in justifying their claims, and that is explaining or giving a better explanation of why anything exists, of why evil exist, of how we can know what good is by showing why their measure is objective and correct. Since you can’t do that, or refuse, because you like hiding behind this false sense of security in which you criticize others and yet have no better explanation, I ask you what you are afraid of. May I suggest that it would give away your cover, expose that you are great at tearing down arguments but have nothing better to offer anyone, no hope, no answers.

The Bible is God’s spokesman. Scripture explains Scripture. God has given us reasoning minds; He does not speak so that man is unable to understand Him. If you disagree with the interpretation I have of Scripture but believe that the Christian God is the true God, then show me why, from Scripture, you can do this or why from Scripture there is a better explanation. If you can’t from Scripture, then show me where you can explain it better from.

ME: "No you need to explain where evil comes from in a world without a Creator."

ONOFRIO: “I don't "need" to do any such thing. You might. Don't project your needs onto me. The human experience of evil is part of the mystery in which we are all involved. I don't pretend to be able to "explain" it, any more than I can comprehensively "explain" my own existence. Obtaining this ultimate "explanation" does not obsess me as it does you. I am content to live with perplexity. That is where honesty has led me. I find the "explanation" offered by your system to be trite and absurd, and I have shown why I think so in my (too) many posts on the issue.
And I have never stated or implied that the world has no "Creator". I don't recognise you as the spokesman of that entity, and you seem to have trouble accepting that.”

If you are going to contend that I have a faulty concept of what God has said, or if you deny the same God, the Christian God, then you need to establish why you do so, that is if you are going to be constructive. You criticize the Christian God for evil and yet you don’t understand where it comes from. The Bible says that God does not do evil (Job 34:10), nor can He be tempted by evil (James 1:13), that He is too pure (Hab. 1:13), that we should hate what is evil (Romans 12:9), but that evil is inherent in man (Matthew 7:11; Romans 3:10-18).

Genesis 3 explains where evil came from, so unless you have a better explanation and can fathom it, which obviously you can’t, for you have admitted so, don’t be a hypocrite. And you are not ‘content to live with perplexity’ otherwise you would not have bothered to respond to my posts. Doing so shows that evil does bother you and that you are not content with my answers. If you disagree with me or what I believe the Bible says then show me a better explanation. That is what I have done when challenged with other presuppositions by pointing to the Word of God. I’ve argued that you cannot explain anything adequately or even make sense of it without first presupposing the Christian God, not some pagan god or no God at all.

ME: "What kind of guarantee do you have of anything Onofrio?"

ONOFRIO: “None. Face it; the scare tactic is not working. It is you who needs ultimate guarantees. You seek to frighten because you are frightened.”

If you have no ultimate guarantees, you cannot know truth, you can only presume it. This brings us back to the point that you cannot make sense of anything, because in order to make sense of something you would have to know that it is true. But you do that. You do make sense of things, so you must borrow from something that is objective and that is true. You know that 2 + 2 = 4, that it is impossible to have a concept of a square circle, that words in context express meaning and that there is a correct way of interpreting them in order to get the right meaning, that the laws of logic exist and are objective and universal, that nothing cannot produce something.

Explain to me how your can be so self-righteous without an adequate explanation? I could understand it if you had a reasonable answer to the problem of evil, or anything else, but you have confessed you do not. What hope do you offer anyone?

Hi Onofrio,

ME: "so why is your universe so pure and lovely, without evil?"

ONOFRIO: “I have never stated or implied that this is the case. Your *system* does not have the monopoly on recognising and mitigating human evil.”

A system only eradicates human evil if it is true and can change the heart. If it can not, it compounds the problem of evil. Many systems try to mitigate it and most recognize it, but show me one that solves it. God has given the cause and solution to evil, and one day He will judge every evil act.

ME: "You can try and deny it, but if someone did an atrocity to one of your family members, God forbid, I bet you would think it evil."

ONOFRIO: “What an asinine remark! As if I'd try to "deny" that! And, anyway, leave my family out of this. I don't use yours as a polemical tool.”

I was just drawing out the point by using something dear to you to hit home. I meant your family no harm. Good, now I know that you do recognize such a thing as evil. You don’t try to mask it like Pam and others have by saying you prefer the word ‘bad’ over the uses of the word ‘evil.’

Navin,
Thank you for the kind words.
Yes, I am pretty sure that I am not delusional and was not at the time. Just because we don't fully understand an experience and cannot quantify it, reason it etc does not mean it was not real and we were deluded.

Just till then
Did you have a chance to read my last post addressed to you? I wonder what would be your interpretation of my spiritual experience.

Peter Huff,

I do not disagree with you with regard to the need for sharing the Gospel. What disturbs me greatly is the manner it is often done in the US, in a trimuphalist and very political way.

First of all, the worst thing that Christians can do is to associate themselves with a political party. Need I point out the damage to the cause of Christ that 8 years of the Bush administration has done? Just look at the comments on these blogs and what a turn off this has been to many. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world and to render to Caesar what is to Caesar and to God what is to God. Christians in the US would do well to medidate on these truths everyday and not be seduced by secular power and somehow be fooled into thinking that one political party will somehow help usher God's kingdom on this earth. That is utter foolishness and the arrogance associated with it has done terrible harm.

Second, let us remember 1Peter 3:15 "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and with respect"
You Peter are to be commanded for abiding with the gentleness and respect that this verse recommends. But how many of our fellow Christians out in the public light adhere to it? Even on these blogs, look at the vicious posts by some self proclaimed christians? And doesn't this verse imply that if we behave in a Christian way, living our faith and letting our hope shine then people will approach us and ask?
I know that I have been a Christian for about 25 years and I still have plenty of unanswered questions. But I know that God is real, that Christ is risen and that He is my Lord and Savior and I do my best to live my life accordingly, though how well I do it varies greatly because of my human nature. Along the way, people have approached me and asked about the source of my hope and why I live my life a certain way. And that opens the door for a conversation and for planting seeds.

Wouldn't you agree that we are the best Evangelists when we are being God's hands and feet in our communities and around the world?

Did you notice that the first interviews on CNN, NPR etc. where with staff from World Vision and the like, who were already there working with the poor of Haiti for years and years? Don't you think that their witness was drawned out by Pat Robertson' remarks? Do you see the harm done by Christian triumphalism? I don't even see how those 2 words can go together if we are the followers of Jesus.

All the best to you Peter. I know that you are sincere in you faith and you come across as a kind and respectful believer. Just always remember that it is the Spirit that leads people to Christ and that even the best logic will not convince the way a true Christian witness can.

Blessings to you and your family (I hope that your wife is doing better)

Peter Huff,

"so why is your universe so pure and lovely, without evil?"

I have never stated or implied that this is the case. Your *system* does not have the monopoly on recognising and mitigating human evil.

"You can try and deny it, but if someone did an atrocity to one of your family members, God forbid, I bet you would think it evil."

What an asinine remark! As if I'd try to "deny" that! And, anyway, leave my family out of this. I don't use yours as a polemical tool.

"What kind of guarantee do you have of anything Onofrio?"

None. Face it; the scare tactic is not working. It is you who needs ultimate guarantees. You seek to frighten because you are frightened.

"No you need to explain where evil comes from in a world without a Creator."

I don't "need" to do any such thing. You might. Don't project your needs onto me. The human experience of evil is part of the mystery in which we are all involved. I don't pretend to be able to "explain" it, any more than I can comprehensively "explain" my own existence. Obtaining this ultimate "explanation" does not obsess me as it does you. I am content to live with perplexity. That is where honesty has led me. I find the "explanation" offered by your system to be trite and absurd, and I have shown why I think so in my (too) many posts on the issue.
And I have never stated or implied that the world has no "Creator". I don't recognise you as the spokesman of that entity, and you seem to have trouble accepting that.

"Be honest with yourself."

It was "being honest with myself" that led me away from the dogmas you revere. You equate "honesty" with opening up to your polemical agenda.

"I'm grateful for people like Timmy and Pam and Walter, and others who are willing to put their worldviews to the test. That is honesty."

Manipulative and patronising. You're gratified that they seem to provide grist for your ideological mill. If their style of argumentation suits your agenda, fine. But according to your "system", they and I are all equally damned, regardless of how "honest" we may be. We may as well be the most pathological of liars - it's all "filthy rags" in the end.

"The great thing about a secret belief is it is safe. No one can test it. No one can see its contradictions, or at least that is what you probably believe."

My choice not to cast my pearls before you does not make my beliefs "secret". For me, discussion of such things is not a matter of proselytisation, but of trust. You have not shown yourself worthy of my trust. No subterfuge; just caution and self-respect.

Hi Onofrio,

ONOFRIO: "Your system is internally contradictory, as your tedious cut-and-paste demonstrates. It sets up monstrous absolutes, then recoils from them, then reaffirms them, then hides behind the skirts of mystery when it all teeters to topple. It treats an anthology of texts composed and edited over centuries as a monolith, from which an A-grade guarantee can be milked."

What kind of guarantee do you have of anything Onofrio? Is death your final frontier? Do you have a god? Is it the god of human reason? What makes your frailty so certain?

The great thing about a secret belief is it is safe. No one can test it. No one can see its contradictions, or at least that is what you probably believe.

I'm grateful for people like Timmy and Pam and Walter, and others who are willing to put their worldviews to the test. That is honesty.

ONOFRIO: "You are not bold, you are boring. A clanging cymbal."

Thank you for your kind words!

ME: "These people want to deny and mock the God I love, but don't shine the light on their own inadequacies to explain any ultimate questions of life. They don't have the answers."

ONOFRIO: "No, Peter, you don't have the ears."

You are the judge!

ONOFRIO: "As I wrote before:
You're welcome to your monster."

You are welcome to yours too! You will not let God be God, so why is your universe so pure and lovely, without evil?

The fact is Onofrio, it's not. You still have the same problem that everyone else does, and that is explaining why evil exists in this world. You can try and deny it, but if someone did an atrocity to one of your family members, God forbid, I bet you would think it evil.

No you need to explain where evil comes from in a world without a Creator. Be honest with yourself.

Finishing your post JTTN,

JTTN: "But I am not one that has a receptor for the veracity of Evangelical Christian dogma. In it's present form I find it far more a support of ignorance and spiritual apathy than a vibrant light of good."

God's word is the source of light. That is the standard I go by. If someone can show me through Scripture that my beliefs on a particular issue is wrong, then I will admit it. It bothers me when Christians, including myself, are shown through His word that what they thought on a particular subject was in fact wrong. But in a nutshell what I am saying is that what He says is the standard, the ultimate reference in what is true and right and good. There is nothing else that compares.

JTTN: "Much of that could change if all Christians, (politicians, businessmen, activists included), would live the simple life of the Teacher they say they follow."

Sure, but you are looking for a world that does not exist if you include the word 'all.' The nature of man does not allow peace, let alone following the life of Christ. But the Christian message goes beyond our mere works righteousness anyway to His grace. It points to the One who has given believers peace with God through His selfless, matchless sacrifice. You are not going to find peace in this world, for when there is relativism and subjectivity there will always be war and strife, one with another.

JTTN: "Peace on you."

Where does your peace come from?

Hi Justillthenow,

JTTN: "Evangelization does more harm than benefit, regardless of the religion that practices it."

Christianity is relational. Evangelizing has its purposes, the saving of lives for eternity. Lives being saved depends on God; whether one has ears to hear the gospel, eyes to see its truth, and a heart to trust in the Savior and what He says.

JTTN: "I offer my thoughts. Am not interested, respectfully, in your Biblically based arguments, or you witnessing Christ to me. Been there and am happily well past that."

I realize that. I look at things in the light of God's word and try to discern the truth from it. I am not able to convert anyone. I understand that unless the Spirit is drawing you any witness is in vain.

Since you deny God I ask what makes you think that you or your ultimate source of information have any reason for certainty on anything? Can subjective reason ever really know? Look at the course of human history. How many different philosophies on life? How many different views of reality, of origins, of meaning, of goodness and evil, of religion. Why is your view correct?

God is necessary, or thinking His thoughts after Him is necessary, otherwise it all boils down to personal, cultural and societal opinion and pressure. Why is yours the ultimate view point? If it is not then whose is and how do you know? Can you answer those questions?

You look at Jesus and say 'a great teacher', or to use your exact words, "But the fundamental teachings of Jesus are great."

How can someone be great that lies to you? Either Jesus is great because of what He says is true and He is who He claims to be, or He is lying or delusional to use C.S. Lewis' thoughts. That is the point, you either take Him at His word or else you have someone claiming to be the very Son of God, the God that you deny, that is lying. Now what makes you able to pick and choose which words you will attribute to Him and which you will dilute and disclaim He said? And which source of information, twenty centuries removed are you going to choose as your objective reference?

JTTN: "This is a tough room to be in for an evangelical, and you show great heart in defense of your faith. Cheers on that."

That is why I am here. I want to know why atheists in general, and those who look to other sources of ultimate answers, other than from the God of the Bible, can give an adequate reason for their defense of their particular worldview before they go tearing down the Christian faith. And I have not found one yet, not one, in the two or so years I've been here, barring of course other Christians who know the light.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ONOFRIO |
POSTED JANUARY 29, 2010 10:08 AM

IRT:
If you knew Shakespeare, you'd realize that it's the Fool who often has the greatest insight into the truth.

ANS:
Shakespeare had two kinds of fools the real ones and the fake ones. Falstaff was the real fool and Sir Hal the imitation fool. An idiot full of sound and fury, maybe not, but he is a fool never the less, a drunker and a social of disaster.

Fallstaff is so foreboding that he is rejected by the pretended fool the Prince who becomes the King. Then there is Costard, supposedly the country idiot, who isn’t a real fool and is thought of as the wit of the play

Consequently, the Fool in King Lear, as one pundit says, “does not follow any ideology. He rejects all appearances, of law, justice, and moral order. He sees brute force, cruelty and lust. He has no illusions and does not seek consolation in the existence of natural or supernatural order, which provides for the punishment of evil and the reward of good.

Lear, insisting on his fictitious majesty, seems ridiculous to him. All the more ridiculous because he does not see how ridiculous he is. Nevertheless, the Fool does not desert his ridiculous degraded king, and accompanies him on his way to madness. The Fool knows that the only true madness is to recognize this world as rational.” Thus, we have two fools.

Yes, the true fool thinks it is madness to think the world is rational. Therefore, it is also madness for one who thinks the fountain of life, namely the true Church and its exhortations, represent stupidity. For it is true religion that is the summit to all reality.

Thus, the former post was apropos. Namely, the true fool is the one who thinks the Church and Her counsel is idiocy, because his whole existence must be grounded in pessimism and despair.

Peter Huff,

Thee:
"Do you think that you have enough wisdom to condemn God as unjust?"

Your God? Yes, enough wisdom for that. And I have done so. Ad nauseam.

Your system is internally contradictory, as your tedious cut-and-paste demonstrates. It sets up monstrous absolutes, then recoils from them, then reaffirms them, then hides behind the skirts of mystery when it all teeters to topple. It treats an anthology of texts composed and edited over centuries as a monolith, from which an A-grade guarantee can be milked.

Thee:
"I know I am bold in my proclamations."

You are not bold, you are boring. A clanging cymbal.

Thee:
"These people want to deny and mock the God I love, but don't shine the light on their own inadequacies to explain any ultimate questions of life. They don't have the answers."

No, Peter, you don't have the ears.

As I wrote before:
You're welcome to your monster.

Hi Justillthennow,

JTTN: "Thank you for the reply."

Thanks for yours too!

JTTN: "I stand by my statements. First that "God/Creator" must be responsible for the Creation attributed to Him, though there is no substantial evidence for God at all and more so a specific Deity that is Lord of Lords."

Yes, He is responsible, and that is why He punishes injustice and wrongdoing - sin. He made man in His image and likeness so that man could reason and love and have relationship with Him. He also issued the boundaries in which man could not cross over without penalties. Those boundaries were in doubting God's integrity, His word, in the one command that God, as sovereign Lord, imposed.

Once such a boundary was crossed man would know evil, he would be able to distinguish between the two, whereas before he only knew good. And when man decides for himself what he will accept as good, he opens the door to relativism and subjectivity, where there is no objective measure to compare good to but his preference, and believe me, each has his own. You can see that by looking at individuals, cultures, societies throughout history.

JTTN: "And for my advocacy that Christians retreat from evangelization. I understand the fixation on it, though I am no believer in Biblical verse as actual Word of God, but word of Man, manipulated by man."

That is your subjective opinion. As you said further down, you have no proof for God so how can you argue for what is and is not His word? What do you use to judge His Word by? You use the thoughts and opinions of like-minded subjective men. Why are they right? They are judging that God has not preserved His word, that the Bible is error filled, that the history that it claims did not happen. Again, it boils down to doubt, the original sin, and the lie of Satan, "Did God really say?"

JTTN: "God is not creating earthquakes or stopping the massacre in Darfur, and He is not writing books."

What is your proof, since you deny Him existence?

JTTN: "But the fundamental teachings of Jesus are great, and followed IN A ESSENTIAL WAY would do well by the follower. The world would be better for it, and a greater light would shine."

There again, what makes them great unless what He said was true,

"I am THE WAY and THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE. NO ONE comes to the Father, BUT THOUGH ME." (John 14:6)

So Onofrio, from these articles of faith of the Reformed church we see man is not forced to disobey God; he does it of his own volition. Man is accountable to God for breaking God's law, for God is the greater in that He is the Creator. He has the right to set the terms of the covenants that He makes with His creatures - death/punishment/payment. He has the right to determine what the penalties for breaking those covenants will be. And He has the right to meet the terms of the covenant when we can't meet it (because of that first sin that brought death and separation from God), through the only One who can, on our behalf, by taking the penalty Himself and providing the righteousness that we lack.

Since we are all guilty under that first covenant and of breaking the subsequent covenant of works, God is just in punishing us. He is just and also the Justifier of those whom He chooses to save by the preaching of the Word and the believing of those who place their trust in the Savior to His glory, through the ministering of the Spirit.

And from Scripture, you nor I can determine all that God has chosen to elect, whether that be babies or men, but little children definitely are inferred as being saved and of the people of God, by such verses as I quoted to you before.

Do you think that you have enough wisdom to condemn God as unjust?

Justice is getting what we deserve.
Mercy is not getting what we deserve.
Grace is getting unmerited favor in not getting what we deserve.

Answer me how someone can be just and yet ignore what is wrong and what deserves punishment? If someone stole your car and was caught, do you think they are guilty of breaking a law and deserves punishment? If not, how many times or cars do they have to steal before you think they broke the law? Do you think Hitler deserves justice or mercy?

What you are trying to do is blame God for something that man did of his own volition. You're oblivious to His justice and blind to His love in your anger and pride in your ability to determine good.

That is why, to date, you reject the gospel, which you have heard, and which, to date, has not taken root in your heart, for if it did you would not have turned your back on the Savior and have contempt for His people.

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." (1 John 3:14, 15)

My prayer is that God would be gracious to you and turn you to Him.

PeterHuff,

Thank you for the reply. It was what I expected though that is not meant as an insult. You are polite in your stance, and though you certainly "shout" out your defense of your Christianity you seem thoughtful if not open to extra-literal criticism.

I stand by my statements. First that "God/Creator" must be responsible for the Creation attributed to Him, though there is no substantial evidence for God at all and more so a specific Deity that is Lord of Lords.

And for my advocacy that Christians retreat from evangelization. I understand the fixation on it, though I am no believer in Biblical verse as actual Word of God, but word of Man, manipulated by man. God is not creating earthquakes or stopping the massacre in Darfur, and He is not writing books.

But the fundamental teachings of Jesus are great, and followed IN A ESSENTIAL WAY would do well by the follower. The world would be better for it, and a greater light would shine.

Evangelization does more harm than benefit, regardless of the religion that practices it. Those would be, of the major religions, Christianity and Islam. Two great friends.

I offer my thoughts. Am not interested, respectfully, in your Biblically based arguments, or you witnessing Christ to me. Been there and am happily well past that.

This is a tough room to be in for an evangelical, and you show great heart in defense of your faith. Cheers on that. But I am not one that has a receptor for the veracity of Evangelical Christian dogma. In it's present form I find it far more a support of ignorance and spiritual apathy than a vibrant light of good.

Much of that could change if all Christians, (politicians, businessmen, activists included), would live the simple life of the Teacher they say they follow.

Peace on you.

Part 4

V. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever.

CHAPTER IX.
Of Free Will.

I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.

[Did you notice that Onofrio, "...that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil."]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutable free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

Part 3

CHAPTER VIII.
Of Christ the Mediator.

I. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and men, the prophet, priest, and king; the head and Savior of the Church, the heir or all things, and judge of the world; unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell: to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

Part 2

CHAPTER VII
Of God's Covenant with Man.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

Part 1

ONOFRIO: "We inherit Adam's sin from conception. From the womb we are depraved, therefore all babies are hellbound, by default. Why so squeamish? They're only getting their just deserts."

Deprived in that we are inheriting our parents sin, and their parents before them, down to Adam. We receive that same nature that was in Adam and Eve, by their choice, but as for infants and unborn babies practicing that sin by lying and stealing and not honoring God, it is by imputation in Adam, just like the righteousness of Christ is by imputation in Christ. He lived the godly life as Man before God in our place, just as Adam lived the life of disobedience in our place as the federal head of humanity.

And I believe God has mercy on babies and little children as mentioned previously.

CHAPTER VI.
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of
the Punishment thereof.

I. Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

III. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.

[Hence we all die, whether in Christ for our sins or by our own merit.]

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.

Back to you, Onofrio,

ME: ""Does He not have the right to take a babies life on earth and grant it life in the eternal realm?"

ONOFRIO: "Inconsistent with your own dogmas."

Maybe not. Jesus died to save a specific people. "...He WILL save HIS PEOPLE from their sins." (Matthew 1:21) Who are they?

"At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was Your good pleasure." (Matthew 11:25-26)

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I WILL raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

"He called a little child and had him stand among them. And He said: I tell you the TRUTH, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven....See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I TELL YOU that THEIR ANGELS in heaven always see the face of My Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:2-5, 10)

"Are not all angels ministering spirits
sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14)

Jesus said, 'Let the LITTLE CHILDREN come to Me, and do not hinder them, for THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BELONGS TO SUCH AS THESE." (Matthew 19:14)

"He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in His arms, He said, 'Whoever welcomes one of these little children in My name welcomes Me; and whoever welcomes Me welcomes not only Me but the One who sent Me." (Mark 9:36, 37)

"People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have Him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to Him and said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these..." (Luke 18:15, 16)

Hi Justillthennow,

I'll reply to your post as soon as I get these thoughts out of my mind in answering Onofrio, except for one comment for now. But I think you will find that a lot of his objections, and yours are somewhat explained in quoting the Confession.

KAREN: "I agree with you that a Christian that sticks to the essentials and focuses on Jesus' 2 commandments will be a force for good in the world. It is when Christians become triumphalist and set about imposing their faith rather then living their faith that Christianity gets a black eye."

Very true, those two commandments fulfill the law in whole, and the real triumph is in Christ Jesus alone, but He did give the commandment to tell the good news and the Scriptures point out to offer a defense of the faith. Silence is not going to do that. The love of Christ compels many to risk ridicule, insult and mockery for the sake of the gospel, especially when so many are being lead astray by the cunning doctrines of men, rather than on the word of truth - the gospel of our salvation.

So when you say JTTN, "I advocate retreat back from evangelistic priorities and back to the very basics of Christian practice in life, for the loyal Christian" true in our everyday walk, but notice all the times in the New Testament when Paul and Barnabas and others risked all for preaching the gospel among unbelievers and confronting error, even challenging worldviews (2 Corinthians 10:2-5).

The Book of Acts is just one example of the many times in which Paul went into the synagogues and reasoned with the Jews (Acts 17:1-3), or mingled in the marketplace (Acts 17:17) or stood at the meeting of the Areopagus and addressed not only Greeks but foreigners.

Yes, the two greatest commandments go without saying, but so does the Great Commission.

It would not be loving to ignore injustice or to say nothing when lies are spread about the faith. And do I not have a right to contend for the faith (Jude 3-4)?

I know I am bold in my proclamations. That may be a fault that I still need to come to terms with. But God gave me the personality I have and made me who I am for His purpose, whatever that may be, to His glory, not mine. I'm not as refined as some Christians, but I feel the need to shout in a voice that others will hear - "How do you make sense of what you believe outside of God? Explain it if you can?"

You see, that is the point. These people want to deny and mock the God I love, but don't shine the light on their own inadequacies to explain any ultimate questions of life. They don't have the answers. God is as necessary for life, especially abundant life, as He is necessary for making sense out of that life.

Continuing on the same thread Onofrio,

CHAPTER IV.
Of Creation.
II. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

Did you get that ONOFRIO? Please note: "having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, BEING LEFT TO THE LIBERTY OF THEIR OWN WILL, which was subject unto change."

CHAPTER V.
Of Providence.
II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

Please notice the second part of that sentence Onofrio, "...either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

Onofrio, please notice the last sentence again, "...yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and NOT FROM GOD; who being most holy and righteous, NEITHER IS NOR CAN BE THE AUTHOR OR APPROVER OF SIN."

Hi Onofrio,

ONOFRIO: "I cited the Institutes chapter and paragraph numbers. You ought to look before you leap."

I apologize completely. You are right.

Regarding the Westminister Confession of Faith you start with Chapter III, citing Article III onwards, but you do not include some of the other relevant articles. For instance Article I,

I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Did you get that Onofrio? "...[Y]et so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; not IS VIOLENCE OFFERED TO THE WILL OF THE CREATURE, NOR IS THE LIBERTY OR CONTINGENCY OF SECOND CAUSES TAKEN AWAY, but rather established."

In other words God did not force you to sin. That is something you did of your own volition, just as Adam did. So God is perfectly just in judging you as a lawbreaker of His righteous decrees. You broke them, you pay the penalty, or by faith, Christ pays them for you and meets all justice. That is the good news that you so oppose.

Where is the justice in allowing the guilty to go free? That is something your worldview does not account for. That is why we need a Mediator, a Substitute, an alien righteousness in the sense that once the law is broken by us we can no longer meet a perfect standard in and of ourselves.

Hello PeterHuff,

I have followed in an overview sort of way your dialogues with those several you have taken up as sparring partners, (and who seconded the motion).

My commenting to you is not to be mistaken as an interest to spar on your common grounds. Not much interested in too much of that, thanks.

However, this did come up while reading the last of Onofrio's to you:

"You're welcome to your monster."

It is an inevitable conclusion that God is complicit in the evil of the world, and in the affairs of the evildoers, by design, whether or not the literalist wants to place blame of 'evil' or 'sin' on Adam and Eve, ('specially that bit ch Eve!). Predestination only adds to the strength of the conclusion. Regardless though, the Creator Made It So.

God either is involved in the world, leaving one to wonder in Idiot Land why He caused catastrophes and did not stop them, or He does not intercede, in which case He is careless in the goings on of the world, and yet remains responsible for the inception and grounding of evil in the world.

Blame on humanity, Adam and Eve (bit ch!), and Original Sin is diversion from Original Responsibility for Evil on God, Creator.

Without bestowing humanity with the mantle of Creatorship themselves one must conclude It Is God's Fault. Which is what many have come to realize and, along with all the other discrepancies in Christian dogma and the limpid "Have Faith" mantras, it has driven many to deep questions on the value of dogmatic and literalist Christianity and many more to depart the Faith altogether.

For good. Damn reasons.

I advocate retreat back from evangelistic priorities and back to the very basics of Christian practice in life, for the loyal Christian.

Karen2565, a poster on this thread who I quite like, said the following. I am in full agreement.

"I agree with you that a Christian that sticks to the essentials and focuses on Jesus' 2 commandments will be a force for good in the world. It is when Christians become triumphalist and set about imposing their faith rather then living their faith that Christianity gets a black eye."

Hello Ttwysty,

Very nice. I did not take you for a poet or lover of poetry. However, whatever presses your cause forward, eh?

I am not sure what you are speaking to irt my comment to Timmy. Seems that I was, in that quote, being more of a support to your Christian Crusade than a detriment. But perhaps for some of us nothing is or ever will be good enough. Stuck between a Rock and a hard Book, one may just start to swing at whatever draws near, in angry fear, while placing themselves in the role of the only one who Knows in some derelict Shakespearean tragedy.

What is a tragedy is that in a world completely diverse, with no thing the same, all unique, that diversity is hated with a venomous depth and evil by all those that argue for the best country, the biggest father, and the Only Way.

I hear your voice coming up out of the dark unknown of the Abyss. Yours hisses ruefully at those who evince contrarian attitudes toward your ethereal Faith. You are not alone, Ttwysty, though others swimming around in the unknowable may hiss less and kiss more. Or miss less and piss more.

Hey, God Knows. We most certainly, (in this manifestation of the Divine Comedy, at lest), do not Know.

For the most part I have heard your hissing and passed over, like an unattached spirit on another mission, leaving you to troll for something to feed upon. I am pleased to have stopped for a moment for this chat, and loved that you brought out the poets soul in you to communicate. Nicer than the normal hiss, to be sure. I like what you said via proverbs and the Bard. Enjoyable.

Good journey! Peace to you and it.

Karen,

As a mystic, and someone who has met many a person with similar experiences who are not clinically insane, I completely empathize with the experience that you have had. It is these experiences that are completely ignored by the "empiricists." But when they have them, it is still not proof even for them. But that does not, of course, change the significance of seeing. Thanks for your story.

I wish you continued success on your journey.

hariaum

Shakespeare had you pegged too, TTWSYF:

“I am Sir Oracle, And when I ope my lips let no dog bark.”
- Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1

If you knew Shakespeare, you'd realise that it's the Fool who often has the greatest insight into the truth.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
JUSTILLTHENNOW
“LUNACY”

"You could name your wingless angels MADDR. MADDR than hell at the deluded religious idiot dolts!
AhhhK , peaceout, brother."

ANS:
A Yiddish proverb says, “Against stupidity, God is helpless.” An Arabic slightly modified proverb notes “A man profits more by the sight of an idiot, than by the irrational ramblings of a self-possessed seer who thinks he‘s not an idiot and that his ramblings are facts. However, Shakespeare is more to the point of your senseless rhetorical incongruities.
.
“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage.

And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.“

Peter Huff,

"Next time you quote John Calvin, please give the reference source and page number."

Are you implying I invented those quotes? In every case, I cited the Institutes chapter and paragraph numbers. You ought to look before you leap.

"Firmly persuaded, yet afraid to show what is really behind your fine sounding attacks, your polished rhetoric, your refusal to answer honest questions about how you know what you profess is false in someone else by explaining how what you believe is true in yourself."

You wish. I've been completely honest; you can't stand the answers because they don't conform to your polemical needs. They don't allow you to dismiss me with three proof texts and a presuppositional whine. I'm not afraid of you or your God, and I won't cast my pearls before swine.

So long as you respond to my posts as a monomaniacal doctrine machine, I will presume you wish to remain a swine in my eyes.

"Look at what happens when man places himself in the place of God. History is laced with evil men."

Not merely "laced". According to your system, ALL men are evil. ONLY God is good. ALL human goodness is "filthy rags". So don't patronise me about evil. In your God's eyes Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, and I are equally depraved and damned. As are all those Muslims and Buddhists killed by the 2004 tsunami. As are all those non-Calvinist voodooists (and their children) killed in Haiti. The horror of their demise is just the beginning, alongside every mass murderer and torturer that ever lived.

You're welcome to your monster.

Hi Onofrio,

Next time you quote John Calvin, please give the reference source and page number.

ONOFRIO: "I don't possess anything so coherent as a "worldview", and I'm not playing your presuppositionalist game, Peter."

Sure you do. You look at this life through a perspective that has core foundational beliefs.

ONOFRIO: "I know how it starts and ends, and everything in between. I'm quite content for you to conclude and broadcast that I have no *ultimate objective reference* points and that everything I write is either without foundation or stolen from your God. It takes no clairvoyance on my part to know what you will write."

That is right Onofrio, outside of God.

ONOFRIO: "I do have a map of sorts for navigating this ocean, but I am not about to disclose its contents to you...."

That is right Onofrio. You do have a worldview after all, as much as you care to deny it and hide it. It is best that way, so that it cannot be tested. That makes it safe for you. No one can point out your fallacies as long as you can hide them. In this way you can never be called a hypocrite or give an explanation why your way is so much better than others.

ONOFRIO: "As for that "ultimate objective reference point for evil" you insist on, your God fits the description pretty well."

No, evil is not having an ultimate, universal, objective measure of good. Anything goes. That is the vilest kind of evil. Look at what happens when man places himself in the place of God. History is laced with evil men.

ONOFRIO: "Somehow - I don't really know how exactly - I am firmly persuaded that he is a monster. I have at times offered partly intelligible rationales for this firm persuasion, though mostly, as you point out, I just write gibberish, which is my first language. Only devils comprehend it fully; 'twas they who taught me."

Yes, the folly of pride. Firmly persuaded, yet afraid to show what is really behind your fine sounding attacks, your polished rhetoric, your refusal to answer honest questions about how you know what you profess is false in someone else by explaining how what you believe is true in yourself.

Hello Justtillthen,

Yes you are right, I do not believe that the Spirit is us and I do believe that it emanates from God. There have been a few times in my life where I clearly felt God's presence and I know with great certainty that it was not my mind playing tricks on me or my own thoughts/desires being projected out.

I'll give you an example. I grew up in a war zone in the midst of a civil war. When I was 21, one of my closest friends was shot in the head and died on the spot. She was also my best friend's fiancee. We held her funeral in my friend's village in the mountains. There were just a few of us there and I cannot describe to you the depth of despair that we felt. In my culture, men and women are not afraid to cry and weep at funerals and there was plenty of that going on in the little chapel. And there, in the depth of my grief, I felt an ineffable presence that comforted me and lifted my spirit in a way that is hard to describe. The feeling was so powerful that I looked up and around as if I was instictively trying to see where this presence was. My eyes met my best friend's gaze. He stared at me and said: you felt it also, didn't you? I nodded and he said: God is with us and she is with Him, I just wish He had let me keep her a little longer.

What happened that day, I cannot explain with science and reason. And because I am human, the passage of time dulled my feelings and my memory to where I would have doubt again, and struggle with my faith. But as I continue on the journey of life, there are other glimpses of the Presence from time to time and the longer I live, the deeper my faith. He says that His Grace is sufficient for me and many times, I have found it to be true.

Again, worst case scenario, both my friend and I experienced a joint delusion that got us through a terrible time in our lives. But you know what, I really don't believe that.

Justillthen,

"May I apprentice? Do you have spaces in your stable?"

We are journeymen, both: inherently un-stabled hobby-horse jockeys, tilting with needles at a gift-wrapped megahippos, for we've heard the muffled chime of bronze behind the timber.

"Be your waters akin to those of Jacob's Well?"

Those who ail and drink me just get Sychar; ale is better. Yet winsome Samaritan femmes will find me sugar sweet...

"Is there truth, (verifiable only, please!), in those old sayings? "You made the bed, you can lie in it." "

Verily, these = us.

Ah, Onofrio!

Example of your surprises come fast and frivolous. May I apprentice? Do you have spaces in your stable? As my teeth are in some far too early question, I would even happily be in dentured in servitude if I could tap from whatever well you draw from. Be your waters akin to those of Jacob's Well? A passing now of the New Covenant into Unified Covetness? Appropo, as we grope into the unknown future.

I assume your "Procrusteanity" alludes to Procrustes, the "robber who stretched or amputated the limbs of travelers to make them conform to the length of his bed. He was killed by Theseus." Love that! Nothing like old school forms of forced conformity.

Is there truth, (verifiable only, please!), in those old sayings? "You made the bed, you can lie in it."

A dandelion floats in space. It thinks, I am self created. What I see is reality. Look how awesome I am as I float above all else. Look at all those other flowers locked to the ground, they are unable to see what I see. The can not smell what I smell. They can not seek knowing that I seek. How primitive they are. How deluded they are.

(Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR).1 It defines delusions as false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture - then, clinically, who is delusional since 99.9999% of the west believes in god - the believer or the non-believer.)

Yet the dandelion falls, it tries to fly, but its reasoning is unfounded. Gravity pulls it in. It seems that the self realization is false. That there is more to reality than the dandelion thought it felt and saw.

The dandelion denies that there is gravity. There is no reality but what the dandelion wants to see but it can not see that what it wants to see is what sees. Logic is irrelevant, though it falls, reason is undefined, though it falls, truth is not real, though it falls, denial is impotent though it falls.

The seed lands and another dandelion takes flight, another mythology is formed.

hariaum

Hello there, Justillthen,

Glad not to disappoint! I would like to be able to write cogent mini essays like yours and others here, but, unfortunately, snarky invective is what I do best - the heckler in the stalls, me.

I have followed your disgustion (zesta!) with Timmy and Navin with interest, and, being more magickal than sensible, tend to find your subtleties more to my taste than Timmy's bravura Procrusteanity (sorry, Timmy). I daresay, in the end, we are all taking our temperaments out for a textual trot.

More power to your antidisempowermentarianism :^)

Timmy, Tryunity,

I: "We have not developed past our insistence on tribal conflict and confrontation, and so religion has not"

"I think that we need to affirm tribal identity while bending it away from inter-tribal conflict and toward inter-tribal cooperation"

"This may be the dynamic that allows us to progress toward world peace and away from a fixation on suffering"

Your responses:

"Nor will we ever if we have your attitude."
"lol. A self admitted tribalist. So primitive."
"lol. Lets get more tribal. Yikes."

Examples of our depths, respectively, in this disgustion?

I made the assumption that you understood 'tribal', or that we had some agreement of the degree that it is still a vibrant dynamic globally . So sorry, I was wrong. What was I thinking?

The clear tribalism of inter-Iraqi conflict, as one example, aside, it is clear to me that the dynamic is vibrantly alive all across America. Cities are segregated into races, cultures, and even subsets of cultures within neighborhoods. Blacks, Latinos and Whites, not to mention Chinese and Thai, youth congregate into self styled and named gangs, (tribes), replete with colors, brands, languages, all it.

I could go on, but then the cul-de-sac is short. We are in no way past tribalism. Regardless of your belief in jet airplane flights and the interweavingnet of modern life. Tribalism lives, and is an issue to deal with to reach your nirvana of Monocultural Atheism Devoid of Delusional Religion.

You could name your wingless angels MADDR. MADDR than hell at the deluded religious idiot dolts!

AhhhK , peaceout, brother.

Hello Karen2565,

Thank you again for your kind post. It is indeed a pleasure to dialogue our contrasting beliefs in an air of respect and appreciation for the differences. Would that were a contagious at-ease, and everyone could get infected, and they had no cure for the tranquility and peace that would take over a complex and diverse world! Imagine all the people....

When you speak of not worshiping a book but the risen Christ that fills you, I think of what is called the Holy Ghost or Divine Consciousness or the Spirit in all things. I believe a 'spiritual essence' permeates all things and that through that essence we are all connected. It is that which is common ground for not just humanity, but all Life. As a Christian you know that as the Risen Christ, or Holy Spirit. The same potentiality exists for a Buddhist or Muslim or Kabbalist or Souix. We all have different names for it, as we would all, naturally, have different names for the One Source of All.

I think that source is Us. You may think that source is not Us, but God. Yet all that pursue spiritualism seek whatever It Is. And that is a great thing.

Again, peace on you, (even on your head!).

Timmy, Ain

"My views are based on both yours and justilthen's inability to name a single mainstream religion that you think is sane, or not a cult, or is not headed by people pretending to know things they do not know."

One, your views are not based on anyone's "inability", but on the predetermined beliefs of your own Mind, which you apparently have no control over at last confession. (You do go to confession, yes?) If you cannot reason with your own....reason, then others and certainly myself have no chance of getting our contrary thoughts into the light of day of your Mind...

Yet, bullets may speak louder than words.

*I suggest that religions and spiritual pathways have value for those that find value in them. This should be in harmony, (a big word I know, Timmy, but I will risk it), with your professed belief that people should be free to independently choose their own form of spiritual experience and expression, (my words).

*Religions and spiritual paths serve a natural and normal place in human cultural and societal development. They are not aberrations any more than are governmental systems or financial institutions. And like those systems, they do good as well as do 'evil'. Wall Street greed needed no religious springboard to fleece the mutuals flock of their wool. Good and evil is inherent in all human institutions, as it is innate in humans.

*Organized religions are desirable by many because they are 'organized'. They offer a preset pathway to contemplate and seek to explain what is fundamental in human psyche but unexplained by science. It takes less focus and energy, particularly in a hectic world, than attempting a solo spiritual journey, as is your suggestion. Further, one (not you, clearly), may feel they get further and deeper following something that has a track record and history, not to mention a community of other seekers. Sometimes it feels more celebratory at a party when there are more there than just yourself! I know you find only negative value in group consciousness, but loads of people find great value in social intercourse. Coupled with spiritual communion of the flavor of the specific community, you could have a winning combination. For some. Damn near tantric, (not to mention another insane and discredited spiritual/sexual path rejected by Mind, but I couldn't help my obtuse self!).

I would have plenty more but I do not want to overload you, and I am sure that Mind has already Closed, long ago. So this is just more meaningless drivelllllll......

Timmy, Twain

However......

It is you (Mind?!) that demanded examples of a "sane" religion, to be worthy for people to "immerse" into.

*One is you have no right to demand any condition on what qualifies as right or valid for another to choose in their lives. Sane, Leaders that claim to know Truth/God, cultish.... You judge what is right, and definitely wrong, for others, but do not accept or allow them the individual spiritual choices that you falsely claim you support.

*Two is that you (Mind!?) thought to have the Right of Judgment as to if a religion was indeed sane by your determination or not. While having declared in voluminous writing on these threads that all religions are insane. How is that for a bias? And a biased Judge!

*Three is what makes an 'insane' religion a bad religion for someone to pursue? I offered the example of bacchanalian parties as a choice, and that choice may do much good for some, (perhaps even for rigidly rationalistic types, Timmy!). You make the judgment the multi-faceted possibilities around religious and spiritual expression are nearly all USELESS and BAD.

Far too Absolutist for me.

I do not seek a reply, as I tire of this Mental cul-de-sac. Just wanted to clarify for my own ease of Mind. :-)

Peace out.

Hello DanielDenofLions,

You basically have the "brothers" association that I was making. Timmy said that he believes as you, that we cannot change our minds and that it is outside of our control. The mind controls, not us, etc, etc, etc.

I am in total disagreement with this and consider it rubbish, a cop out, and entrenched disempowermentarianism. It is my experience that change is an aspect of free will, and in free will we can chose as we do. Which of course can mean that we can choose imprisonment, as many do, as a default position, (cop out). Or we can choose sovereignty. Nice word, that.

What you wrote in your post to me was quite unclear. I followed as much as I could, but it did not come across well, to my ears. It sounded interesting enough, but you lost me repeatedly. Perhaps it was me, or perhaps you were not at your best. I was interested and it started to be thought provoking, but in the end it failed to fulfill the promise of helping me understand how I have no control on my choices.

Thankfully, I must admit. The concept of being powerless with our beliefs, choices, directions in life, not to mention reactions to input, etc. is frightening. You could make a horror sci-fi on that subject.

Hey, you could get Timmy as lead, or at least a substantial character part. He would fit in perfectly. He already acknowledges that his mind controls him and he can choose nothing that Mind does not wish.

Would that I had known earlier, (I did know, come to think of it, and disregarded the intuitive input!), that I was talking to a humabot, I would have invested less time into that valueless pursuit.

Thank you for the inputs. Sorry that I don't get it.

Hello Onofrio,

"I'll wager that no matter how much freewill you exert, and how much painful penance you perform, those maps of Ireland still turn up on the bedsheets."

You, however, always satisfy, Onofrio!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM
Posted January 27, 2010
“REALITY”

[Abortion, gay marriage, pederasty and pedophilia are not my nightmares but nightmares of their victims and the society.]

IRT:
Here's a little bit of reality for you: you are not qualified to speak for the whole of society. And -- you'll have to learn to live with this -- abortion, gay marriage, pederasty, and pedophilia (at least as long as there are priests) are here to stay.”

ANS:
Yes, we also have to live with bank robbers and murderers but that doesn’t mean we ignore or defend them. Murder and Lust are universal moral crimes against humanity. That’s not my determination they are determined by human nature and obvious to reason. They are proscribed by the Natural Moral Law irrespective of what anyone believes.

IRT:
"So what are you going to do?"

ANS:
I will do what you should do, viz. speak out against this depravity and not delude my self into thinking evil is good and good is evil, or blaming God for all evil. Taking responsibility is a social obligation; irresponsibleness is an admission of moral blindness that ultimately denies the existence of God.
.
Shuffling pedophiles and homosexuals around is not a Catholic problem but a social problem condoned by the APA, and is more a plague for public schools than the Church. Nonetheless the barbarians are blaming the Church and not themselves.

http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2164&grupo=Think++Learn&canal=Educationhttp://

"The Oregonian" in Portland.launch its own investigation of molestation problems. In summary the found:

1.Child molesters, are moved place to place in the school system without anyone getting a heads-up.
2. It takes almost a year-and-a-half to investigate claims of abuse in the public schools.
3.Teachers guilty of touching a minor or accessing porn on a computer, need only see a shrink.
4 Public school molesters who admit to their crimes are given a second chance.
5 Investigators are all staffed from inside the public school system.
6 Deals are routinely cut for accused public school molesters in secret, protecting the identity of the molester from the community.
7. Accused molesters can walk away with cash settlements, health insurance and letters of recommendation.

The cause of pedophilia priests is they abandoned the faith and not because they kept it. Evidently, you can't live with that.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SCHAUM
Posted January 27, 2010
“REALITY”

[Abortion, gay marriage, pederasty and pedophilia are not my nightmares but nightmares of their victims and the society.]

IRT:
Here's a little bit of reality for you: you are not qualified to speak for the whole of society. And -- you'll have to learn to live with this -- abortion, gay marriage, pederasty, and pedophilia (at least as long as there are priests) are here to stay.”

ANS:
Yes, we also have to live with bank robbers and murderers but that doesn’t mean we ignore or defend them. Murder and Lust are universal moral crimes against humanity. That’s not my determination they are determined by human nature and obvious to reason. They are proscribed by the Universal Natural Moral Law irrespective of what anyone believes.

IRT:
"So what are you going to do?"

ANS:
I will do what you should do, viz. speak out against this depravity and not delude my self into thinking evil is good and good is evil, or blaming God for all evil. Not doing so is a lack of personal responsibility and an admission of moral blindness that ultimately denies the existence of God.
.
Shuffling pedophiles and homosexuals around is not just a Catholic problem but a social problem condoned by the APA, and is more a plague for public schools than the Church. Nonetheless the barbarians are blaming the Catholic Church and not themselves.

http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2164&grupo=Think++Learn&canal=Educationhttp://

"The Oregonian" in Portland.launch its own investigation of the problem. In summary the found:
1.Child molesters, are moved place to place in the school system without anyone getting a heads-up.
2. It takes almost a year-and-a-half to investigate claims of abuse in the public schools.
3.Teachers guilty of touching a minor or accessing porn on a computer, need only see a shrink.
4 Public school molesters who admit to their crimes are given a second chance.
5 Investigators are all staffed from inside the public school system.
6 Deals are routinely cut for accused public school molesters in secret, protecting the identity of the molester from the community.
7. Accused molesters can walk away with cash settlements, health insurance and letters of recommendation.

The cause of pedophilia priests are they abandoned the faith, not because they kept it.

TTWSYF,

Tossing up bleeding chunks of New Advent on this thread ain't gonna convince anyone. It just reinforces your repute as a machine.

And terms like "necessarianism" should be used only in jest.

I'll wager that no matter how much freewill you exert, and how much painful penance you perform, those maps of Ireland still turn up on the bedsheets.

There's another insult for you to "enjoy". Enjoy!

Yet more "gobbledygook, rhetorical mumbling, fantasy, and subterfuge" from my "undisciplined imagination"...

How do you discipline yours, TTWSYF, when the flesh just won't stay down?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“FREE WILL”

ANS:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

“It is argued that necessarianism or determinism in any form is in conflict with the chief moral notions and convictions of mankind at large. The actual universality of such moral ideas is indisputable. Duty, moral obligation, responsibility, merit, justice signify notions universally present in the consciousness of normally developed men.

“Further, these notions, as universally understood, imply that man is really master of some of his acts, that he is, at least at times, capable of self-determination, that all his volitions are not the inevitable outcome of his circumstances.

“When I say that I ought not to have performed some forbidden act, that it was my duty to obey the law, I imply that I could have done so. The judgment of all men is the same on this point.

“When we say that a person is justly held responsible for a crime, or that he deserves praise or reward for an heroic act of self-sacrifice, we mean that he was author and cause of that act in such fashion that he had it in his power not to perform the act. We exempt the insane or the child, because we believe them devoid of moral freedom and determined inevitably by the motives which happened to act on them.”

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIELINTHELIONSDEN
“FREE WILL”

ANS:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

“It is argued that necessarianism or determinism in any form is in conflict with the chief moral notions and convictions of mankind at large. The actual universality of such moral ideas is indisputable. Duty, moral obligation, responsibility, merit, justice signify notions universally present in the consciousness of normally developed men.

“Further, these notions, as universally understood, imply that man is really master of some of his acts, that he is, at least at times, capable of self-determination, that all his volitions are not the inevitable outcome of his circumstances.

“When I say that I ought not to have performed some forbidden act, that it was my duty to obey the law, I imply that I could have done so. The judgment of all men is the same on this point.

“When we say that a person is justly held responsible for a crime, or that he deserves praise or reward for an heroic act of self-sacrifice, we mean that he was author and cause of that act in such fashion that he had it in his power not to perform the act. We exempt the insane or the child, because we believe them devoid of moral freedom and determined inevitably by the motives which happened to act on them.”

Justtillthennow

I am not sure what this argument is about. I am too far behind to catch up on all of the many complicated exchanges; it is a loosing battle. So, I am not sure what I and Timmy are brothers in.

However, in reply to your comment on my pathetic beliefs, I would elaborate:

It is an illusion that you control your thoughts and choose your beliefs.

If you control your beliefs, then prove it by changing. Yes, people change their beliefs, but not at will. They change according to unforseen contingencies, that cause the appearance of truth to change.

Belief is another word for what seems true. And you do not determine what seems true; what seems true is an automatic experience that happens to you. You are subject to an inner will's sense of what seems true. You cannot change what you would like to believe into what you really believe.

You have the feeling and the sensation of controlling all of your thoughts and all of your beliefs, and so do I; so do we all. I think you do not understand what I am getting at, and you have not thought of it very much.

But think about it, if you care to. Where do your thoughts come from? How do you make them come to you, and control them? How do you weigh everything about the world to choose what seems true and what seems untrue? Do you control your doubts? Can you keep them from coming into your mind? And can you make them go away? If you are worried about something, can you make the worry go away, simply by the force of your will?

That is one I wish I could, but I cannot.

(I think you are getting mixed about my phrase "what seems true." This is different than what is true. What is true is not subject to anybody's will. Also, knowledge of truth is not quiet the same as truth; knowledge of truth is determined by what seems true, which is the foundation of belief).

Peter Huff,

Thee:
"...He holds any man accountable that takes another 'innocent' life, a life that has not had the chance to grow, a life that does not have the potential to experience God's creation."

Since *the Fall*, there is no such thing as an 'innocent' life. All are depraved; all are guilty; all fall under God's righteous judgement, unless he has foreordained that they be saved. And that has nothing to do with their 'innocence'. They could spend their whole life without harming even an ant, and it's just a rebel's "filthy rags" to the Just Judge. Again, I quote Calvin (capitals mine):

"whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, TOGETHER WITH THEIR INFANT OFFSPRING, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?...THE DECREE IS DREADFUL INDEED, I CONFESS. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree...God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, BUT ALSO METED IT OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS OWN DECISION."
(Institutes, III, 23, 7)

Damnation, according to consistent Calvin, at some deep level must be pleasing to God. Otherwise how could it occur?

According to this logic, God condemns those whom he has foreordained to Hell for crimes against others whose 'innocence' in merely human terms will have no bearing on their eternal destiny. They too, unless predestined otherwise, are hellbound. Innocent, yet depraved. The victim and the perpetrator, the vicious and the kind, the cruel and the merciful - all are under a single, irrevocable sentence...

Peter-in-a-Huff,

Thee (again):
"In order for there to be good there must be an ultimate, objective reference for good, and since you recognize evil there must be a ultimate objective reference for evil or what evil is. What is that reference in your worldview?"

I don't possess anything so coherent as a "worldview", and I'm not playing your presuppositionalist game, Peter. I know how it starts and ends, and everything in between. I'm quite content for you to conclude and broadcast that I have no *ultimate objective reference* points and that everything I write is either without foundation or stolen from your God. It takes no clairvoyance on my part to know what you will write.

I do have a map of sorts for navigating this ocean, but I am not about to disclose its contents to you. It's not the Bible "rightly handled", and that's all you/your God need to know to pronounce judgement. Nuff said on that score.

As for that "ultimate objective reference point for evil" you insist on, your God fits the description pretty well. Somehow - I don't really know how exactly - I am firmly persuaded that he is a monster. I have at times offered partly intelligible rationales for this firm persuasion, though mostly, as you point out, I just write gibberish, which is my first language. Only devils comprehend it fully; 'twas they who taught me.

Okay one more before I go,

Peter Huff

"In order for there to be good there must be an ultimate, objective reference for good,"

Not in a democracy. There is personal good. And the common good made up of the cross section of personal goods (which is huge) and the respect for the rights of others. We don't actually need an Objective good. But thanks for caring about us.

And with that I'm moving over to the newest Jacoby thread. This one is too huge now.

But Justilthen, I'd like to present another pearl of wisdom. As you know, my criteria for these is that they be universal. In conflict with no other wisdom. Good for everyone.

"everytime you go to throw something away, try to remember that there is no "away."

Peace y'all.

Timmy's attributing this quote to you although I haven't confirmed it,

ONOFRIO?: "It often seems that you view monolithic *religion* as virtually the root of all human evil, like some inhuman mind virus. With respect, I think this is way too simplistic"

Since you speak of evil so much and attribute so much of the evil in this world to the belief in the Christian God, or perhaps only to certain Christians, some questions come to mind.

In order for there to be good there must be an ultimate, objective reference for good, and since you recognize evil there must be a ultimate objective reference for evil or what evil is. What is that reference in your worldview?

Now if you do not recognize such an objective ultimate reference then the question becomes how do you determine good or evil in a relative, subjective universe where there is no ultimate measure? Can you give an honest, direct answer to either of these questions?

Here is a lecture that compounds the problems of an atheist giving a meaningful answer.

http://static.veritas.org/media/files/vts-zacharias-1995-indiana-vf1smp10a.mp3

Hello Onofrio,

Part One

"Having a nuanced, view of *religion* doesn't mean one is an intellectual/ethical sell-out, or an advocate for *delusion*"

Seriously, my views have nothing to do with being concerned about looking like a sell out. My views are based on both yours and justilthen's inability to name a single mainstream religion that you think is sane, or not a cult, or is not headed by people pretending to know things they do not know. Nor have either of you told me what is fundamentally different between you, and these people who supposedly could benefit from belonging to such an organization, as opposed to exploring their spirituality freely.

No you do not have to prove anything to me nor am I demanding you produce any evidence. But the fact that neither of you will endorse a single mainstream religion, confirms what I believe. I do not have this belief you have, that there are people who exists, who either "need" or "gain great benefit" from organized religions. I don't want religion outlawed, I don't want their adherents persecuted in any way. I just want to be able to stand up and have my voice counted, and say that stuff is bad for our world and bad for people. And people who claim it is necessary need to step up with some evidence to back up their claims.

Once again for clarification. I do not Believe that all religions are bad. I believe that all organizations headed by people who are pretending to know things about Truth/God, that are cult like, and convince their adherents to believe that they know things about Truth/God, are bad. And if you can name a religion that does not fall into that category, I will take on a more nuanced view of religion.

Onofrio

Part two

"I think you'll find that those involved in abolition were often motivated by their *religious* convictions"

I do not believe that. I believe that it is glaringly obvious to anyone with a conscience that they were motivated by their conscience, which is the very thing that the religion they were born into hijacks. Christianity employs carefully crafted brainwashing techniques designed to convince adherents, predisposed to believe that God's existence is a given since birth, that their conscience is the God of Abraham.

Said the reverend to his flock: "Do you feel it brothers and sisters? Do you feel it? That lump in your throat when you see a child suffer and you can't stop it. That shiver up your spine when you think of the power of the love you feel for your baby child. That's the lord your feeling! That's the Lord! That''s God talking to you. He's telling you he's there for you. He's confirming his love for you. That's our one true God of Abraham talking to you!"

So if you say they were motivated by their religious convictions, I say you too have been duped into believing that their conscience would not be there without God. Or, excuse me, without their belief in God. I forgot. You guys don't have belief in God. You are the ones Dan Dennet describes who have a belief in belief. A queer lot I must say.

"As for *freeing mind slaves*: that comes across as *religious* in a messianic sense."

Only if you're someone in an argument with an atheist who's views on religion you don't like, and you want to take a figure of speech literally instead of as a figure of speech, in an attempt to make him look like a religious crusader, to help your argument have credibility against a man who "thinks he's Jesus now!"

How about weighing in on this "free will to believe whatever you want regardless of the information you have" thing Justy and I have been discussing.

ONOFRIO: "It's just God's mysterious way of getting predestined souls into glory. Heaven as creche! All those chubby putti of the Renaissance - explained! God kills babies to SAVE them! It all makes sense!That would make advances in obstetrics, nutrition, and antibiotics the work of the devil, to get more babies to grow up into adults, and thus condemn themselves to eternal Hell."

No, God calls on and commands man to live a just and noble life, a life where life is sacred because each human is created in the image and likeness of his Creator. Unfortunately the Fall has marred that image so that we do what should not be done, we take the life of our fellow man. What gives an individual the right to take another life? And as such He holds any man accountable that takes another 'innocent' life, a life that has not had the chance to grow, a life that does not have the potential to experience God's creation. He holds all individuals who take the life of another outside of His command to do so guilty of murder. And by His command to do so I don't mean flying planes into buildings, I mean for a just cause such as punishment for murder, etc.

ME: "He is the one who tempts, the evil one."

ONOFRIO: "Yes, he has been doing God's dirty work for quite some time now. The boss gives him Hell, though he's very good at his shtick."

You are wrong. He is the one who is opposed to doing God's will, but God allows him to tempt others. God is not the One tempting; the evil one is, and we are the ones who allow the temptation. The evil one tempts and God tests us by allowing the tempter to do his evil deeds. But God has a purpose for allowing evil. That purpose is that greater good would come of it for those who love God and sometimes for those who don't.

It is when life is at its bleakest, when all avenues are exhausted, when no hope but One is left, that people turn to God for mercy. Those who have it easy often have no need for God. They are not going to do the deep soul searching. If anything they are going to philosophize out of a need to be entertained and to entertain others by their wit and knowledge of nothing, to develop a reputation or accolades from peers.

But when disaster comes, sometimes comes the search for what is important and what really matters.

Hi Onofrio ( January 27, 2010 12:15 AM ),

ME: "There again, Jesus did say about children that the kingdom of heaven belonged to such as these. How do you know that these are not His people?"

ONOFRIO: "So the surest sign of God's election is infant death. No wonder the infant mortality rate has been so high down the centuries."

No, the infant mortality rate is so high because of man's inhumanity to man. Man of his own volition ignores the plight of starving children. Man in his wisdom murders millions of unborn humans every year, murders million by his bloody wars, murders million by his greed and self-absorbing nature, by his desire to exploit and rape and take the innocents of youth.

Man of his own volition does these things and will one day answer to the just God. As I said before, man's choice to disobey God in the Garden has caused the evil that is in the world. God did not force man to know evil, He warned him against it by stating the consequences. Man chose evil by his own volition. And yes, Adam was the 'federal head' of the human race. The curse came as a result of one man's sin. But for a creature with his own volition to love God of his own volition God allowed that to happen in the Garden. History is His lesson book that teaches that man cannot live without God because man without God will do what is wrong. Our Maker created man for a purpose. Man in the Fall lost sight of that purpose.

God in His permissive will is letting man see the consequences of his actions; actions that try to live life without an absolute, all-knowing, objective authority. The world is a real mess because of it.

Hello Justtillthen,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my post. What I really appreciate about you is that we can agree to disagree about certain things, we can agree about others but we do not have to call each other names or get accusatory with each other.

Since it is getting pretty late and my brain is starting to drift toward bedtime, I am afraid that I will not be able to offer very deep thoughts at this point :)

I agree with you that a Christian that sticks to the essentials and focuses on Jesus' 2 commandments will be a force for good in the world. It is when Christians become triumphalist and set about imposing their faith rather then living their faith that Christianity gets a black eye.

YOu seem to have found in Budhism a philosophy that makes sense to you and you seem to remain open to the possibiiity of a Creator God. I know that many on this blog would scoff at this but as I was studying world religions as well as different philosophies such as existentialism (Sartre is a favorite writer)etc, the biblical narrative/world view seemed to offer the best explanation for the state of our world. I find in the BIble enduring truths about the heart of man that transcend the centuries. But I do not worship a book, I worship the risen Christ who has been gracious enough to fill me with His grace and comfort at times of terrible anguish. Worst case scenario: if it is a delusion, at least I got through some pretty horrific times without ever resorting to alcohol and drugs or psych meds. So what have I lost?

Finally a word about science. I do not at all view it as the ennemy or antethesis of faith. I am trained in a scientific field and I work in medical research. What I find amazing about the study of the human body, physics, math, the study of the universe etc is that it is really all about discovering laws that are already there. Scientists do not discover how to make the universe function, they discover how it functions. When we see how intricately and exquisitely amazing the universe is, why be so adamant to reject the idea of a creator? HOw did all these laws that govern our universe come about? Science can tell us part of the how, but not the why.
And on that thought, good night and peace to you.

Timmy2, Justillthen, alles,

Justillthen wrote:

"These 'evils' in the world would exist without religions, but religion is here because it is a NATURAL manifestation of human hunger, need for, and belief in the causality and continuity of Life. It is natural that human society developed and nurtures to this day belief systems that address this fundamental human hunger."

A perfectly reasonable summary of what *religion* is and does. Timmy, I can agree with this and still maintain my rage against the beliefs of hellmongers and Thomist self-floggers. Having a nuanced, view of *religion* doesn't mean one is an intellectual/ethical sell-out, or an advocate for *delusion*.

Timmy2 wrote, in response to Justillthen:

"Slavery developed naturally also and was endorsed by religion, and was around for a very long time, and we did away with it. Now we need to free the mind slaves."

That "we" in "we did away with it" is misleadingly broad. I think you'll find that those involved in abolition were often motivated by their *religious* convictions (viz. William Wilberforce). The good, the complacent, and the wicked can all find motivation, sanction, and justification in specifically *religious* discourse.

As for *freeing mind slaves*: that comes across as *religious* in a messianic sense. I'm not saying that's bad, per se; just that you too become a tradent in the *religious* when you use such language.

Justilthen

Part one

Boy sometimes you can be more obtuse than Daniel 12.

ME: (clarifying for NAVIN1 who I consider delusional) ""Not all others. Just those who claim to be experts on Truth/God without evidence."

YOU: "And any others that perceive reality in a markedly different way than you have decided it is."

Quote me saying that or stuff your erroneous characterizations where your head obviously is. Like NAVIN1, you have lost your paraphrasing privileges. You are childishly irresponsible with them.

"What is "delusion"?"

Get a dictionary.

"Or is it perhaps to live divorced from the ability to "make up your own mind" or to be controlled by what you cannot control yourself?"

Why would you say perhaps? Just get a dictionary and see if you can find that definition. You won't because you made it up.

"If you cannot alter your mind's perception then who is deluded?"

I guess you are because you can't either. Only new information can. Try it smart guy. Believe in Hell. Just for 5 minutes to prove me wrong. Believe fully and completely that Hell exists. If that one is too easy for you try believing that evolution is a myth. Can you do it Justilthen? Do you have the free will to change your belief? You can not.You can not un-remember all of the information you have that makes you believe something. And you can not over ride it. Only new information can change your mind for you. And that new information can include someone prodding you to think about something in a way you hadn't thought of before, which is new information. Am I wrong justilthen? Can you believe in Hell at will? Can you disbelieve anything you currently believe in, at will, with no new information? Can you?

Justilthen

Part One A

"You have a mind that believes what it has been conditioned into"

Really? And what about you? Same thing?

"The Hindu has his reasons and validations for why he believes what he does"

Of course she does. But if she thinks she "knows" the nature of The true reality of existence, and she has no evidence for this, then she is deluded. No on could know such a thing and not be able to explain it in a way so that the rest of us could see the evidence. You've been duped by the old "only some can see" scam. Like Joseph smith. Was Joseph Smith deluded Justilthen? Did an angel really tell him that Jews lived in North America 2000 year ago? Or was he deluded? Do you judge him as deluded Justilthen? Or did Jews live in North America 2000 years ago. It's one or the other.

"You have your reasons and validations. What is different in the dynamics?"

Mine are all verifiable.

"To assert that we do not have the ability to chose our beliefs or what is true is either a yell out of "I'm not sane, please help!" or is deflection of responsibility and blaming of our own minds for our afflictions, which bends towards the first yell out"

Or the plain truth than a simple experiment can verify. Just believe in Hell. I know you don't want to. But just for 5 minutes to prove Timmy2 wrong. It'll be worth it. Especially since, if you can't, you will look very foolish for all of this babble you have run on about Timmy's admission that he can't choose what he believes.

Justilthen

Part two

"You said that no religion or spiritual pathway is sane, all insane"

Exhibit 153 for why you have lost your paraphrasing privileges. I have never said that. Quote it or stuff it.

"Yet you, claiming the inability to choose your own beliefs 'cause your mind is in charge of all of that is, well, insane"

Well then Justy boy I guess you're insane. Because you can't either.

"You and Danielinthelionsden are brothers in this thing"

Persecution complex? I hope you've gotten it by now.

"We have all the power to do so"

Have you tried believing in Hell yet? Did you really believe it? Did you believe that evolution is a myth? Did you really believe?

"To imagine otherwise is to imagine inescapable prison. It is self-enslavement"

Guess you're a slave then Justy boy. I'm not though. Because I don't look at it like that. It may be a truth that frightens you, but it is the truth. Have you done the experiment?

"It is closeminded, love"

You are obtuse. You and Daniel12 are brothers in this.

"but religion is here because it is a NATURAL manifestation of human hunger, need for, and belief in the causality and continuity of Life"

You've just described why spirituality is here. Religion is the codification of spiritual ideas into a dogmatic cult. It is the hijacking of spirituality.

"It is natural that human society developed and nurtures to this day belief systems that address this fundamental human hunger"

That's right. Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the largest empire in the world during a time when the populous was kept in the dark with no access to the scriptures or books of any kind for that matter. That is all natural.

Slavery developed naturally also and was endorsed by religion, and was around for a very long time, and we did away with it. Now we need to free the mind slaves.

"Religion will evolve at the rate that societal concepts and consciousness evolves"

Agreed. But this process is speeding up exponentially because of this relatively new thingy called the interweb. So hold on to your hats conservative minded people who don't want to let go of ancient myths and rituals. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

"We have not developed past our insistence on tribal conflict and confrontation, and so religion has not"

Nor will we ever if we have your attitude.

"I think that we need to affirm tribal identity while bending it away from inter-tribal conflict and toward inter-tribal cooperation"

lol. A self admitted tribalist. So primitive.

"This may be the dynamic that allows us to progress toward world peace and away from a fixation on suffering"

lol. Lets get more tribal. Yikes.

Hello Karen2565, part one,

Thank you for the kind post. I appreciate your comments. As with anyone, I have my own set of beliefs and have struggled with them, and with adopting new and divorcing from old beliefs, through life. At this point, (though I can easily be prodded into a good fight), I believe that in the diversity of species and knowledge and belief that there is harmony, often obscure, that all things reside in.

If there is an intelligent creative force that conceived of and created the manifest world, then that Is and what is created Is, regardless of personal or societal perceptions. Indeed, I believe there is no perception, and certainly no religion, that is accurate per the "Truth" of things. Science certainly is the preeminent force in the hands and minds of humans for logically and rationally defining the 'known' while seeking to understand the unknown. That is good. But it is also focused only on what it can isolate and study. So far, "God" or Intelligent Creator or an Overarching Theorum is elusive to the perceptive senses of science. And at HUGE conflict in the subjective field of human beliefs!

I would not call myself a deist, but I do not discount that concept at all. Indeed, "Just as I am so You also must Be, greater works must You do in the Name of the Father than I have done", suggests an interesting 'commandment' along those lines, don't you think?

Karen 2565, part two,

Buddhism for me, and Hinduism as well, suggest that we are Divine Consciousness incarnated in the manifest world. If so, re-immersion into Divine Consciousness would 'bring us Home', not unlike a Christian or Muslim or Oglala or Aboriginal belief. If we are 'children of God' then, being of God makes us God. What child do you know that did not carry the legacy of the parent?

As to your comments on "clinical delusion", in a sense that may apply to all of us, especially if we are of that Intelligent Source and have forgotten the Whole Thing! Hey, then we can battle it out in the Fallen World as to who has got the Right Delusion! If that is the case it might be better to just choose one and we all go for it. At least we would be Collectively Deluded, (which I would argue we ARE!).

I applaud you that you have belief in something that brings you fulfillment and soothes you. Why would that not be a good thing. Yes, I am not a believer in the specifics of Christianity, and certainly not as most today practice it, but an 'essential Christian' can hardly help herself but do good and make the world better.

I believe that is true, (mostly), for anyone that practices the essence of faith and belief in Something Greater. Would that we could accept the differences!

Peace to you, Karen.

Timmy2:1,

I also find myself in clear alignment with Onofrio with his quote:

"It often seems that you view monolithic *religion* as virtually the root of all human evil, like some inhuman mind virus. With respect, I think this is way too simplistic"

I followed your response to him. It is fascinating and was worthy of several re-readings. You should study it too, though I know you wrote it.

In it you essentially said that you had not the ability to change your mind. Your mind chooses for itself. You are not in control of what you believe.

Timmy, psychologists

What is "delusion"? Is it to live believing in what is not real or true? Or verifiable, communally provable? Or is it perhaps to live divorced from the ability to "make up your own mind", or to be controlled by what you cannot control yourself?

If you cannot alter your mind's perception then who is deluded? And, more so, how is this fundamentally different from someone believing their own mind that is filled with what you have, in these blogs, deemed as deluded like religions. A Hindu believer has a mind that to you is deluded to believe the conditioning. You have a mind that believes what it has been conditioned into. The Hindu has his reasons and validations for why he believes what he does. You have your reasons and validations. What is different in the dynamics?

I know what you will say, but the dynamics remain.

"We look at the evidence, and our mind decides for us if we think it is true or not."

"I would love to concur with you, but based on what I see, my mind won't let me."

"So I do urge you to be the one to provide me with new information, or to prod me into seeing something that I hadn't thought of, that will make my mind believe that reverence for those who claim Truth/God knowledge is not the cause of most of the problems we have in human society."

Timmy2:2

"As Dan In The Den likes to point out, we don't choose what we believe is true."

To assert that we do not have the ability to chose our beliefs or what is true is either a yell out of "I'm not sane, please help!" or is deflection of responsibility and blaming of our own minds for our afflictions, which bends towards the first yell out.

You said that no religion or spiritual pathway is sane, all insane. Yet you, claiming the inability to choose your own beliefs 'cause your mind is in charge of all of that is, well, insane.

You and Danielinthelionsden are brothers in this thing. I have disagreed with this pathetic concept that he offers, that we are powerless to change our thoughts, conditioning, minds. We have all the power to do so. To imagine otherwise is to imagine inescapable prison. It is self-enslavement.

It is closeminded, love.

To be clear, I am not denying a claim that organized religions are not fundamental in many of the worlds ills. They are deeply 'immersed' (... ;-) ...) in the conflicts that are manifest. But they are also forces that are doing good works, as are believers. There is no absolute, which means no absolute bad or evil as well.

These 'evils' in the world would exist without religions, but religion is here because it is a NATURAL manifestation of human hunger, need for, and belief in the causality and continuity of Life. It is natural that human society developed and nurtures to this day belief systems that address this fundamental human hunger.

Religion will evolve at the rate that societal concepts and consciousness evolves. We have not developed past our insistence on tribal conflict and confrontation, and so religion has not.

I think that we need to affirm tribal identity while bending it away from inter-tribal conflict and toward inter-tribal cooperation. This may be the dynamic that allows us to progress toward world peace and away from a fixation on....

suffering.

Peace on your head, as always.

"Poor timmy"

"In a single two word quote, all of the information I need to disbelieve you is there."

And I thought you insisted that you required more substantial proofs before you believe or disbelieve. This however is closer to what i experience.

"You have lost all credibility with just two words."

"I call fraud. Of the most detestable order."

Are you in advertising? Politics? You might consider it.

Timmy,

I tend to lean toward Navin in more than one way. In this I agree. I know you will love it, and disagree immediately, and blame me for 'delusional' perception:

Navin: "Yet you condemn others for being delusional"

You: "Not all others. Just those who claim to be experts on Truth/God without evidence."

And any others that perceive reality in a markedly different way than you have decided it is. For instance, any believer in any religion. All delusional. However, luckily, you being a 'non-beliving' "atheist", do not fall into that category and so are not delusional. You are clear seeing! What a lovely thing! Thank the non-God that you are in no way delusional and are completely rational. Would that more listened to your wisdom!

Peace on you. Hey, did you get my post to you applauding your Atheist Angels dream. (on a footnote, do view dreams skeptically. they cannot be trusted. not verifiable.)

NAVIN 1

"Poor timmy"

It's all right there Navin. In a single two word quote, all of the information I need to disbelieve you is there. Are you really showing sympathy for me here? Clearly not. Nothing could be more obvious to anyone reading our exchange that your intent with those words was to belittle and hurt me. It was a lashing out. A bruised ego. No question. You know it's true Navin. Deep down you know it's true.

You are clearly no one with a special insight into our oneness. You are just like me. You have an ego that gets bruised. You have lost all credibility with just two words. Of course that is just one of many examples of you displaying anger, frustration and a bruised ego. I call fraud. Of the most detestable order.

1.
Any rational person who thinks about god cannot help but notice the vast number of amazing contradictions. They are everywhere you look.

Here is one very simple example. On the day Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, he discovers that the Israelites have created a golden calf. To punish the people, Moses gathers a group of men and takes the following action in the book of Exodus, Chapter 32:
Then he [Moses] said to them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.

So... one minute we have god carving into stone, "Thou shalt not kill." Then the next minute we have god telling each man to strap a sword to his side and lay waste to thousands. Wouldn't you expect the almighty ruler of the universe to be slightly more consistent than this? 3,000 dead people is a lot of commandment breaking. Obviously that is a total contradiction. The reason why you find contradictions like that in the Bible is because god is imaginary. This is why St. Peter Huff, god’s other son, cannot prove the existence of god.

When you look at slavery, you get the same feeling of total contradiction. It is obvious to modern human beings that slavery is an abomination. The fact that god is a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible shows us that god is imaginary.

If you think about it, you can see the contradiction here. What does god plan to do to people who do not accept jesusgod as their savior? According to the christer faith, he plans to torture them for eternity in the fires of hell. Since we all know that torture is always wrong, we have a contradiction.

According to Genesis, god also tortures all women for eternity with painful childbirth. For her trangression of eating the fruit,god says to Eve:
"I will greatly increase your pains in Childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children."
This, of course, is torture. Inflicting excruciating pain on someone as punishment is the dictionary definition of torture, as you can see here:
tor•ture: Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.

NAVIN 1

""Your opinion (that has no validity in truth) is that the absolute nature of truth is temporary theories...

Wrong. I can not have a theory on something for which I have no information. In this case "the absolute nature of truth". I have no information that such a thing even exists, so I can have no theory as to it's qualities.

"That's your opinion. Who cares? why should they, any more than mine"

That's up to them to decide for themselves.

"Your opinion has no weight other than what suits your brainwashed state"

That is your opinion. Others can decide for themselves if they believe you. I am confident most will not.

"Yet you condemn others for being delusional"

Not all others. Just those who claim to be experts on Truth/God without evidence.

"Oops. solopistic sophistry, that's all you've got"

Blah blah blah...

2.
So, according to the Bible,gGod is the universe's all-powerful torturer. Unfortunately, according to Christianity Today, torture is always wrong. The fact that a perfect god is doing something that is always wrong shows you the contradiction.

If you would simply look at how obvious these contradictions are, you can see the truth: god is a human myth. The evidence is all around you.

Understanding the Rationalizations

It has actually been stated by one reader that Hell does not involve torture. "Hell is nothing more than a separation from god, not a fiery place of torture," according to the reader. Therefore, in his mind, he is able to rationalize that god is not a torturer.

In order to believe this rationalization, this reader has to completely ignore the Bible. If you read the Bible, you cannot miss the fact that Hell is a place of torture. According to the Bible, Hell is a place of eternal torment. Here are several Bible verses that describe Hell:
And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (Matthew 3:12)
The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:41-42)
So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 13:49-50)
A place of unquenchable fire is, obviously, a place or torture.

What one needs to do is stop rationalizing and accept the evidence that you see everywhere. god is a myth. All of the contradictions in religion prove it.

Hellofrio

Part One:

Thank you for the honest exchange.

"credulity in matters religious => pack rape"

I would put it more like:

Reverence for credulity in declarations of Truth/God knowledge => chaos => many horrible things like misogyny, homophobia, fear, distrust, divisiveness, war, sexual corruption....

"I'm not aware of any mainstream current religions that advocate pack rape as a *good thing*."

Of course not. But are you aware of any mainstream religions that advocate homophobia? That advocate misogyny? That have scriptures which advocate killing in the name of God's law? That create sexual repression and confusion? Can these things all together not be causal to gang rape?

Do more than half of the world's population not follow with reverence the holy books of such religions?

In my own country in recent years, there was a particularly vicious (non-fatal) case of pack rape by young men of Lebanese Muslim background. Trial evidence indicated that some of them justified themselves on religious grounds, though significant voices in the Muslim community deplored their actions vociferously, also on religious grounds. I also recall an even more vicious pack rape by white *Aussie* males (the victim was tortured to death) in which religion played no part at all in the motivations of the killers. Extreme child abuse of various forms, however, was a major ingredient in the venom.

Well don't get me started on the Aussies. Just kidding ;) Oy! Oy! Oy!

I would be interested to find out of the child abuse that was a major ingredient had some Abrahamic religious undertones. Or if the parents who perpetrated the child abuse had some sort of brain warping religious upbringing. Remember, the Abrahamic misogyny runs millennia deep.

Regardless, I do not believe that the elimination of reverence for Truth/God knowledge will end rape. But that does not exclude it from causality in the example given by NAVIN 1. I still think it was causal, and very much so. At the very least is was causal to her suffering that began immediately following the rape, when she learned that it was her fault, and the suffering she endured her entire life leading up to the rape, living in an impoverished backward society that treats women like dirt. So take out the gang rape and I still have plenty of reason to be harshly critical of reverence for those who claim knowledge of Truth/God.

Onofrio

Part Two

"It often seems that you view monolithic *religion* as virtually the root of all human evil, like some inhuman mind virus. With respect, I think this is way too simplistic"

I see "reverence for claimers of Truth/God knowledge", as a major root of most of our problems in the world. I really do. And I beg you to help me see otherwise. Seriously. That is all I ever want from these blogs. As Dan In The Den likes to point out, we don't choose what we believe is true. We look at the evidence, and our mind decides for us if we think it is true or not. For example, I do not have the power to disbelieve in evolution. Based on the evidence I have seen, my mind has decided for me that I thinks it's true. With no new information, or a prodding from someone to make me see something in a way I hadn't thought of before, I can not force my self to believe that evolution is a myth.

Same goes for my current belief on this matter we are discussing. I would love to concur with you, but based on what I see, my mind won't let me. So I do urge you to be the one to provide me with new information, or to prod me into seeing something that I hadn't thought of, that will make my mind believe that reverence for those who claim Truth/God knowledge is not the cause of most of the problems we have in human society.

I honestly believe that the world would be a much better place if claiming to have special knowledge of the Truth/God without extraordinary evidence was as frowned upon as saying the "n" word. They are both inflammatory insults to all humanity.

Poor timmy,

goaded into nonsense.

You have
"How can you tell you are not brain washed?" - I can't.

"You have inadequately defined your criteria for truth.

I haven't defined any criteria for "THE truth". My opinions on such matters are all temporary theories in search of refuting evidence.

- your opinion (that has no validity in truth) is that the absolute nature of truth is temporary theories...

That's your opinion. Who cares? why should they, any more than mine. Your opinion has no weight other than what suits your brainwashed state. Yet you condemn others for being delusional.

And yet, others are illogical, but then that doesn't matter does it, you are not looking for logic in your refutation. Logic would be a permanent construct of establishing truth, so that must be a false idea and should be rejected as much as Truth. Likely, since all Truth is temporary theory, sense data is false. Likely, so is refutation.

Oops. solopistic sophistry, that's all you've got. I hope you live your life with a greater sense of truth, perhaps the love of a child, perhaps the passion for pseudo-intellect, perhaps the belief that you are a consciousness with valuable input into the world condition. Perhaps you are an engineer who really (oh sorry, unreally) tries to make real bridges for people to cross real rivers that kill real people in real torrents. Or you may be a cybercadet thinking the whole reality is just a dream of an unreal entity,

cool

hariaum

TTWYSted:

"Abortion, gay marriage, pederasty and pedophilia are not my nightmares but nightmares of their victims and the society."

Here's a little bit of reality for you: you are not qualified to speak for the whole of society. And -- you'll have to learn to live with this -- abortion, gay marriage, pederasty, and pedophilia (at least as long as there are priests) are here to stay.

So what are you going to do? My guess is that you will become even more introverted, if such a thing is possible, and eventually abandon whatever small contact with reality now remains to you.

Sucks to be you.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ONOFRIO |
POSTED JANUARY 26, 2010 7:51 AM

IRT:
“Since you are a self-flogger, such masochistic relish is not surprising. I can see you lavishing lashings of Christhood on yourself to the tune of imagined jeers, and a Kyrie eleison. Lacrymosa.

"Then, in all your hurt pride you gather up a Dies irae of dead babies to ejaculate against the world you loathe. Another pompous ANS/IRT Thomist litany.

You revel in pain, the hell you cherish for the gayabortionistleftcommie monsters of your fondest nightmares. You are addicted to the warm slough of guilt and sharp penances that follow the outbreaks of your own lust.
Bad faith.

ANS:
All gobbledygook, rhetorical mumbling, fantasy, and subterfuge. Hence, nothing refuted, denied, or shown to be in error, just babble from an undisciplined imagination.

There is no pride here just truth, no masochism; the slaughter of little defenseless babies and playing Russian Roulette in gay sex is the masochism.

As was said, mumble jumble only shows facetiousness is a pretense for avoiding the truth. There is no self-flogging, no self-persecution, just the simple point of stating the truth. The amoral blind think they are being persecuted and hated. They foolishly delude themselves with the subterfuge of ridicule, and mocking their adversity and adversary.

Abortion, gay marriage, pederasty and pedophilia are not my nightmares but nightmares of their victims and the society.

We murder our unborn and canabalize them. There occurs worldwide some 43 million abortions per year, over 26 million have died from AIDS, 33 million with HIV, and probably twice that many have STDs. Consequently, suicide is the third leading cause of death in America.

Some 70 percent of Black pregnancies are out of wedlock, and over half end in abortion, a term Jesse Jackson, said was Black Genocide, before becoming a Democrat.

The nightmare is for the unborn, for AIDS and HIV victims, and the innocent they infect. Some 70 percent of gay sex activists become infected with these nightmares. As said, the grasshoper mocks the truth, not the ant. He makes sport of his debauchery as long as it’s not him dying.

Yes, God permits evil, but God isn’t its cause; man is quite involved with it.

Navin:

"Drawing conclusions Timmy? Can you now look into my ego over cyber space?"

You have made it unnecessary to look into your ego. You constantly parade it for all to see.

Navin:

"Sorry, you are losing legitimacy - can you provide me sense data that you are not insane? Go read a book and draw conclusions on what someone else did do."

Actually, it is you who have lost credibility -- what little you had -- with your absurd leaps in logic, with nothing to support or prove your point.

"And yes, I am published."

So is Sarah Palin -- proving that any idiot can publish.

NAVIN 1

"How can you tell we are brain washed?"

I never said you were brainwashed. I said she was brainwashed. And she was.

"How can you tell you are not brain washed?"

I can't. Do you have any evidence that I was brainwashed and what I was brainwashed to believe?

"What is your criteria for determining that someone is brain washed?"

Childhood indoctrination into erroneous belief systems which contain specially crafted doctrines meant to manipulate weak minds such as those of Children and the uneducated.

"You have inadequately defined your criteria for truth.

I haven't defined any criteria for "THE truth". My opinions on such matters are all temporary theories in search of refuting evidence.

"You don't sense atoms or the shape of the universe"

Yes I do. Some of us have that capability while others do not. I am an expert and have studied for years and years on how to snse atoms and the shape of the universe. You will just have to take my word for it. Now, how dare you disbelieve me? How dare you call me delusional if I tell you I really can do this? Do you see why we can not take your world for what you say you can sense?.

"Unless you actually do the research, you don't know the evidence for and against evolution"

Blah blah blah.

"Unless you did the research, you don't know about the existence of the unconscious...."

Neither do you. If you've done the research, show your work.

"can you provide me sense data that you are not insane?"

No but I can get an real expert with real verifiable studies to tell you that I am not. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

"This is because she lives in a society where people believe they have knowledge of THE truth/god. This is what happens when we take people's word for it that they have special insight into God.

It's a shame she has been brainwashed to believe otherwise. It's all just awful and caused by the glorification of those who claim to know Truth/God.

The power of brainwashing at it's finest."

Drawing conclusions Timmy? Can you now look into my ego over cyber space?

"Your ego is involved and you lose your temper, and you get defensive just like all of us. And yet you are supposedly one who has a special gift for seeing the true reality. I mean you posit is that your grip on reality is light years ahead of ours."

How can you tell we are brain washed? How can you tell you are not brain washed? What is your criteria for determining that someone is brain washed? You have inadequately defined your criteria for truth. Sense is not enough. You don't sense atoms or the shape of the universe. Unless you actually do the research, you don't know the evidence for and against evolution. Unless you did the research, you don't know about the existence of the unconscious....

Sorry, you are losing legitimacy - can you provide me sense data that you are not insane? Go read a book and draw conclusions on what someone else did do.

hariaum

And yes, I am published.

Timmy2,

All understood. What you are describing there is a quite a specific cultural complex, in which particular religious views are operating. I agree that they are heinous.

What I don't get, however, is how you move from that particular context to the general principle that "This is what happens when we take people's word for it that they have special insight into God." It looks like you're establishing the causal sequence:

credulity in matters religious => pack rape.

This I can't agree with, as it does not appear generally applicable. I would concur that certain strains of Islam, mixed with long-held cultural taboos of non- or pre-Islamic origin, can inculcate a low view of women that sanctions pack rape. Heinous. But *religious* people can believe all sorts of bizarrie about god/s and *truth* without necessarily sanctioning such crimes. I'm not aware of any mainstream current religions that advocate pack rape as a *good thing*.

In my own country in recent years, there was a particularly vicious (non-fatal) case of pack rape by young men of Lebanese Muslim background. Trial evidence indicated that some of them justified themselves on religious grounds, though significant voices in the Muslim community deplored their actions vociferously, also on religious grounds. I also recall an even more vicious pack rape by white *Aussie* males (the victim was tortured to death) in which religion played no part at all in the motivations of the killers. Extreme child abuse of various forms, however, was a major ingredient in the venom.

It often seems that you view monolithic *religion* as virtually the root of all human evil, like some inhuman mind virus. With respect, I think this is way too simplistic.

Onofrio,

"So there's direct causal link between gang rape and a society's belief that it has access to the truth/god? Is that the case, Timmy?"

"but this connection you've made seems a wild exaggeration. Care to qualify?"

If I may. Here is the quote I was responding to:

"Her imperfect justice system decides to condemn her to gang rape because her imperfect father raped a neighboring village's girl."

The imperfect justice system referred to is one heavily based on the religion and one in which the woman gets punished for being raped. This is because of the brainwashed belief that special people know God's will, which opens the door for evil men to take advantage of scripture and people's hearts.

In such a society, where one sees that man rapes woman, and woman gets punished. And sexual frustrations are pressure cooked by confusion and forced abstinence, and conflicting verses in the scriptures where rape is sometimes condoned. And where misogyny is doctrinal, and cultural, Yes, i think it is definitely causal. Of course women get raped in the US too. But it too is an Abrahamic culture rampant with misogyny.

It certainly seems causal to me. How could it not be when you look at a society that mutilates the genitalia of baby girls taking the term "sexual hang-ups" to an inhumanely grotesque level. All because it is virtuous to have faith in the story of Mohammed, and the reverence of special humans with special knowledge of Truth/God.

My mind is not made up on this. That is my qualification for my statement of my current belief. I'm keen to hear your counter and I will re assess.

NAVIN 1

"You and I want to alleviate the suffering in a system. Allah alleviates the suffering in a person"

Belief in Allah cause the the suffering of this particular person. And I highly doubt it alleviated her suffering in the slightest. It probably added to it due to the confusion of why a good god would allow this.

"If religion is the opium of the people, until we can help the world have less suffering using our enlightened science etc, more people need to get high on that opium"

WTF? More of what causes the suffering? Cuckoo. First of all you have failed to show any benefit of that opium. There's no reason to believe for one second that her belief in God alleviated one ounce of her suffering. That is your conjecture and I don't buy it.

"Truth is what I believe ultimately sets people free."

Sure. Just look at India where the majority of the population believe what you believe. It's a blissful paradise. A shining example of the transformative powers of a higher knowledge. Look how much better Indian society is than the rest of the world. It's like apples and oranges. We westerners are all deluded into thinking that we are real, and the Hindu society is at peace, happy and content. The only people who know the real reality.

Seriously Navin wouldn't Indian society be a shining example of enlightened happiness if hindus had such a superior grasp on reality. Wouldn't your posts here seem fundamentally different from all of our posts. Wouldn't you seem much more calm and gentle and wise? Your posts are just like ours. Your ego is involved and you lose your temper, and you get defensive just like all of us. And yet you are supposedly one who has a special gift for seeing the true reality. I mean you posit is that your grip on reality is light years ahead of ours. It just doesn't seem credible. It's just like the christians saying that their God is the ultimate provider of morality when the evidence shows that Christians are no more moral than anyone else.

Timmy2,

Navin, re raped girl:
"Her imperfect justice system decides to condemn her to gang rape because her imperfect father raped a neighboring village's girl."

Timmy, in response:
"This is because she lives in a society where people believe they have knowledge of THE truth/god. This is what happens when we take people's word for it that they have special insight into God. Thank you for this example."

So there's direct causal link between gang rape and a society's belief that it has access to the truth/god? Is that the case, Timmy?

I think it's evident from my posts that I am no friend of godmongery, but this connection you've made seems a wild exaggeration. Care to qualify?

NAVIN 1

"The expert says, I have studied x for y years. This is what I have found. Now you can go and study the same, or we can move forward"

Or you can show your work and evidence like real "experts" do.

"To simply deny the expert may not be useful"

To take his word for it that he is an expert and sees what most humans can not see with no way of verification is foolish.

"Her imperfect justice system decides to condemn her to gang rape because her imperfect father raped a neighboring village's girl."

This is because she lives in a society where people believe they have knowledge of THE truth/god. This is what happens when we take people's word for it that they have special insight into God. Thank you for this example.

"Who should she call out to during the rape?"

Someone close by hopefully to save her if she's lucky. Otherwise, there is no one else listening. It's a shame she has been brainwashed to believe otherwise. It's all just awful and caused by the glorification of those who claim to know Truth/God.

"Should she say why has evolution let me be so poorly treated?"

No she should say why has evolution given man logic and intellect which has destroyed the essence of what he really should be. ;) Oh yeah, and why do people pretend to know God?!!

"I suppose you understand, she needs to reach into that cultural myth and cry out "Allah have mercy."

Well she does, yeah, because she's been brainwashed. But there's no need for future generations need to cry out to that old cultural myth. Atheists get raped too you know. They survive it just as well.

The belief in a god gives her comfort.

The power of brainwashing at it's finest. Belief in the God, who is watching her rape with arms folded, who has known that her rape has been coming since the beginning of time, who created the whole scenario of the world for his own pleasure where her rape was predestined, this thought gives her comfort. The unbelievable power of brainwashing.

Peter Huff,

Thee:
"There again, Jesus did say about children that the kingdom of heaven belonged to such as these. How do you know that these are not His people?"

So the surest sign of God's election is infant death. No wonder the infant mortality rate has been so high down the centuries. It's just God's mysterious way of getting predestined souls into glory. Heaven as creche! All those chubby putti of the Renaissance - explained! God kills babies to SAVE them! It all makes sense!That would make advances in obstetrics, nutrition, and antibiotics the work of the devil, to get more babies to grow up into adults, and thus condemn themselves to eternal Hell. Safer, in God's universe, to perish as a toddler. Best start praying for more infant deaths - much more expedient than evangelising teens and adults.

"He is the one who tempts, the evil one."

Yes, he has been doing God's dirty work for quite some time now. The boss gives him Hell, though he's very good at his shtick.

Good night Onofrio. May the peace of God and the God of peace be made known to you through the eternal Spirit! (1 Corinthians 2:10-16)

Peter,

"Onofrio, you're the one with the high flying words that endear you to so many and make you such a charismatic personality"

If that's an attempt at flattery - you've failed. If it's an attempt at accurate assessment - you're wrong.

"Half the time you are speaking intellectual gibberish."

Corrections:

Not half the time, but all! Well, maybe 98%. Like Hell. My glossolalia.

And it's just plain gibberish, Peter. Nowt intellectual thereabout.

"but you can't feed the horses if the hay is in the rafters. Bring it down so the horses can feed."

I'll leave the fodder to you, Peter.

"Here today, gone tomorrow, remembered shortly by those who loved you."

If one is very lucky.

"Where is your hope? Where is your meaning?"

That is my secret.

"What a bleak outlook."

It doesn't depend on hellbound billions. If that makes it "bleak", so be it.

Hi Onofrio,

ME: "You, in your finite wisdom want to dictate to God what will and will not be."

ONOFRIO: "Not at all. I simply find the God you revere a psychopath. I have quoted Calvin and the Westminster Confession to show why."

Well the first question that comes to mind is whether you feel that it is right for a just judge to punish evil? Does he even have the right to?

The second question I have is 'Do you think that man has his own volition?'

ME: "Does He not have the right to take a babies life on earth and grant it life in the eternal realm?"

ONOFRIO: "Inconsistent with your own dogmas. We inherit Adam's sin from conception. From the womb we are depraved, therefore all babies are hellbound, by default. Why so squeamish? They're only getting their just deserts."

There again, Jesus did say about children that the kingdom of heaven belonged to such as these. How do you know that these are not His people? Obviously the Savior died for a certain people, for if He just made salvation 'possible' it is possible that none would be saved. Scripture does teach that, whether you or I like it or not. I'm using the John Owens argument here and it confirms what the Scriptures say.

ME: "God does not tempt man."

ONOFRIO: "Yet Jesus did pray to his God-Daddy "Lead us not into temptation". You might want to have a word with him about that."

"When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, NOR DOES HE TEMPT ANYONE; but each is tempted when, by THEIR OWN EVIL DESIRE, he is dragged away and enticed..."
(James 1:13)

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert TO BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL....THE TEMPTER CAME TO HIM and said..." (Matthew 4:1, 3a)

So when we pray to lead us not into temptation we are praying that God will not allow the evil one to tempt us, as the next verse says, "but deliver us from the evil one." (Matthew 6:13)

He is the one who tempts, the evil one. Again you show that you do not understand the Scriptures.

Arminius,

So it's "open hand" for the polite hellmonger; "nothus" for the rude abolitionist.

I say again: gentility may cloak a stone.

Rest you.

Hi Onofrio,

Since you have again taken to addressing me directly, I'll do the same for you.

ME: "Farnaz, you put Onofrio on too high a pedestal. The biggest chip on his shoulder is his HATRED of God. That is the reality of the situation. He uses his whole being in a mad attempt to refute his Maker."

ONOFRIO: "A micron high, too high? Come, now, Peter; even you get a full inch. Churlish of you to begrudge me my elevational miniscularity. My flea's eye view could not possibly top your centrimetrical eyrie, O far seer of the Absolute Reference Point (ARP - excuse me, too much fizzy pop). Why, from up there you can even spy the stiletto that bears heaven, whereas my purview must be sated with the craters on the lost ball-bearing, rusting inside the blown dust dolly, my local nebula."

Onofrio, you're the one with the high flying words that endear you to so many and make you such a charismatic personality, but you can't feed the horses if the hay is in the rafters. Bring it down so the horses can feed. Your communication is only as good as your ability to make others understand what you are saying. I have learned that the most effective communication is the simplest way of saying something, not what you conceive is most intellectually sounding. Half the time you are speaking intellectual gibberish.

What does this mean???

ONOFRIO: "(ARP - excuse me, too much fizzy pop). Why, from up there you can even spy the stiletto that bears heaven, whereas my purview must be sated with the craters on the lost ball-bearing, rusting inside the blown dust dolly, my local nebula."

ONOFRIO: "My flea's eye view could not possibly top your centrimetrical eyrie, O far seer of the Absolute Reference Point..."

What difference does a viewpoint make unless it reflects what is objective, what is true? It is just meaningless words or subjective opinion. Why do you think your or my opinion is valid of anything in a world devoid of God? Here today, gone tomorrow, remembered shortly by those who loved you. Where is your hope? Where is your meaning? What a bleak outlook.

Peter Huff to Arminius, re moi, the flea:

"When did he stop trusting in God? Did he ever really bow the knee or was it just a profession without trust, without reliance, without submission?"

You might ask the same about the Satan, another of God's creatures.

(Pleased to meet you.)

"You, in your finite wisdom want to dictate to God what will and will not be."

Not at all. I simply find the God you revere a psychopath. I have quoted Calvin and the Westminster Confession to show why.

"Does He not have the right to take a babies life on earth and grant it life in the eternal realm?"

Inconsistent with your own dogmas. We inherit Adam's sin from conception. From the womb we are depraved, therefore all babies are hellbound, by default. Why so squeamish? They're only getting their just deserts.

Hi, Peter,

This is interesting. As you know, you and I have always been able to get along, despite our differences, which are profound. Something about an open hand extended in friendship being better than a fist. Reading your post I realized that if you had directed that at me, I would not have been offended, even though I don't necessarily agree - as you know, I have a much different perspective. Anyway, I must call it a night. Take care, and remember the open hand.

Onofrio:

"While politesse is a good and lovely thing, I do not hold it in the high regard you appear to"

Not to worry. Arminius is as impolite as any, when the mood is upon him.

Peter Huff,

"Instead of turning to Him, you run away from Him."

Not I, sir. If God is who you believe he is (maybe so, maybe so), then I prefer the lake of fire. Until I get there, late or soon, I defy. I yield not a flea's whisker to that God.

Deus vult ;^)

Onofrio:

"BTW, Schaum, I've found your multipart treatises vs godmonsterism brilliantly pointy, yea, bristling, theo-poppingly festooned. Zesta!"

Thank you, kind sir, but it was very easy: I only quoted the christers, their bible, and their kant. The truth of the myth of god is available for anyone who wants to see it.

Arminius,

While politesse is a good and lovely thing, I do not hold it in the high regard you appear to, especially when it comes to abhorrent dogmas, endlessly rehashed. Much as I would prefer to trade gentle bon mots among the teacups, when it comes to Peter Huff, the "mental fight" is on. He knows that too. Only absurdity and coarseness and bitterness can express the horror I feel at Huff's frequently reiterated sameold.

An anology that you may appreciate: If Huff's columns of proof text come on in the same old way, then my thin red line will send them back in the same old way (apologies Arthur W).

Gentility may cloak stone.

Hi Arminius,

No, I'm here for a reason, whether God has something in it for me or for someone else.

I don't expect anything different from Onofrio. Yes, I'd hate to see him get what his actions deserve, but I hope God will have mercy on him. At present Onofrio will not submit to God or His word. He rebells for whatever circumstance that only he and God knows, and he will not let God act justly in punishing sin or saving through Christ. He knows better than his Maker, well at least in his own eyes. Can you imagine each man to his own devises in heaven? Wow, that would be the worst kind of hell. He has chosen not to believe God. He has chosen, at least at present, to ignore the council of God that calls him to repentance and to ask for mercy.

When did he stop trusting in God? Did he ever really bow the knee or was it just a profession without trust, without reliance, without submission?

"As the Scriptures says, 'Anyone who trusts in Him will never be put to shame.' For there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on Him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:11-13)

What good is that if you do not believe it??? What good is it if you call into question God's integrity. Are you not getting your just reward?

Onofrio, you will not let God be God. Does God not have the right to give and take life? Does He not have the right to punish evil? Does He not have the right to take a babies life on earth and grant it life in the eternal realm? You, in your finite wisdom want to dictate to God what will and will not be. You want to be able to decide the standard of good; you who do not fathom the measure of goodness. You continually mock and insult God. WHAT MADE YOU SO BITTER?

Instead of turning to Him, you run away from Him, not knowing that His yoke is easy and that those who truly find Him find rest for their souls. Where is your rest Onofrio? (Matthew 11:28-30)

So you and I sitting in cyberspace point out the fallacies of allah. You and I know that the belief in allah is fundamental to the suffering that she is in. You and I know this will be propagated until secular reason can reach the schools and ideology of the Afghani people. You and I want to alleviate the suffering in a system. Allah alleviates the suffering in a person.

Remember, please, that I do not believe in allah and think the whole koran is a poor plagiary of the old testament. But what I believe does not matter to that girl.

If religion is the opium of the people, until we can help the world have less suffering using our enlightened science etc, more people need to get high on that opium - for them life sucks due to ignorance.

Truth is what I believe ultimately sets people free. If you want to end hunger teach people to make their own. If you want to end poverty, develop economic systems that are sustainable. If you want to create an egalitarian society, create political structures that promote individual freedoms. I could be entirely wrong about this. But I can try.

hariaum

A fourteen your old girl in Afghanistan has an imperfect life. She is commonly beaten by her imperfect father, she is starved by her imperfect mother. Her imperfect cousin who lusts after throws acid on her face when she looks at another boy. Her imperfect justice system decides to condemn her to gang rape because her imperfect father raped a neighboring village's girl.

She has no education. She has learned that when you feel injustice call to Allah and he will help you survive and be vindicated. Who should she call out to during the rape? Should she say why has evolution let me be so poorly treated? Should she say that even is she is being gang raped she will pass on her genes and evolution will be fulfilled?

I suppose you understand, she needs to reach into that cultural myth and cry out "Allah have mercy." And when the torture is over, should she thank biology for her survival or the fact that she cried out to Allah, her teaching proved right.

The belief in a god gives her comfort (opium may have helped also but she doesn't have the socioeconomic ability to acquire that until she sells herself to the next self-righteous bastard).

hariuam

Timmy,

I think I understand. But that is where the expert comes in. The expert says, I have studied x for y years. This is what I have found. Now you can go and study the same, or we can move forward.

The expert may be entirely wrong or may point in the right direction. Not knowing the truth as it is, we are forced to decide whether to believe the expert or not. Indeed, even a slight error in a well intentioned expert may lead to disaster (Titanic, pollution, etc). To simply deny the expert may not be useful. To challenge the expert is certainly.

But there are certain rules to logic that we in general hold important: an ideal to be truth approximating, an internal logic, a consequence that is akin to our own beliefs (not that any of these is legitimate, it is that, in your language, I have observed). More rigorous thinkers have very formal methods that most people just don't get. I have been lucky to have been exposed to many of those methods and to have to apply them in my daily life (not my religious life but my job). When I ran into a book on bias and decision making made by the CIA, my field was in the field most often referred to. (That doesn't mean much but it is at it is.)

This is a truth statement: we are imperfect, we are guided by our imperfect friends, to grasp a reality with imperfect tools. My conclusion: we need each other. Denial of one's experience over another is not useful.

let me give an example of how faith in a god that I do not believe in is useful.

hariaum

Onofrio, Well Met,

I'm not here for a verbal melee, but I will venture to say that you haven't been so damned polite yourself of late.

Hello again, Arminius,

Boosterism for the hellmonger, eh. But of course! He's so "polite"! No matter that he equates mass incineration with divine justice. As long as doles out the proof texts with gracious condescension, he's OK. Make a nice next door neighbour.

All your pagan friends are predestined to hell, in the Huff universe, unless of course they Calvinise post haste.

That's a l'infame well worth the ecrasez, in the purview of this nothus.

So sink me :^)

Hi, Peter Huff,

Noli nothis permittere te terrere.

NAVIN 1

'If we are simply saying the theists are wrong and that does not need support because it is a negation, there is no where to go with that"

I don't posit that you are wrong. I posit that claiming to "know" that you are right without evidence is a troublesome world view. It's offensive to your fellow man who, poor things, "can not see". People who claim to know THE truth, or claim to know who God is are insulting. It gets people's backs up.You're saying you have some special gift of insight we don't have. It cause divisiveness, suspicion, fear, war.... I don't think there should be a law against claiming to know things without evidence, I just think it should be frowned upon not thought of as virtuous and protected by a social taboo on questioning peoples religious beliefs.

I think we have many problems to work out in society like poverty, pollution, climate change, war, etc. And I think that if everyone in the world works together to find solutions to these problems we can really eliminate so much suffering in the world. But we need non divisive intellectually honest discourse. We need to be able to verify when someone says they "know" X, which no one else knows because only "some can see", so the rest of you will just have to believe us when we tell you that you are deluded if you think that this reality is real.

If we believed everyone who told us they could see things we can not see we'd be living in the bronze age again.

BTW, Schaum, I've found your multipart treatises vs godmonsterism brilliantly pointy, yea, bristling, theo-poppingly festooned. Zesta!

Schaum,

Thee:
"The scary thing is that St Peter Huff actually believes this crap."

It can be un-believed, Schaum. That is my (delusory) hope.

No altruism on my part, of course, just selfish joy at the prospect of replicating my apostasy :^)

Onofrio:

The scary thing is that St Peter Huff actually believes this crap: "He ALLOWED and foreordained evil for the purpose that greater good would be realized by the presence of evil."

There has never been a shortage of stupid things to believe. Or stupid godologists to believe them.

Peter Huff wrote of God:

"He ALLOWED and foreordained evil for the purpose that greater good would be realized by the presence of evil."

Only if greater good = burn, baby, burn.

Since the greater portion of humanity is hellbound - by God's good Calvinian pleasure - then Hell is absolutely KEY to the "greater good".

So what's a wee earthquake? God's sassy little hors d'oeuvres?

i.e. God's decree has done for you and me, eternally. The price of Peter Huff's "blessed assurance" and "unspeakable comfort" is a universe of horror.

As if this present darkness were not bad enough! But that ain't nothin' to what God's got a-comin'...

Here's some more of what Calvinian Huff & Co. subscribe to, from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter III:

"III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

"IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

"V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

"VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

"VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."

ONOFRIAN GLOSS:
Absolute predestination (a la Huff)requires that God sovereignly willed humans to be damnably sinful in the first place, with full knowledge of the consequences. He decrees people to go to Hell for a creaturely malfunction that he knowingly precipitated.

Sorry for all this tedious guff. My usual tedious guff is, at least, more brief.

More Christmongering gold from John Calvin, Peter Huff's theological hero:

"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." Institutes III, 21.5

Clearly Calvin is at odds with the principles of the US Founding Fathers, whose Declaration of Independence proclaims the "self evident" truth "that all men are created equal" by God.

All non-Calvinists (i.e. non-Huffites) take note. According to Calvin's Institutes, God has NOT CREATED ALL MEN EQUAL, rather has ordained that humankind be irrevocably divided into two unequal tiers. If you die without having subscribed to A-Grade Geneva dogma, you're in the tier that has been reprobated by God from before the foundation of the cosmos.

Paraphrasing the genius Daniel12:

' Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.'

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

Come on down, John CALVIN:

"whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? . . . The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree… God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision."
(Institutes, III, 23, 7)

i.e. God, being sovereign, not only foreknew, but willed Adam's fall, and thereby the "eternal death" of all his descendants, infants included.

More "Good News" from the Bibliolaters...

Peter Huff,

"No, God's plan is working itself out for the good of those who are loved by and who love God. That plan was put in place before the creation of the world."

And all those who do not subscribe to A-Grade Dort-Strength TULIPry are predestined vessels of wrath, for whom an audience with Vlad the Impaler would be preferable to what God has in store for them. Well, maybe not that strict and particular. God, in his abundant grace, MIGHT let a few 4-point Calvinists into glory, though of course only "as through fire". Can't let them off too lightly.

Let's see, the Narrow Way will involve at most but 2% of humanity - inclusive of those skin-of-their-teeth benighted 4-pointers. God's love is extravagantly wasteful. It takes the endless barbecue of 99 flyblown mutton to produce one meek little Calvinian lost-and-found sheep, primed for bliss.

Hello Justtillthen,
I hope that you will come back to this thread and see my post. I wanted to thank you for some very interesting posts, and for your ability to understand that though you may not be a theist, or see any value in being a theist or believe in the Bible, you can understand why others would differ without being idiots, delusional or brainwashed.

I am Christian who came to faith in Christ as a young adult after many years of seeking, studying and reading (including the study of world religions). I was not brainwashed by parents as a child, they did not even own a Bible. I have at times struggled with my faith and wrestled with God, especially when confronted with the biggest stumbling block for faith ie the question of pain. But I have also encounted the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit at times of terrible anguish and pain and I KNOW that God is real, even if I cannot answer all the theological or scientific questions that come up. Some on this blog call this a clinical delusion. But that is of course a shallow way of dismissing what you do not understand and cannot accept. Ask any psychiatrist about a clinically deluded individual and they will tell that it is only a matter of time before that person is unable to function fully in the real world. Yet hundred of millions of us get up every day, get dressed, go to work, make dinner, take care of our kids, volunteer in our communities and so on. How could we all act so sane if we are all clinically deluded. Maybe some could do it for a while, but millions for lifetimes? Too facile of an explanation.

Finally, in my prayer group of about 25 people, the vast majority came to faith as young adults or later in life. For some, this meant a rift with their families. In our group, we have 2PhDs in a scientific field, an engineer, and we all have a college degree at a minimum. So there goes the "only the uneducated believe in God" myth Are we the rarity? I don't think so. I think that there are plenty of people that sit in the pews every sunday just because... but there are plenty of us that are there because we want to be and because we found a great deal of solace and comfort in our faith.

There are those of us who have questionned, studied, doubted and struggled but came to the same conclusion as Peter in John 6:68 when he said to Jesus":Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God".

I apologize if I am not able to answer you in timely manner. Evenings are very busy with the children and days are very busy at work.

Justtillthen, you and I may disagree about God, faith and Jesus but I sense in you a kind and respectful spirit who is willing to accept that what does not make sense for you can make sense for others.

Peter Huff,

"God does not tempt man."

Yet Jesus did pray to his God-Daddy "Lead us not into temptation". You might want to have a word with him about that.

Peter Huff,

Thee:
"Farnaz, you put Onofrio on too high a pedestal. The biggest chip on his shoulder is his hared of God. That is the reality of the situation. He uses his whole being in a mad attempt to refute his Maker."

A micron high, too high? Come, now, Peter; even you get a full inch. Churlish of you to begrudge me my elevational miniscularity. My flea's eye view could not possibly top your centrimetrical eyrie, O far seer of the Absolute Reference Point (ARP - excuse me, too much fizzy pop). Why, from up there you can even spy the stiletto that bears heaven, whereas my purview must be sated with the craters on the lost ball-bearing, rusting inside the blown dust dolly, my local nebula.

And speaking of God and hares, (after all, as you say, I am "hared of God"), you have unwittingly conjured my ancient namesake, seachanged by Navigium Isidis. Thus you bless, even as you intend to curse, like Balaam.

See, you're typologised in the *OT*! Rejoice and be glad!

Danial 12, Same post,

DANIAL 12: "Second, you can see that both the mother who requests the abortion and the doctor who performs it are blameless – in fact, they are doing god’s will."

No, God is permitting this evil in order that some good may come of it, for all the calamity and evil that comes upon man. Both the doctor and the mother are guilty of going against God's directive plan in not taking life.

DANIAL: "Since it is god who planned the abortion of the child (god chose the "exact time" of the death, according to Rick Warren), the mother and doctor are simply puppets who are fulfilling god's plan, are they not?"

God permits it. We suffer the consequences of our choices. It is not God's directive will that an individual take another human life. But He permits it that a greater good would arise. Can we always understand the greater good? No, we are limited in our understanding.

DANIAL: "What about all the christers who are fighting against abortion? If abortion is part of god's plan, why are they fighting it? God is the all-powerful ruler of the universe, and his plan is for more than a million children a year to die in the United States through abortion. If god's plan is true, then each one of those abortions was meticulously planned by god."

You are confusing God's directive against His permissive will. He has stated that the taking of an innocent life is wrong. You are also forgetting that man is accountable to God. It is man that does the evil of his own volition. God does not tempt man.

It was the mother and doctor who went against God's directive will in killing the baby. They chose not to honor life in which God has instructed us to do by forbidding us to murder. An individual does not have the right to take life. That is God's right alone for we are all created in His likeness and image. We are to respect and honor life.

DANIAL: "If god does not intend for us to perform abortions, are christers wrong when they say that god has a plan?"

No, God's plan is working itself out for the good of those who are loved by and who love God. That plan was put in place before the creation of the world. The plan is to save a people for Himself by showing His mercy and grace to them. That same mercy is revealed in His word, the Bible.

Schaum,

in these posts you and I agree entirely. You can also replace Ra, jesus, allah, logic, science, etc.

But would it be wrong to interpret what you are defining as experimental proof is a suggestion that reality is a testable construct. Where for example one will say the world is round. We test it by sending a ship around the world, it fails to arrive and thus say the world is not round. Of course, not. The experiment has to do with the results.

Government, for example, is often attacked as useless, wasteful, etc. But when the quake hits the earth, those same person's look to the government for efficiently delivered aid. We see the results of experiments with jaundiced eyes. (Not that I would not have people do experiments, as I said, we agree with your example)

As a samurai once said, I believe in the Buddha and the Emperor in their own ways, but I rely on the sword.

hariaum

1.
Imagine that we are friends. One day we are talking:
Me: Wow, you will not believe this new book I've been reading!
You: What's it about?
Me: It is a manual for living a better life. It is also a guide to creating a better society for ourselves and our children. It has changed my life!
You: That sounds like an important book. Who wrote it?
Me: The author is supposed to be the smartest person in the universe.
You: That's amazing -- if the author is the smartest person in the universe, the book must be absolutely brilliant. I can't wait to see it. Do you have a copy with you?
Me: Absolutely! I carry it with me everywhere I go! Here, have a look for yourself...

You open the book to a random page, and you find this:
“Any of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel, who give any of their offspring to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone them to death. I myself will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people, because they have given of their offspring to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name. And if the people of the land should ever close their eyes to them, when they give of their offspring to Molech, and do not put them to death, I myself will set my face against them and against their family, and will cut them off from among their people, them and all who follow them in prostituting themselves to Molech.

“If any turn to mediums and wizards, prostituting themselves to them, I will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the Lord your god. Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the Lord; I sanctify you. All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them.

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” [Leviticus, chapter 20]

2.
You are not quite sure what to say. You look at me for a moment.
You: I thought you said that this is written by the most intelligent person in the universe. If we are going to follow what this author says, we have to kill half the people in America. We are supposed to kill everyone who has cursed his father or mother, everyone who has committed adultery, and every homosexual.
Me: Well, that's in the old testament, you see. The book is really two books, and the "old" part of the book doesn't really apply.
You: Are you saying that the smartest person in the universe once wanted us to kill every adulterer and homosexual, but then changed his mind? That somehow makes it better? If the "old part" no longer applies, then why did you hand it to me when I asked to see the book?
Me: Well, parts of it do apply.
You: Didn't you just tell me that it doesn't apply?

You open the book to another random page and you find this:
“When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person’, then his master shall bring him before god. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

“Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of god, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.

3.
“Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.

“Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death. Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.

“When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery.

“When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.” [Exodus, chapter 21]

Again, you are dumfounded. Here the author of the book is advocating slavery, the branding of slaves, and the wholesale beating of slaves. You are not quite sure what to say. You look at me for a moment.
You: You have to be kidding me. Here the "smartest person in the universe" is telling us that slavery is OK and that we are free to beat our slaves.

You open the book to another random page and you find this:
“I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for god. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” [1 Timothy, chapter 2]

You are nearly speechless. But you manage to find your voice.
You: Is this some kind of joke? "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man." That is totally sexist! In America, there are millions of female teachers and we have women throughout our corporate and government hierarchies. No intelligent person believes that women should be silenced.

4.
As you page through the book further you find that it is totally sexist from beginning to end. You keep opening the book to random pages, and nearly everything you find is utter nonsense. Either it is meaningless, completely irrelevant, disgusting or downright wrong.

If you are a scientist it is even worse, and it starts with the very first line:

“In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth...“
That's not true. In the beginning a natural event created the universe as we know it, and the earth did not form until billions of years later. The creation story in Genesis is completely wrong. Simply read Genesis and you can see it. For example, the bible says that light and darkness are created after the water but before the sun. Everyone knows that the sun came first, then the planet and its rotation (which is what causes light and darkness to occur on a daily basis) and then the water, and this all happened over million of years. There are many other problems with the bible:

Man did not come from a handful of dust through some mythological being. Man evolved from other species like every other living thing has for hundreds of millions of years.
The bible talks about a world-wide flood that covered earth in 5.5 miles of water and killed everything, yet we know it never happened. That is clear from the archaeological record.
There was no tower of Babel where god confounded the languages of mankind.
The list goes on and on. The bible is nonsense in a thousand different scientific ways.

Ask yourself this simple question: When you read the bible, are you left in awe? Doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?

Yet, when we open the bible and actually read it, we find it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains. If you read what the bible actually says, you find that the bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of the bible's numerous problems

5.
‘If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" god had absolutely nothing to do with this book.

The reason the bible contains so much nonsense is because god is a superstition invented to calm frightened humans. The bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.

To understand the delusion of god and religion, let's imagine that I tell you the following story:
There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
During the year, he and the elves build toys.
Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
He puts the sack in his sleigh.
He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
He leaves toys for the children of the household.
He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
He does this all around the world in one night.
Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.
Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

6.
Because you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:
"But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.
"How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.
"How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.
"Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.
"How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.
"How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.
"Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.
These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.

Didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Now, imagine that I tell you the following story:
I was in my room one night.
Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
He tells me an amazing story.
He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.

7.
Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things -- an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.

Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it? You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

If you are not a Mormon, you would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. You would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon. If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not

8.
Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

Imagine that I tell you this story:
A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
A very bright flash of light appeared.
A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
The man ran home to his wife.
While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.
Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.
The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.
The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today. [Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and

9.
Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh -- you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.

But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the koran (also spelled qur'an or qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the koran's creation and the revelation of allah to mankind. Could more than a billion people be wrong?

Despite the fact that a billion muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is as imaginary as flying reindeer.

If you are a christer, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical thinking about things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly, and even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. Non-muslims know that.

An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, muslims can see that mormons are delusional, mormons can see that muslims are delusional, and christers can see that both mormons and muslims are delusional.

One final story:
god inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the son of god.
god put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.

10.
In a dream god told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then god stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill jesusgod.
As a man, god's son claimed that he was god incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.
This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is god.
But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.
His body was placed in a tomb.
But three days later, the tomb was empty.
And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of god the father almighty, never to be seen again.

Today you can have a personal relationship with the jesusgod. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He promised that. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, arrange for your son’s high school football team to win a game, etc. This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.

The reason we know all this is because, 70-80 years after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.

Do you believe this story? If you are a christer you do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.

Something to understand: the four billion people who are not christers look at the christer story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the mormon story and the muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the christer bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the christer story is a myth, made up from other pagan religions. Christers are pagans.

Hello Timmy,

"I think the first quote is you quoting Farnaz?"

All that you requoted was Farnaz. My comments came after. I missed this post of yours, and have very little time, but wanted to commend you and support you toward the dream of Atheist Angels. Although I personally like the wings, being a magickal thinker if I believe some the catagorizing of some, I think the idea is great. Go boy!

I may have some comments to the last response from you, but this thread nears it's end and the 700 comment mark, and I have spent far too long pontificating for no plausible purpose but to better babble.

Cheers!

11.
How do the four billion non-christers know, with complete certainty, that the christer story is imaginary? Because the christer story is just like the Santa story, the mormon story and the muslim story: it is filled with unprovable magical thinking. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the christer faith note these facts:
The miracles are supposed to "prove" that jesus is god, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks. Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today. Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyze prayer and find that prayers are never answered. The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions. And so on.
In other words, the christer story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.

Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the jesusgod story is fictitious. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-christers would be happy to confirm for you that the jesusgod story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing christer, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the mormon story and the muslim story, but when it comes to the jesusgod story, which is just as imaginary, you are not? Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? - No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing to support the story.

Is there any reason to believe that jesusgod actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? - There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesusgod's life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old. Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? And no, it has nothing to do with the

12.
“fact” that the christer story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others

Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:
Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.
Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.

What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.

Try the same thing again, but this time pray to jesusgod instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to jesusgod like this:
Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.
Now begin to flip the coin. What are the results? It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for christers who pray and the other for non-christers. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesusgod has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.

If you believe in god, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with jesusgod... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why jesusgod did not answer your prayers:
It is not his will
He doesn't have time
I didn't pray the right way
I am not worthy
I do not have enough faith

13.
I cannot test the Lord like this
It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what jesusgod says about prayer in the bible, he does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." jesusgod clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he put no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.

You are an expert at creating rationalizations for jesusgod. The reason you are an expert is because jesusgod does not answer any of your prayers. The reason why jesusgod does not answer any of your prayers is because jesusgod and god are as much imaginary myths as any other pagan gods.

Hi Danial 12 (from January 25, 10:51PM),

DANIAL: "If the concept of "god's plan" is true, you can first of all see that god wants us to be aborting children. Every single abortion is planned by god, so god must be doing it for a reason."

You fail to recognize that the sovereign God has a permissive as well as a directive will for His creature - man. He has disclosed through the written history of Himself, man's Fall and the problem of evil and man's solution. History screeches of man's inability to act justly and rightly in his governing and living in this world. Since the Fall God is showing man his inability to act wisely and justly on his own accord. He can't live a good life without or apart from God. All kinds of evil results.

And the Bible tells us it was man who caused the problem of evil in the first place. He chose to know the difference between good and evil and by disobeying God he found out what evil was. When he placed himself as the final reference and authority above that of God evil was born into the human race.

Yes, it was in God's sovereign plan of redemption to allow evil. God created man with the ability to choose. He gave man the possibility to sin or the possibility not to sin. If man had chosen to obey God there would not have been the knowledge of what was evil. In rejecting God's instruction in the Garden man opened himself to every evil conceivable in that now man became the judge of what good was. When you have a finite, fallible creature limited in knowledge deciding what was and was not good any kind of evil is possible.

"The woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' 'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' When the woman saw the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. THEN the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked..." (Genesis 3:2-7a)

SCHAUM: "Wrong again.
Having claimed the bible to be the word of "god", it is your responsibility to prove the assertion. If you fail to do so, as you have failed to prove the existence of god, I decline to accept your delusion as reality or truth."

No, it is not for no matter what reason, what proof I give you will reject it. You are going to filter whatever I say through your core presuppositions that you have constructed. What proof would you accept outside of God's grace to you? I rest my case.

SCHAUM: "Now you have become tedious again. And I have again lost interest in you, your "arguments" and your incapacity for logic. Have a nice day."

And you have not been honest in facing life's ultimate questions. Whenever someone tries to push you into giving a meaningful argument you throw up smoke screens. Bye-bye.

ME: "I do this by stripping away at your beliefs until I come to those core beliefs. It is there, when we get there, that I ask you to give an adequate explanation for what you believe, and it is impossible for you to do that."

SCHAUM: "No. That is another fairy tail you would like to be true. You have stripped away nothing because there is nothing to strip away."

Well ultimately this is true. There is nothing of meaning there.

SCHAUM: "Atheism is not a belief."

Sure it is.

SCHAUM: "I believe nothing until it is proven."

You believe all kinds of things that are not provable. Prove that the color orange is orange. Prove that the universe came into being by the Big Bang. Prove that life can come from none life. Prove that what you say is true.

SCHAUM: "That is why I do not believe in god."

No, it is not. You deny God because it interferes with your lifestyle, with you being your own moral compass. You prefer not to believe in Him. It is inconvenient for you.

SCHAUM: "Prove god, and I will exist. You have no proofs. It is you who have been stripped naked. Nor do I feel the compulsion to offer you any "adequate explanation" for anything, since "explanations" without proof are meaningless."

You have no compulsion BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. Ultimately, you don't have any proofs for what you believe. Your mind has made it up. Why is your mind the final reference in deciding anything??? Until you can show me that you base something on objective truth, it is meaningless, unless it borrows from the Christian worldview.

SCHAUM: "You need to get some help for your narcissism."

I'm not going to get into a slinging match by belittling you other than to show you why these things are, from a Biblical perspective. You have already mocked me and insulted me because I have been so direct in providing a biblical perspective. I don't do it to be mean. I do it in the hope that God will bring you to your senses by showing you the absurdity in believing such things that you do.

St Peter Huff:

Wrong again.

Having claimed the bible to be the word of "god", it is your responsibility to prove the assertion. If you fail to do so, as you have failed to prove the existence of god, I decline to accept your delusion as reality or truth.

Now you have become tedious again. And I have again lost interest in you, your "arguments" and your incapacity for logic. Have a nice day.

Navin:

"are you suggesting that a dictionary defines the truth of things and ideas?"

No, I am suggesting that a dictionary would provide you with at least a clue, since you evidently don't have one about very many things.

Always sikh the truth, Navin.

Formal proof; Mathematical proof; Argument

Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects

Justification, in epistemology, a reason for or explanation of a proposition or belief

Provability logic

Do you not have a dictionary? Or do you take some pleasure in being obtuse?

- are you suggesting that a dictionary defines the truth of things and ideas?

What is the first step in mathematical proof? The property of identity: a=a. This is the fundamental basis of being. a=a. Truth=being=god. That is the proof as much as there is a proof that a=a.

Now you may want to mathematically say 1+1=2. Unfortunately, and you may be aware of this, this not always true. You need to define the characteristics of the construct 1, the construct 2, and the logical space in which you are operating. Depending on these, you will derive different provable answers. Thus, mathematically you can say, 1+1 does not =2 or you can say under certain conditions 1+1=2. This latter is the converse of your argument that the christo-islamic god does not exist - under certain conditions (we may agree as to the conclusion here, but likely differ as the underlying conditions).

So once you are done reading the dictionary, what conditions are you allowing for a demonstration of proof? If you deny the condition of a reality, then nothing is provable and all is a fiction by your denying the reality. If you accept that there is a reality, then you accept that truth statement.

You may also, by the way, want to study formal logic that underlies mathematical proof. Even there, though, you must assert properties to decide how you know what is true.

what ever way you want to go, if you want proof, you assert a being. Further, you must assert qualities of that being. As to this latter step, I have faith based assertions. What is the basis of your assertions as to the properties of truth?

hariaum

SCHAUM: "See, this is how it works: those who claim there is a god have the burden of proof. Thats the way logic works. Make a positive statement and support it with proof. When persons making a positive posit are unable to offer proofs in support, the rest of us may logically infer the negative. Negatives need no proof other than the failure of the positive to present proof."

Do you think that God is under your obligation to provide proof of His existence? Why do you think He needs you to validate His existence?

But He has been gracious to man in providing that proof by His word, the Bible. Since you chose to reject it the question then falls back on you to provide proof that the Bible is not His word. As a finite, limited, subjective, self-validating reference how do you know when these books were written, that God has not preserved a record of His dealings with mankind? You don't. You presuppose it. Your core beliefs look at everything through strained lens. You call the shots. You are your own ultimate authority. How could I prove something to one such as you who makes the facts what they are???

SCHAUM: "Is that simple enough to understand?"

Yes, hopefully my reply is simple enough too!

"I will exist" = "I will agree."

St Peter Huff:

"I do this by stripping away at your beliefs until I come to those core beliefs. It is there, when we get there, that I ask you to give an adequate explanation for what you believe, and it is impossible for you to do that."

No. That is another fairy tail you would like to be true. You have stripped away nothing because there is nothing to strip away. Atheism is not a belief. I believe nothing until it is proven. That is why I do not believe in god. Prove god, and I will exist. You have no proofs. It is you who have been stripped naked. Nor do I feel the compulsion to offer you any "adequate explanation" for anything, since "explanations" without proof are meaningless.

You need to get some help for your narcissism.

St Peter Huff:

Again, more of your obfuscation in the absence of proof.

Spare me. I have been a southern baptist for 14 years, a roman catholic for 8 years and an episcopalian for 13 years. I am familiar with all the unprovable god-arguments you offer. They are old, tired, musty...and still unproven. When you can offer proof of god, I will adopt that truth. Until you can do so, you are a waste of time to everyone, except yourself. You have repeatedly proven that you are incompetent to prove your "arguments". You have become a laughable cliche, parading your tired, unproven "arguments" for god on a thread largely populated by atheists, in the apparent expectation that you are going to win converts here. You never do. Yet you repeat your efforts, knowing that the outcome will never be different. A lot of people define that as madness.

ME: "God is good. He didn't create good. That is a part of His nature, the nature that makes God God."

SCHAUM: "Reiterating your fairy tales and myths may give you something to do that you think is meaningful, but with your constant lack of proofs, it is meaningful ONLY to you."

SCHAUM: "You want to be taken seriously here? Offer proof of a god."

I am. What 'proof' would you consider serious? That is the catch. I understand, by God's grace that you build on a worldview that opposes God with every fiber of your being, and I base that on God's word. There is nothing I can offer that you would accept, but I can point out to you that you can't make sense of anything without first presupposing God. I do this by stripping away at your beliefs until I come to those core beliefs. It is there, when we get there, that I ask you to give an adequate explanation for what you believe, and it is impossible for you to do that. In this way I show you that your worldview is incapable of providing anything of true and ultimate meaning. It is devoid of it unless you first presuppose Christian truths.

SCHAUM: "Do you read for comprehension? The measure is p-r-o-o-f, something that neither you nor St Peter can provide. Observation provides only e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, and that of a debatable usefulness.

You think that empiricism is the measure by which we determine that God is. If you can't prove Him by your senses then you reason that He doesn't exist. If that is the case then show me logic empirically.

Again you can't 'show' me logic, but without it you can't build on anything. The very sentences you construct have meaning. They convey thoughts and concepts that you cannot show me empirically. Grasp me the concept of orange. Let me feel it. Let me taste orange.

Where does logic come from? If it can't be shown empirically does it exist? Does two plus two equal four need to be actual in any possible universe? Can it ever be equal to five or six? Can you eat the concept 'six?' Then how does it exist in an empirical universe?

Navin:

"But what do you mean by p-r-o-o-f?

Formal proof; Mathematical proof; Argument

Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects

Justification, in epistemology, a reason for or explanation of a proposition or belief

Provability logic

Do you not have a dictionary? Or do you take some pleasure in being obtuse?

"Is this some fancy idea that is fluid on your convenience or do you posit criteria?"

See above.

Always sikh the truth, Navin.

Daniel12:

"In the West it is a logical impossibility to be an atheist and mystic.”

This from someone who has neither the understanding, perception nor vocabulary to discuss either atheists or mysticism!

Daniel12 is spectacularly inept when it comes to even the traditional philosophical arguments for god, such as the cosmological, the ontological and the arguments from design. Rather, he attacks those who do not believe in god in vague, fact-less “arguments” often so skewed and superficial that he makes no more contact with believers than with non-believers. Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, his comments and quotes are as reckless as they usually are deficient in accuracy.

But it is not anger that fuels his “thinking” or his “writing”. If anything, it is exasperation, the frustration of a man who imagines himself capable of directing people to their own noses, but denied the opportunity.

Exasperation is his dominant theme: it irritates him beyond endurance that atheists – of whom he knows nothing and perceives less -- are so often given a respectful hearing. He consistently fails to make a case, because he does not understand that to defeat an enemy you have first to understand it, and he is just too baffled to do that.

Schaum, you have replace the word god with p-r-o-o-f. But what do you mean by p-r-o-o-f?

Is this some fancy idea that is fluid on your convenience or do you posit criteria?

hariaum

Timmy, as much as I have fun and pleasure from this site, I do honestly intend to look honestly at what people say. Of course, you and I don't have to agree that the the other is right and, as in martial arts, if you don't spar, you don't know.

I am opposed to the simple negation. That is not much of an argument. Once we understand that we are debating the way the world appears to us as individual, I believe (not fact but certainly something I have observed) that we can move forward. If we are simply saying the theists are wrong and that does not need support because it is a negation, there is no where to go with that.

We theists may well be wrong. But, as I have said (I think many times) my god is Brahman=Truth. I know it is an impossible attainment, but I do not walk a road because it is easy, I walk a road because it speaks to me - it is observed by me to be useful. I suppose (again not proof) that you too are walking a road. We are arguing about taking roads - unfortunately, the obvious, to me, fact that we travel a metaphysical path as humans is itself considered foolishness when pretty much every great Human has take a path (not mine, but a path).

I apologize if my sparring has included unnecessary roughness.

hariaum

St Peter Huff:

"God is good. He didn't create good. That is a part of His nature, the nature that makes God God."

Reiterating your fairy tales and myths may give you something to do that you think is meaningful, but with your constant lack of proofs, it is meaningful ONLY to you.

You want to be taken seriously here? Offer proof of a god.

SCHAUM: "The absence theodicy does not explain why god created the scale of good and evil. We only experience any of these varying things because God created the scales in the first place, and created the extent of either end of the scale."

God is good. He didn't create good. That is a part of His nature, the nature that makes God God. He does according to that nature. He ALLOWED and foreordained evil for the purpose that greater good would be realized by the presence of evil. When He gave Adam the free will to choose to know and live with Him in a loving relationship, He knew (as the knower of all things) that Adam would choose otherwise.

SCHAUM: "By creating scales of heat and chill, good and evil, god makes it possible for us to experience them. If God chose not to create the scale of good and evil, then experience of evil would not be possible, only the experience of good. Not all experiences exist on scales; for example the Universe exists. Its existence and our experience of its existence is not on a scale, it absolutely exists. God could have made happiness or goodness an absolute, not part of a scale. But God instead created evil by creating the good/evil dichotomy."

For a purpose, that greater good would arise from it. He did not force Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree. But He did provide the consequences, and one of the consequences was that man would know evil. When Adam and Eve took of the fruit they knew evil. God did not force them to eat the fruit. It was something they did of their own accord, yet God foreordains all that happens without limiting man the ability to chose.

SCHAUM: "All the various attempts to explain why God created evil do not make sense and we are therefore left with the truth that either God is evil or does not exist."

Silly logic. Just because a finite, limited being may not know why something is created does not mean that God does not have an adequate reason for allowing that something to happen, in this case evil. If you could fathom all things you would have no need for an outside objective standard for then you would be that standard, but the point is that you do. Please provide it. If you can't why would I feel anything you say is reliable, unless of course it corresponds to what an objective, comprehensive, all-known Being has disclosed.

We need that revelation from Him in order to make sense of anything ultimately, for when you start tearing back the layers and veils of your presuppositional foundational core beliefs you are left with nothing that can make sense of anything.

Navin:

"Do you posit, unlike Timmy, that it is not observation but logic that is the measure?"

Do you read for comprehension? The measure is p-r-o-o-f, something that neither you nor St Peter can provide. Observation provides only e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, and that of a debatable usefulness.

So either you believe there is an existence and thus a truth of its existence or you deny there is an existence. See this how logic works. You look at the solution space and sometimes it is a tautology.

Your idea is that somehow logic is valid. How do you prove that logic is valid or meaningful. Do you know of a god of logic? Do you posit, unlike Timmy, that it is not observation but logic that is the measure?

See, actually the way it works is that you make statements even if you try not to. You just have to have a belief system that you don't so you can deny that you do. Either you are lying or you have a system of validation.

By the way, there is no measurable coldness. There is no measurable darkness. Each of these, last I read in physics are an absence of a posited reality (heat and light). You scales are wrong in the physical scientific view, you hold on to them because you find it inconvenient to face scientific truth statements - sounds like a religious fundamentalist, think you not.

hariuam

St Peter Huff:

"Deny it Professor and you deny that anything can be known"

Well, St Peter, you have finally, if only accidentally, stumbled upon a real truth: NOTHING can be _KNOWN_.

The non-existence of god can logically be inferred from the god-believer's perpetual inability to prove the existence of god. Bad news for you. You are intellectually bankrupt.

SCHAUM: "God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every nuance in-between on all those scales--such as not hot and not cold, not rich and not poor, not good and not evil. "God" could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place. Either God is evil or it does not exist."

God did not create suffering in the FIRST PLACE. He created a universe that was very good. If it was very good in God's eyes then there was no evil in it. Suffering and decay came after Satan and then man chose to know the difference between good and evil and went against God's command. Remember, man chose. God created the free will in Adam, in giving Adam the ability to choose whether or not he would obey God and sustain the relationship, and thus learn and grow in it. Evil is doing the contrary of what God has defined as good. It is breaking the relationship by the attempt to live by ones own means, as if that were ever possible, for every breath we take is a gift from God.

But in order to have a being that is capable of loving, that being needs to be able to choose whether or not to love or else you have a robot.

I'm not saying that our will is free, in the respect that it is built upon our nature and our nature choses to oppose God, but we still have volition. Free will suggests neutrality. Since Adam man has lost that ability. In Adam he had the ABILITY to sin or not to sin. He sinned. Since that time we no longer have the ability not to sin, unless we are created anew in Christ - the new birth. You are not free to obey God for your mind will not let you. You WANT to do your own thing because you want to call the shots, to be your own god, deciding what will be called good and what will be called evil, and that each man to his own desire until the point where he is forced to obey the will of someone stronger, faster, meaner than he is. But God is not such a Being. He does not have the presence of evil in Him for He always sees the total picture, knows all things. He alone is able to act justly, because He alone can fathom all things and good is His very nature. Objectivity is without bias and is able to look at something as it really is, knowing the facts in their true relationship. Do you think you are that?

NAVIN 1,

Part One

"just as I thought. Timmy you are mixing up your observation of an assinine story and your interpretation"

Nah. Just crackin wise. Your posts are getting quite hostile and dishonest. I took it for a while but now I'm starting to retaliate. It's a weakness. I'm sorry.

"Perhaps the Timmy solution is the only solution"

I highly doubt it. But just for clarity. What is it that you see as "the Timmy solution". And try to be honest about what you actually think my position is as opposed to inventing a foe that's easy to argue with. You don't want to resort to Onofrio style debate. You can do better than that.

I have told you that I accept the possibility of virtually everything you say about reality. I'm fascinated by it's implications and even inspired to live a better life by them. I continuously in my life make an honest search for the kind of connection to another consciousness that you speak of. Unlike the Abrahamic God, I actually want it to be true. I meditate and do yoga every day. I've read many books on Buddhism and Hinduism and mindfulness. When I first learned about quantum theory I exclaimed, "oh my god, Hinduism is right!" Of course I didn't mean Hinduism so much as I meant monism. And I didn't mean "right" so much as I meant "possibly on to something".

It seems that my only transgression against your beliefs is that I dare accuse you of only "possibly being on to something" instead of holding the truth of reality. And my only reason for that is my agnostic nature. As Dan in the den has pointed out many times, I don't chose what I believe. I don't have that free will. I look at all of the evidence I can possibly gather, and my mind tells me if I think it's true, or if I think it's not true. But those aren't the only two options. My mind also sometimes tells me that I don't have enough information to form a belief one way or another. In the case of Abrahamic God. My mind won't allow me to believe it. In the case of monism. My mind won't allow me to make a call one way or the other because it is telling me that I do not have enough information to do so. So I leave it an open question worthy of further investigation, even though I may die never having been able to gather enough information about it for my mind to let me believe it to be certainly true.

NAVIN 1

Part Two

"Perhaps the Timmy solution is the wrong solution"

Perhaps. Solution for what by the way?

"How would Timmy know?"

Know what?

"Damn, another interpretation of how we sense. Look, one chooses to be ignorant and bombs a school in Pakistan"

This is a misinterpretation of a religious scripture, (or a correct one depending on your theology) Not a misinterpretation of one or all of the five senses.

"Another chooses to be ignorant and sets off on a crusade"

If you are trying to make my argument against religion you are doing a great job.

"Another sets off a cultural revolution to teach secular humanism to those deluded peasants"

Some cultural revolutions are good things. Remember slavery?

"Muslim, christian, atheist - even Hindu, can have a supposition of knowing, but when you think you are the only right way to know (to sense even) then you are an ass"

You are the one with the supposition of knowing the only true reality. I am the agnostic discouraging that kind of behavior.

Navin1:

"On the other hand, do you have a relationship to truth - bhakti in that terminology."

Two presuppositions that you cannot support: you assume I agree there is a "truth" to be known/understood/lived; and you assume I agree that it is possible to have a relationship with your "truth".

"Can you prove the ultimate validity of your relationship - do you know exactly what truth is, can you prove that your observations will always be truthful."

More unsupportable presuppositions: that "ultimate validity" is possible, that I have a "relationship" of which your "ultimate validity" (whatever the f#ck that is), that anyone can prove that "observations will always be truthful."

"if you feel you don't need to prove the truthfulness of your conjecture as to the nature of the world, why do you propose other people try to prove things to you?"

See, this is how it works: those who claim there is a god have the burden of proof. Thats the way logic works. Make a positive statement and support it with proof. When persons making a positive posit are unable to offer proofs in support, the rest of us may logically infer the negative. Negatives need no proof other than the failure of the positive to present proof.

Is that simple enough to understand?

Always sikh the truth, Navin.

Of course you conveniently ignored the proof that appears at the start and the end of the post.

hariaum

St. Peter Huff:

"So Professor, please sit down unless you are able to provide in empirical observable proof that logic exists."

So, St Peter, please shut up unless you are able to provide empirical observable proof that god exists. You can't. You never have, and you never will.

You are just a worn out, predictable fundamentalist fanatic. Nobody much pays attention to you.

Schaum

Yes, you got me. When I said I didn't have proof you got me, I didn't have proof. Your logic is immeasurably great.

On the other hand, do you have a relationship to truth - bhakti in that terminology. Can you prove the ultimate validity of your relationship - do you know exactly what truth is, can you prove that your observations will always be truthful. Yet, if you feel you don't need to prove the truthfulness of your conjecture as to the nature of the world, why do you propose other people try to prove things to you?

Further, are you not engaged in living life with the models of how reality is to the best of your ability? - are you not engaged in action / karma.

Do you not choose to discipline your constructs of the way to understand the world? Are you having random thoughts or a Rajasic experience?

I believe you do, can you prove me wrong or right?

hariaum

SCHAUM: ""Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things - do they exist in this world? "
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
[No answer]
The professor suddenly shouts at his student, "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"...The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
[No answer]
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
[The student doesn't answer]
"Sit down, please."

Everything takes faith in something, or else there would be no foundation in which to base anything on. The difference between your faith and mine is the difference between basing your faith on God or basing it on a foundation of mid-air.

What a laugh - 'empirical, testable evidence' all the while the Professor uses logic that in itself he is not able to touch, hear, smell, taste, see and yet without it nothing can be made sense of. So Professor, please sit down unless you are able to provide in empirical observable proof that logic exists. Please touch it, smell it, taste it, hear it, show me the tangible proof that it exists.

Deny it Professor and you deny that anything can be known, yet you can't show empirically that there is such a thing. Talk about foolishness.

The same is true of God. Deny Him and you cannot make sense of anything, you cannot know anything truly.

But your worldview is inconsistent. It does borrow from God's objective, ultimate, absolute standard to make sense of anything. On the one hand you deny Him, but on the other hand you rely on looking at life through His way in order that anything can be made sense of. This is the predicament the atheist or unbeliever is in.

I have no idea why the previous post appeared three time. There is, of course, no god...but I'm not _that_ obsessive about it.

"If God is all-powerful and all-good, it would have created a universe with no suffering and no evil. But, evil and suffering exist. Therefore either God does not exist, is not all-powerful or is not benevolent. Attempts to justify the existence of evil are called theodicies. There have been no fully working theodicies created to date, even popular ones such as the free will theodicy were rejected thousands of years ago for reasons that still stand today. It seems that if there is a god, it is not the all-good moral being that classical religions would have us believe."
-------"Introduction to Theodicy" by Vexen, 2000 Jan

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that sees "God" as "goodness", anything not good (such as evil and suffering) is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every nuance in-between on all those scales--such as not hot and not cold, not rich and not poor, not good and not evil. "God" could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place. Either God is evil or it does not exist.

The absence theodicy does not explain why god created the scale of good and evil. We only experience any of these varying things because God created the scales in the first place, and created the extent of either end of the scale. By creating scales of heat and chill, good and evil, god makes it possible for us to experience them. If God chose not to create the scale of good and evil, then experience of evil would not be possible, only the experience of good. Not all experiences exist on scales; for example the Universe exists. Its existence and our experience of its existence is not on a scale, it absolutely exists. God could have made happiness or goodness an absolute, not part of a scale. But God instead created evil by creating the good/evil dichotomy.

All the various attempts to explain why God created evil do not make sense and we are therefore left with the truth that either God is evil or does not exist.

"If God is all-powerful and all-good, it would have created a universe with no suffering and no evil. But, evil and suffering exist. Therefore either God does not exist, is not all-powerful or is not benevolent. Attempts to justify the existence of evil are called theodicies. There have been no fully working theodicies created to date, even popular ones such as the free will theodicy were rejected thousands of years ago for reasons that still stand today. It seems that if there is a god, it is not the all-good moral being that classical religions would have us believe."
-------"Introduction to Theodicy" by Vexen, 2000 Jan

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that sees "God" as "goodness", anything not good (such as evil and suffering) is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every nuance in-between on all those scales--such as not hot and not cold, not rich and not poor, not good and not evil. "God" could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place. Either God is evil or it does not exist.

The absence theodicy does not explain why god created the scale of good and evil. We only experience any of these varying things because God created the scales in the first place, and created the extent of either end of the scale. By creating scales of heat and chill, good and evil, god makes it possible for us to experience them. If God chose not to create the scale of good and evil, then experience of evil would not be possible, only the experience of good. Not all experiences exist on scales; for example the Universe exists. Its existence and our experience of its existence is not on a scale, it absolutely exists. God could have made happiness or goodness an absolute, not part of a scale. But God instead created evil by creating the good/evil dichotomy.

All the various attempts to explain why God created evil do not make sense and we are therefore left with the truth that either God is evil or does not exist.

"If God is all-powerful and all-good, it would have created a universe with no suffering and no evil. But, evil and suffering exist. Therefore either God does not exist, is not all-powerful or is not benevolent. Attempts to justify the existence of evil are called theodicies. There have been no fully working theodicies created to date, even popular ones such as the free will theodicy were rejected thousands of years ago for reasons that still stand today. It seems that if there is a god, it is not the all-good moral being that classical religions would have us believe."
-------"Introduction to Theodicy" by Vexen, 2000 Jan

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that sees "God" as "goodness", anything not good (such as evil and suffering) is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every nuance in-between on all those scales--such as not hot and not cold, not rich and not poor, not good and not evil. "God" could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place. Either God is evil or it does not exist.

The absence theodicy does not explain why god created the scale of good and evil. We only experience any of these varying things because God created the scales in the first place, and created the extent of either end of the scale. By creating scales of heat and chill, good and evil, god makes it possible for us to experience them. If God chose not to create the scale of good and evil, then experience of evil would not be possible, only the experience of good. Not all experiences exist on scales; for example the Universe exists. Its existence and our experience of its existence is not on a scale, it absolutely exists. God could have made happiness or goodness an absolute, not part of a scale. But God instead created evil by creating the good/evil dichotomy.

All the various attempts to explain why God created evil do not make sense and we are therefore left with the truth that either God is evil or does not exist.

Navin1:

"My faith, (not proof) allows me to study the characteristics that form in my relationship to truth. Although it does not define the Truth as it is, it does define the relationship with truth as I see it."

Ah. More unprovable assertions instead of proof. Not even any evidence.

Always sikh the truth, Navin.

FARNAZ: "Then, what?"

That is up to you. If you think you can find the answers through human reasoning alone, outside of the true God, good luck. Take your pick. Chose your religion, what makes you happy. But if you want ultimate answers, a relationship with the living God, not some man made fiction, then ask Him to be merciful to you, bow the knee, admit you have wronged Him, seek His word of truth. His word teaches that He is merciful, that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord, in sincerity, believing God is true; on these He will have mercy.

The problem with human reasoning is it feels it can provide adequate answers outside of God. I can only point you to Him the rest is up to Him, but,

"faith comes from hearing the message ad the message is heard through the Word of Christ." (Romans 10:17)

I've gathered, perhaps wrongly that you are of Jewish descent. Read the rest of the passage of Romans 10:17 along with Isaiah 53 for more of an understanding in the necessity of the Lord Jesus Christ, if you are interested. If not, then I don't see you purpose in asking the question, 'Then what?' Perhaps you can explain?

Please remember that none of us come to the table neutral and without our own personal bias. But that does not mean that we cannot find truth in our quest. Truth requires an objective, omniscient source. An atheist does not have such a source. All he has is himself as his final reference point. He does not have anything outside of subjective opinion.

God is that standard, that measure, that source, that final reference.

Hi Farnaz,

FARNAZ: "I think a lot of us are fond of Onofrio's posts, just as we are of yours! That doesn't mean we put him on a pedestal. I don't think he hates God. I think he doesn't believe God exists."

Hopefully you won't take this as being disrespectful from my observation, but it was in the John Mark Reynold's posts that I noticed your "fondness" for doting on the words of Onofrio, as if he has the answers outside of God. He does not. God is the necessary source for all truth. If something goes against His word it is false. But having said that, I would also submit that a rightful understanding of His word is necessary also. That requires God's grace and searching the Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to gain that understanding. Sometimes that takes a long time, but those who do not give up are rewarded.

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is Spirit, and His worshipers MUST worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

FARNAZ: "But, Peter, for the sake of argument, let us say that he did. And let us say that he called God Allah, or Hashem."

Again, two statements that say contradictory things cannot logically both be true in the same sense and at the same time. You can't have a true God that reveals Himself in one way for one tribe or people and then totally contradictory for another. It is like saying A is B or Stop means Go. It does not make sense. And since you are looking for a logical explanation, I hope you realize two contradictory worldviews cannot both be true at the same time and in the same relationship. You can't say God is Allah and mean that He is the God of Christianity. The two don't mix. Although there are smatterings of truth in the one, it borrows from the other and says opposing things to the earlier. Religion is a man made invention and used by man to explain the unexplainable. Christianity is a relationship with the living and true God.

Schaum,

My God is Truth. I have tried to demonstrate the logical necessity of the Being of Truth. Sorry you missed it but perhaps you are asking my to pull down an old man from the skies.

My faith, (not proof) allows me to study the characteristics that form in my relationship to truth. Although it does not define the Truth as it is, it does define the relationship with truth as I see it.

My actions in this life are based on my understanding, interpretations, of that relationship between me, Truth and then, on extension, others.

My attempt to discipline my mind, my perceptions, and my senses to better grasp that relationship is, in my tradition, called yoga.

These general categories are Gyana (gnosis - same root), Bhakti (faith), Karma (action), Rajas (loosely - discipline). I find that all people need all elements to be human in this world - though at varying levels. It is not that the levels are better than another, the "betterness" is the individual's honesty to themself as to the overall process. Some people can see all things in all things, others can't. I do not have criteria by which to "judge" who is right - I have a faith that we are all trying and thus I have a conclusion to attempt to see how their perspective may be "right" - thus further inform my perspective.

The observation, that others report hallucinations, that other report personal relationships with a thing called god (and that some have disrupted logics while others are quite logical and functioning highly in a complex environment) suggests that they may have data that I don't.

As a mystic, I have data that you don't. I don't expect you to believe the data. But if you deny my data, then you must have data on which to base that denial - you must know the entirety of my cognitive state - indeed you must have absolute and complete data to say I don't experience something. Then, you would be a far greater mystic than me.

The proof of the existence of god: God is truth, truth exists, god exists.

hariaum

If we draw a continuum line with Good at one end and Evil at the other, there is a centre point that is neither Good nor Evil - it's NEUTRAL. Thats called life.

The absence of good and/or evil is a state of neutrality. If a slice of chocolate cake is good, and a pinch on the arm is evil, then the absence of both cake and pinch is neutral.

The notion that an absence of Good is ipso facto Evil is a silly and counterproductive semantic scam. There is no god. Just god myths.

And that's an observation.

hariaum

just as I thought. Timmy you are mixing up your observation of an assinine story and your interpretation. I wonder if you do that elsewhere without even realizing it.

Perhaps the Timmy solution is the only solution. Perhaps the Timmy solution is the wrong solution. How would Timmy know? Well he is educated, but can he interpret his education in a meaningful way. Well he is reasonable, but that too is just subjective observation. Wait, evolution, yes, we can touch and feel that, it is quite sensible, like the existence of atoms whose electron we can not know the location and velocity at the same time but we can sense them. Damn, models! - interpretations to better grasp what we sense.

Once the interpretations have utility, we use them, once that utility is lost, we give them up - an epistemology of utility. Damn, another interpretation of how we sense. Look, one chooses to be ignorant and bombs a school in Pakistan. Another chooses to be ignorant and sets off on a crusade. Another sets off a cultural revolution to teach secular humanism to those deluded peasants. Muslim, christian, atheist - even Hindu, can have a supposition of knowing, but when you think you are the only right way to know (to sense even) then you are an ass.

hariaum

2.
"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness. All the terrible things - do they exist in this world? "
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?"
[No answer]
The professor suddenly shouts at his student, "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christian's face. In a still small voice, he asked, "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"
[No answer]
The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"
[No answer]
"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and
whispers, "Is God good?"
[No answer]
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."
The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No, sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir. I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"
[No answer]
"Answer me, please."
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"
"No, sir."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"...yes..."
"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"
[The student doesn't answer]
"Sit down, please."

1.
"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes, sir."
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could...in fact most of us would if we could....God doesn't."
[No answer]
"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
[No answer]
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. "In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er... Yes."
"Is Satan good?"
"No."
"Where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From... God..."
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"
"Yes."
"Who created evil?"
[No answer]

DT: "Is God willing to prevent these things, but is not able? Is God able to prevent them, but not willing? If he is both willing and able, then why do hurricanes and earthquakes occur and why do they kill people young and old, believer and non-believer equally?"

For the greater good that His purposes may be realize by some. You are judging everything on a finite, limited understanding of existence and your own understanding of good outside of an absolute, objective source. You do not allow, in your mind, that God knows best and that He has greater good in mind by allowing humans choose. From these circumstances and natural disasters some come to the knowledge of God by His grace and mercy.

AND THE FACT STILL REMAINS WHY DO YOU CRITIQUE GOD FOR EVIL WITHOUT HAVING AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR IT YOURSELF.

He allowed or decreed it that greater good would come from the situation, just like He did in Egypt during the time of Joseph in which He guided the situation to save lives.

"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Genesis 50:20)

Notice that the brothers who sold Joseph into slavery intended it for Josephs harm, but God intended it for the greater good in the long run, the saving of His people through whom the Messiah would come.

If God had allowed the Israelites to perish through starvation the promise of the Messiah would not have been fulfilled and the eternal salvation of mankind would not have been realized. God would not have remained truthful to His word, something that it is impossible for God not to do, for He is truth.

"'The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.' As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and His call are irrevocable.'" (Romans 11:

The redemption motif is constant throughout the Bible. God is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. He protects them and causes greater good to arise through hardships. He has the Christian in His hands for eternity. There is no sting in death for the Christian. If he is wiped out in an earthquake, he is in God's hands, in His eternal presence. Not so the case of the unbeliever.

DT: "Hurricanes for example are not merely the absence of clear skies. It is a complex weather system in and of itself. Why would God allow a hurricane or an earthquake like the one that happened recently in Haiti happen and cause suffering?"

That greater good may be realized. The eternal saving of many lives through hardship. The possible realization that life is fleeting, transitory, here today and gone tomorrow, an object lesson to the West, and to those who ignore and deny the only true and living God, who, sitting in their lap of comfort have forgotten the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. Without suffering and death man would have no need of God and take God for granted or deny Him completely. Everything would be peachy and even though they were created and are sustained by God their existence would be senseless and futile in their attempts to create their own meaning and purpose. It is a rude reminder.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times and places set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:24-27)

Oh no Frio,

I can't help but notice that you like to sarcastically insinuate that I am "absolutist".

I'd sure like to not be that anymore. Can you help me? Can you tell me which of my views are absolutist so I can correct? I don't want to be like Peter and NAVIN and TTSTY. I want to be like you and Farnaz and all of the other cool headed non absolutists. Can you help me to stop being so absolutist? I just need to know what I said that is absolutist so I can retract it and promise never to say it again.

Seriously I really don't want to be an absolutist. Obviously I'm saying things that are absolutist and I'm not picking up on it. It's very embarrassing. Like having a booger hanging from your nose and no one will tell you it's there. Can you help me? Can you point to my booger so I can wipe it off? Please? It's the empathetic thing to do. How about you Farnaz. Will you do the empathetic thing here and point out my absolutist dialogue?

Help a fellow blogger out.

DT: "Likewise, if evil is the absence of good we still have the same problem. Evil doesn’t have to be the absence of good. We could be living in a universe where that was not the case. In fact, I would argue that we already do live in such a universe. While evil can be the absence of good, it isn’t just the absence of good."

Do a search for Ronald Nash's MP3' s on "Possible World's' and "Middle Knowledge" for a refutation of your above premises.

DT: "Evil doesn't have to be the absense of good."

What are you doing, making up your own definition of evil to suit your mind? Evil is the antithesis of good, the opposite of good. Good has to have an ultimate, absolute, objective measure and source to be known. You have to have something to compare good to. If good is subjective and relative how can you call it 'good?' It is just your feelings verses mine, and may I suggest that this is the plight of the world since creation - man's inability to determine good outside of God.

DT: "The question of theodicy (as the Problem of Evil is called) is a question about suffering. Why do bad things happen to good people or to all people indiscriminately?"

It is called The Fall, when man chose to disobey God and choose for himself what good and evil are to be, just like you do. At that time God imposed 'the curse.' Death, disease and natural catastrophes are the result of disobedience and are for the purpose of bringing about a greater good in bringing the elect into an everlasting relationship with their Maker, a relationship in which there is no evil.

NAVIN 1

"But he is an ass. His observations are perfect, without bias,"

His observations are perfect? That's a subjective opinion.
Without bias? Of course. Senses have no intent. His interpretation of his observations however is subjective.

"And he had just missed his chance to realize that his vision was blinded, his perspective controlled, his ideas predetermined"

Ahh. He should have just listened to someone who "knows" like NAVIN 1 for example. Unlike the rest of us, NAVIN 1 has no predetermined perspective. We should all listen to those who say they know how things really are because who are we to say that they don't really know?

"is the end goal to be a bag of protoplasm, an ass, a Sisyphus, or what we choose to be?"

I choose to be an eagle! Hey nothing happened. What gives? I choose to be oneness with the universe! Presto! Hey nothing happened. What gives? My life is still the same. I told the waitress that the universe would like to see a menu and she just looked at me weird. Oh well, she is an ass. ;)

PeterHuff:

Farnaz, you put Onofrio on too high a pedestal. The biggest chip on his shoulder is his hared of God. That is the reality of the situation. He uses his whole being in a mad attempt to refute his Maker.
----------------------------
Hi Peter,

I think a lot of us are fond of Onofrio's posts, just as we are of yours! That doesn't mean we put him on a pedestal. I don't think he hates God. I think he doesn't believe God exists.

But, Peter, for the sake of argument, let us say that he did. And let us say that he called God Allah, or Hashem.

Then, what?

Farnaz, you put Onofrio on too high a pedestal. The biggest chip on his shoulder is his hared of God. That is the reality of the situation. He uses his whole being in a mad attempt to refute his Maker.

Hi DT,

I should add to my last premise,

God is good.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore God allows evil for a purpose of greater good.

DT: "Often Christians try to use the parent analogy here to explain why God would cause suffering (or not prevent suffering) and still be considered moral. This analogy breaks down pretty easily because God is alleged to be all-powerful and parents are not. God can change the laws of physics."

If God chose to end evil when man originally chose evil then there would not have been a human race. Rather God permitted it as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, or away from Him, as in your case. And in allowing evil, God's sovereign plan was not affected since he knew before He created man that in giving him a freedom to choose man would choose the evil.

That is the lesson that we observe all around us, man operating on his own resources and wisdom rather than on that of God's (Please refresh yourself with the Christian argument of Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:8, etc.).

DT: "We have to understand that the character of God is alleged to be supernatural and therefore not bound by the limits of reason and logic."

What is unreasonable or illogical about a supernatural Being having the power to act outside of the natural???? Reason and logic stem from God for that is part of His nature and attributes. If He was illogical or deficient in reasoning then He would contradict Himself, which He does not do. It is man, in his limited capacity that contradicts himself.

DT: "In the world we currently live in, an ‘up’ implies a ‘down’ and vice versa, but an all-powerful deity could have created a universe in which that was not the case."

Your arguing for the square circle. That is just plan foolishness that only is possible in the illogical world of eastern mysticism. In such a world where everything is illusion the Buddhist still looks both ways before crossing the road. He betrays the premise that everything is illusion.

DT: "He didn’t. God could make it so that you could eat whatever you want and never exercise and still lose weight. A parent on the other hand can’t do that, so a parent has to teach a child about good nutrition and tiring exercise."

So big deal. God is sovereign. He is the One who chooses how things will operate in His creation. "Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why did you make me this way?'" (Romans 9:20b)

Onofrio,

Last post is intended for you.

Farnaz,

Logos = Word = the Son, Christ = Huff

Pneuma = Breath = Holy Spirit = Timmy2

I'm thinking of swapping them, since Huff is puffed up windy, and Timmy2 is so partial to Jesus Christ poses.

The God-daddy is, of course, TTWSYF.

One-in-Three, and Three-in-One.
---------------------------------------
LOL! But I did understand what you mean. I guess I was hesitant to apply those attributes to those bloggers.

But, I leave it to you. As for clarity, hope to gain clarity on their positions. Yes, they seem apparent, but Seem begets Seam; it was evah thus.

Hi Dangeroustalk,

I read your article on the link provided and see that faulty reasoning is the basis for your worldview. Please forgive me for shortening your name so I don't have to type the whole thing.

DT: "So what exactly is the problem of evil anyway? Well, it was best stated by Epicurus at least 250 years before the alleged birth of Jesus. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

Let us try it another way.

God is good.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore God allows evil for a purpose.

DT: "Philosophically speaking, let’s define evil in one of two ways. Evil could be defined as the opposite of good or as the absence of good. There is a third definition that I will save for later. Let’s say that evil is the opposite of good and God created evil so that human beings can better understand and/or appreciate the good as many Christians claim. That doesn’t really solve the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful, then he wouldn’t need to create evil so that humans could better understand good. He could just snap his all-powerful fingers and humans would understand and appreciate the good without the evil. To do otherwise would be cruel."

You are forgetting a number of factors. First the sovereign God chose to create man with attributes that God has such as reason, the ability to love, have compassion, understand good, and the ability to make decisions and choices.

In the Garden God gave man, in his limited, finite capacity to understand, the ability to choose to obey or disobey God. By eating of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the Garden, man would know what evil was.

So the original man, Adam, had freedom to choose to sin or the freedom, or ability, to choose not to sin. Thus he was unique in that since we are from the seed of Adam we no longer have the ability not to sin, except when God gives us new birth, a new nature (ie. what Christians call regeneration).

Evil is what man does when he becomes the final arbiter, the all-knowing reference point, the measure of all things - like you, your own god - and determines for himself what good and evil is. And it is funny how an atheist never wants to call evil what it is. But you still have to explain it. I don't see you being able to give an ultimate, adequate explanation. Please feel free to try.

If evil is the opposite of good, you as an atheist still have the problem of justifying why what you call good is good.

One day, the ass is walking up the hill kicking a rock up the hill while carrying a bag of protoplasm.

The ass thinks, why am I kicking up this rock? He reflects that the first two bags of protoplasm were certainly sensed to be the best bags of protoplasm in the world. Yet he was driven by biology to mate with other bags of protoplasm, which were certainly the best sensory bags of protoplasm that he has "bagged." How sensible his sensations have been in leading him to knowledge of being a bag.

As he walks down the hill. He wonders, why is it that not all asses do this. It is so easy. Walk up and down a hill, push a stone up the hill, watch it roll down, get carrots and bags of protoplasm. Clearly his sense would deceive him to suggest that there may be more. You know, those humans that want to build constructs and ideas that ask questions of why. Or perhaps that bag of protoplasm that keeps stupidly dumping carrots into the kids basket everyday - why doesn't that human bag of protoplasm eat the carrot?

Alas, the question of why are too much for the kid. One day he slips off the slippery slopes of the grand canyon and plummets to become the particles making up another bag of protoplasm with bursts of oxytocin and dopamine.

But then, perhaps he wasn't an ass. Perhaps this bag of protoplasm was Sisyphus. And he had just missed his chance to realize that his vision was blinded, his perspective controlled, his ideas predetermined. Not in a biological sense but by his owner. Perhaps Sisyphus could have joined the human race by looking beyond the senses and trying to exercise the acetylcholine and glutamate in his brain to put together a sense of reality that could say come up with theories on illness, earthquakes, or being and thus advance a consciousness of a series of bags of protoplasm that was greater than protoplasm. But then again, perhaps Sisyphus was an ass. Who will know, who will care to know, is knowing valuable, is acting of knowing wise, is the end goal to be a bag of protoplasm, an ass, a Sisyphus, or what we choose to be?

hariaum

Now the kid always sees that his ideas of the world are good. As he grows someone comes up and puts blinders on him, puts a carrot in front of him, and whips his butt. The kid starts walking. After a few thousands trips, the kid observes that to get the carrot he needs to pick up a sack of protoplasm and walk down a path. He wonders if there is a cliff next to him as sometimes he thinks he sees it but has no evidence that he will fall off. He keeps going.

Sure enough, he gets multiple carrots and gets to mate with other bags of protoplasm for having done such a good job of going up and down.

Now, perhaps this is an interpretation, the kid could well be a goat, a human, or an ass.

Now the ass could be going up and down the Grand Canyon and happily observing that his free will allows him to go up and down and manipulate the world into giving him carrots and other bags of protoplasm with which to mate.

But he is an ass. His observations are perfect, without bias, objective.

hariaum

Navin1:

"I do not deny the value of evidence, but I do not discard the evidence of something more - invisible dimensions, god, self, reincaenations..."

Ah! You have evidence of god. Please feel free to cite it.

Always sikh the truth, Navin.

A story:

A bag of protoplasm ejects another bag of protoplasm. The second bag, let us call it a kid, smells, hears, sees, and tastes this ooze coming out of the first bag. A gush of oxytocin and dopamine pulses into the kid's brain and the kid says this is good.

A few months pass and the first bag of protoplasm is sometimes replaced by a funny smelling another bag of protoplasm whose nipple is made of some harder substance attached to a really harder subtance, but that ooze is pretty similar. A gush of oxytocin and dopamine pulses into the kid's brain and the kid says this is good.

A few years later, a bag resembling the first bag of protoplasm is seen by the kid. of oxytocin and dopamine pulses into the kid's brain and the kid says this is good. The kid figures, determined by a series of chemicals selected for by evolution, that when he inserts his erectile parts into this new bag of protoplasm the of oxytocin and dopamine pulses into the kid's brain and the kid says this is good.

Sure enough this third bag of protoplasm ejects another little bag of protoplasm and the kid gets another gush of oxytocin and dopamine pulses into the kid's brain and the kid says this is good.

Hariaum

Admittedly, the philosophical problem of evil was the catalyst for my break from religion. However, as I learned more about the Abrahamic religions, I started to dismiss the problem of evil in favor of more compelling arguments.

However, after listening to Christians attempt to respond to the problem of evil, their responses seem incomplete at best and quite possibly just plain silly. As such, I have gained a new found respect for the problem of evil.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic: http://lnk.ms/5VVDW

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

proves this often = proves this as often as you.

Navin1:

"Not everyone is suited to recognizing the failings of the senses nor the delusion of self righteousness"

And no one, with the possible exception of St. Peter Huff, proves this often.

Always sikh the truth, Navin.

Timmy2:

"but I don't want to get all preachy and tell people what they should do"

Good attitude. St. Peter Huff, gods other son, with his addiction to the non-existant Absolute Reference, is preacher enough for one thread.

TTWSYF,

Thee:
"Insults get you nowhere with me; the more there are, the more I like them."

Since you are a self-flogger, such masochistic relish is not surprising. I can see you lavishing lashings of Christhood on yourself to the tune of imagined jeers, and a Kyrie eleison. Lacrymosa. Then, in all your hurt pride you gather up a Dies irae of dead babies to ejaculate against the world you loathe. Another pompous ANS/IRT Thomist litany.

You revel in pain, the hell you cherish for the gayabortionistleftcommie monsters of your fondest nightmares. You are addicted to the warm slough of guilt and sharp penances that follow the outbreaks of your own lust.

Bad faith.

Farnaz,

Logos = Word = the Son, Christ = Huff

Pneuma = Breath = Holy Spirit = Timmy2

I'm thinking of swapping them, since Huff is puffed up windy, and Timmy2 is so partial to Jesus Christ poses.

The God-daddy is, of course, TTWSYF.

One-in-Three, and Three-in-One.

PERSIFLAGE

ANS:
Is switching from suffering, to Teresa, to contraceptives, to pedophilia your way of not facing the issues? Insults get you nowhere with me; the more there are, the more I like them. It is a sign you are having problems with the truth. I’ll assume you never looked at the some 35 to 40 dangers you face in using the pill. Of course, the oblivion to reality is a benchmark for the left-wing PC crowd. They care less how many die as long as it isn’t them. Consequently, some 52 million unborn are dead by abortion.

Yes, the Christians have managed to at least stop the maniacal left from sucking out the brains of an unborn being born, though we've failed to prevent their being sliced to pieces, sucked apart and scalding them to death by saline. Abortion is the PC's final solution to contraception.

"In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) revised its 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual' so that neither pedophilia nor pederasty would in itself necessarily be indicative of psychological disorder.

"To qualify as disordered the molesters must feel "anxious" about their acts or be 'impaired' in their work or social relationships. Then in 1998, a study released by the American APA argued that sexual abuse of children does not cause emotional disorders or unusual psychological problems in adulthood.

"Heterosexual relations among teen-agers have also been redefined. The book cites examples where sexual -promiscuity among adolescents is now seen as perfectly normal. According to this view, the real problem is with programs that promote abstinence. Proponents of promiscuity allege that such programs contribute to deviant behavior, intolerance and a dangerous failure to use contraceptives

"Dr. Judith Reisman, the nation's leading expert on the sexual psychopaths and author of Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, have advised the bishops to take legal actions against their legal and medical experts who offered them the disastrous advice that brought them to the present crisis."--The Reisman Report

When we see the inevitable consequences of gay sex, we vilify to the Bishops who acted on the APA’s advice. Consequently, we blame the Church. After PCs forced the Church to allow gays into the priesthood, we’ve seen what lifting the bans on gay ordination turned out to be with the Church’s pedophile and pederasty priests' problems. Who does more harm, the advocate of illicit sex or the Church?

Onofrio:

"the mysterious burblings of Logos and Pneuma."

Not sure of the attributions. But sure 'tis I am mystified, I am.

Clarity will clear with break of day, or day of break (?), not likely, that latter. Await the sun, then, and return of errant scribes.

:->

O bloglings, know that glints of divine dialectic are parting your cloudy funk:

Timmy to Huff:
"I think you think that objectively means all the same. It doesn't. It means without personal bias."

Huff back to Timmy:
"There is no such thing as without bias. What is objective must conform to what is."

Here is something well beyond merely human discourse. Here is a clear intimation of the perfect deliberations of the hypostaseis that weave the very tissue of being; a hint of the glory of the numerous other -tions that only TTWSYF knoweth; the mysterious burblings of Logos and Pneuma.

Be humbled, bloglings, you have been granted a glimpse. All hail the whole e-Trinity...

Oh joy! A divine conjunction of Timmy2 and Peter Huff - all we need now is for planet TTWSYF to swing into view and we'll have the whole e-Trinity of threadly absolutists! Let's hear it for the Jackboot Lovecat, the Torturer's Apprentice, and the Fully Automated Fulminating Self-Flogging Thomist.

Woo hoo...achoo, choo.

"sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun..."

"Whereas O No Frio comes only to deeeeestroy! Mwahahahahaaaa...."

Well he tries his best anyway, and we have to give him credit for trying like the little engine that could. Chooo choooo! ;)

Huff the Magic Dragon,

"What makes your senses the ultimate reference point in deciding things are what they are?"

I never said anything of the sort.

"If you are arguing against an objective truth, what makes your statement true?"

I am not arguing against an objective truth. I am arguing against positing one with no evidence for one.

"You are saying that there is no objective truth"

No I am not. Just that no one has presented any evidence of one. There may very well be one.

"You can't argue against an absolute truth without stating one"

I don't argue against an absolute truth. I just don't believe your claim, or NAVIN 1's claim to know what it is, or even that it is at all. You and NAVIN 1 both claim to know the true reality and yet they are completely different. At least one of you has to be wrong.

"How can it be objective if it was not accurate?"

Objective has nothing to do with acurate. It means "without personal bias. It doesn't matter how poorly a nose smells, for the information that arrives in the brain from the nose to be not objective, the nose would have to have opinions. Do noses have opinions Peter? Do olfactory sensors have opinions? The job of the senses is long over before subjectivity comes into play.

"Why are you the measure of what is?"

Never said that I was.

Timmy, since you are not responding I'm off to bed.

Timothy you are coping-out.

TIMMY: "BTW Navin 1 has become a bit of a Peter Huff type and even you and Farnaz are not empathetic with him."

One thing I will give you Timmy is that you mostly tried to answer my questions during our long debates on the Sam Harris forum. But during that time you never dug deep enough into your worldview to answer life's ultimate questions, nor could you. Is that why you are now delving into Eastern thought and philosophy, or as you say 'spirituality'? That is dead end. I've been there thirty-some years ago.

Timmy, Part 2,

TIMMY: "Objectively yes, but with accuracy no."

How can it be objective if it was not accurate?

TIMMY: "I think you think that objectively means all the same. It doesn't. It means without personal bias."

There is no such thing as without bias. What is objective must conform to what is.

"Your objective senses have been given to you by your culture"

TIMMY: "No by evolution."

How can something impersonal give intent?

TIMMY: "No, my giver of evidence. I have no giver of truth. That is a notion for theists."

Then you have no truth, just preference to do and believe one thing over another. Without an ultimate standard truth can never be known. Who determines it?

TIMMY: "Good thing I also have intuition."

What is 'good' about it? Good implies an ultimate measure. If your intuition measures it one way, mine another why is your intuition good if it opposes mine?

TIMMY: "I'm trying but you are misinterpreting at a blinding rate. You are only capable of arguing with words you put in my mouth it seems."

Do your words have meaning and truth to them? Can they convey a concept that anyone outside of yourself can grasp? Of course they can, so, from what you have said, I can know something about what you believe, can I not? That is if you are communicating cogently.

TIMMY: "Who can see things that I can't see. I have 20/20 vision. You mean people with extra senses that I don't have? Like you?"

Why are you the measure of what is?

Hi Timmy,

Please let me show you the futility of such thinking and forgive me for being so personal as to attack your reasoning.

TIMMY: "No, I see, feel, smell, and hear what I see, feel, smell and hear.
I have no reason to believe things are different than my senses are telling me. I can imagine it's possible that they might be. But no reason to believe it."

Join the crowd. There are many a position that disagree with yours. What makes your senses the ultimate reference point in deciding things are what they are?

TIMMY: "Observation is objective I think."

Again, you think. Your reason seems to be the deciding factor, and subjective at that. Why does your's become the determining factor?

TIMMY: "It's no special power of mine.
But interpretation of that observation is subjective for sure."

Unless that persons observation thinks after the thoughts of a purely objective, ultimate source, then it can be objective and absolute. That is the necessity for objectivity and certainty.

TIMMY: "No you definitely don't understand. You are the one positing an objective truth, I am the one arguing against doing just that."

If you are arguing against an objective truth, what makes your statement true? Again, you contradict yourself. You are saying that there is no objective truth, but in order for that statement to be true, the statement you made would have to qualify as an objective truth. It would be better not to say anything.

You can't argue against an absolute truth without stating one, and in stating one you deny your claim that there is none. It is what is known as a self-refuting statement.

Oh no Frio,

"I don't see much "empathy" in your exchanges below with Navin and Justillthen"

Justilthen is not a brainwashed believer. I am not attacking his beliefs. He began a conversation with me trying to convince me that my views on religion are wrong. I have been more polite with him than he has ever been with me. If you'd like to provide a quote where you think I got out of line with Justilthen I'd be happy to consider your position again.

As for NAVIN 1. Again, I am simply defending my choice not to be a theist and explaining my agnosticism to him and trying to let him know why I don't believe that he "knows" what he is claiming to know. I have told him that I am into the idea of monism and I try to look at the world like we are all one, and I am most inspired by the vedantic spirituality but he then insisted that that wasn't good enough to just imagine these visions as possible but that I must know that it's all true.

Again, if you'd like to quote where you think I was harsh with Navin 1 I'd be happy to reconsider your opinion on it.

Certainly in my most recent post to NAVIN 1 I finally let fly a little in one segment, but if you read the most recent exchange I think you'll see that he is really trying to push buttons and get a rise. I have been quite calm in the face of much erroneous characterization of my views with no quotes to back them up. But I await your examples of my lack of empathy for those deserving of it.

BTW Navin 1 has become a bit of a Peter Huff type and even you and Farnaz are not empathetic with him. But I think I have been very cordial given the nature of his exchange with me.

Hi Navin1,

I agree with your post to Timmy concerning his power of observation (January 26, 2010 12:47 AM ). Without an absolute objective source to measure objectivity against how could it ever be known? This has been mans biggest huddle and battle since the Fall, to explain and validate what he says is true. But it is futility in itself unless he has an objective source to measure truth and reality by. Science is not that source.

And it is in this sense that the atheist keeps borrowing from the Christian worldview. He wants to state truth, but he can't nail it down outside of God. God is necessary for truth.

The question was asked to Timmy,

"You have discovered an Absolute"

TIMMY: "Nope. Just a belief. Absolutes are a religious idea."

The funny thing about such statements are they betray a senseless worldview - senseless in that the very statement contradicts itself. If its just a belief, what makes it true? His power of observation, as you point out? His subjective feelings or preference? Or is it his power of observation in relationship to the 'herd' he runs with?

Such statements make no sense outside of an objective, infinitely wise and revealing Being because they, in effect, state something that is supposed to be objective and absolute - that is in order for it to be true it would have to conform to such a source or final reference point. But where is that source in his worldview? He doesn't have it. So how could he ever really know?

It is not like scientists have never been wrong before. There seems to be as many different subjective claims out there as there are scientists. Find two that agree on every issue. The same with philosophy.

When he says, "Absolutes are a religious idea" is he not stating an absolute, the very thing he denies? Obviously, in order to state that absolutes are a religious idea, he would have to know absolutely and infinitely to make such a statement valid. His whole worldview is on a shakable foundation.

Then he tries to justify his belief by,
TIMMY: "Not an absolute. An observation, as of yet not refuted by evidence to the contrary. If it was an absolute, I would not be begging you for evidence to refute it..."

Sorry Timmy, you have done the job of refuting what you believe without help.

NAVIN 1

"So Timmy, you see, feel, smell, exactly as it is"

No, I see, feel, smell, and hear what I see, feel, smell and hear.
I have no reason to believe things are different than my senses are telling me. I can imagine it's possible that they might be. But no reason to believe it.

"You believe that your power of observation is objective"

Observation is objective I think. It's no special power of mine.
But interpretation of that observation is subjective for sure.

"I now understand. You must be objectivity itself"

No you definitely don't understand. You are the one positing an objective truth, I am the one arguing against doing just that.

"Your eyes, with or without cataract observe objectively"

Objectively yes, but with accuracy no.

"Your nose despite the amount of Zinc in your olfactory nerve is objective"

Yes. Just not effectively. I think you think that objectively means all the same. It doesn't. It means without personal bias. We don't control what our senses tell us so it has to be objective. Unless our senses themselves can have intent. One more time, it is the interpretation that is subjective not the senses.

"Your objective senses have been given to you by your culture"

No by evolution.

"your objective sensibilities are the fundamentals of the culture you are born in and ally with"

No, my SUBJECTIVE sensibilities are influenced greatly by the culture I was born into but try to no longer ally with. For example I come from a culture with no Yoga or meditation and yet I practice both daily.

Sense is what you obey as your giver of truth.

No, my giver of evidence. I have no giver of truth. That is a notion for theists.

"Reason informs you no more than an automaton robot told to identify light"

Good thing I also have intuition.

"But I appreciate this now. Your epistemology has become clear"

I'm trying but you are misinterpreting at a blinding rate. You are only capable of arguing with words you put in my mouth it seems.

"You believe what you see and define what others see as delusions if they see something other than you can see"

Who can see things that I can't see. I have 20/20 vision. You mean people with extra senses that I don't have? Like you?

"good luck with your senses, I hope you realize the delusion that deluded humanity for thousands of years before logic and intellect took us to a level of consciousness beyond our sense organs"

Dammit. Stupid evolution. Always getting things wrong. I hate evolution. I hate what humans have become. I'm a misanthrope who belongs in oneness with the universe and you stupid evolutionists are getting in my way. I hate you all!

"Not everyone is suited to recognizing the failings of the senses nor the delusion of self righteousness"

But let me guess. You are.

Timmy2,

I don't see much "empathy" in your exchanges below with Navin and Justillthen.

Lots of your putative "tough love", perhaps, but no "empathy".

Your rosy monocle is cracked.

"empathize, and try to aid him, for he is bereft"

Couldn't agree more.

Timmy2,

O Paragon of Catitude and Slave Salvator,

"Schaum is an excellent contributor of actual ideas."

Whereas O No Frio comes only to deeeeestroy! Mwahahahahaaaa....

Schaum,

Thanks for the cliff notes, that's what I figured Onofrio was referring to.

"Altruism is, at the end of the day, an imagined human virtue"

I agree. We are naturally driven to be compassionate and seemingly selfless for completely selfish reasons. It's brilliant. I love it because I can count on it. I don't have to worry about wether or not someone is going to use their free will to disobey god's wishes one day.

I saw in a documentary recently that humans are one of the few creatures capable of feeling compassion for another species. And the only creature capable of feeling compassion for a painting of a suffering creature they've never even seen before. Something made up that doesn't even exist. We even feel sorry for trees. We're really a wonderful creature. Something is making us act all weird though. Not sure what. Well I have my suspicions, but I don't want to get all preachy and tell people what they should do so best just keep my mouth shut. ;)

So Timmy, you see, feel, smell, exactly as it is. You believe that your power of observation is objective. I now understand. You must be objectivity itself. Your eyes, with or without cataract observe objectively. Your hands, on anesthetics, hallucinogens, etc feel objectively. Your nose despite the amount of Zinc in your olfactory nerve is objective. Your eyes, despite the ratio of rods and cones are objective.

I see. You are a simple naive objectivist attempting to grasp with the inifinite and unable to do so have turned. Your objective senses have been given to you by your culture, your objective sensibilities are the fundamentals of the culture you are born in and ally with.

I am sorry, I mistook you for a reasoning person. Now I see that you are a sensing person. Sense is what you obey as your giver of truth. Reason informs you no more than an automaton robot told to identify light.

But I appreciate this now. Your epistemology has become clear. You believe what you see and define what others see as delusions if they see something other than you can see. A fundamentalist atheist.

Well at least you pretend to reason, that is a start.

good luck with your senses, I hope you realize the delusion that deluded humanity for thousands of years before logic and intellect took us to a level of consciousness beyond our sense organs. But that is ok if you don't. the christo-islamists have the same approach - if you agree with me you make sense, if not you are deluded. For me, your quest is noble because you are part of the human race. As you get older your frontal lobe will bring you to greater abstraction. Not everyone is suited to recognizing the failings of the senses nor the delusion of self righteousness.

hariaum

Hi Farnaz :^),

A cursory preview of the JMR thread shows I've missed a fair hurl of burly. It even tossed up a splash of Nile water. Godz! Or not.

I note that la mode Dan-le-Douze viz. multipartite postage is catching on among the Jacobyns.

Hi Onofrio,

Great to see you back after long absence! There is a discussion on John Mark Reynold's page that might interest you. Good sport that he is, JMR took up the valient battle in defense of the ORiginality of Christianity.

Schaum, Carstonio, and a few others held the field valiently, whilst yours truly resorted in the end to the moral argument.

AT all events, here's the link:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/01/ignorance_allows_certainty_but_punishes_with_narrowness.html#comments

Your idea for an atheist organization is terrific. Still, I think we need a more positive substantive discourse, to define or characterize atheist discourses postitively, to affirm what Atheism offers, rather than to deny or negate.

As another blogger memorably wrote, "One generation's philosophy is another's common sense."

We need to remove ourselves from that common sense, the centuries old Reason vs. Belief rhetoric that Dawkins resurrected and which continues to hold sway.

Justilthen:

Meant to write "the nonbeliever's Doubt."

Justilthen,

Re: Your post to me on the stance of many atheists

There is a very old Chasidic Tale. A man comes to a Teacher, clearly worried: "Rebbe, please advise me, for I fear for my friend. He says he does not believe in God."

The rebbe thought for a moment and then replied, "Act as if you agree with him and as if you are the only one who can help him."

Many think the rebbe meant tnat the man must not challenge his friend's disbelief, but, instead, lean into, relax into the nonbeliever's it, understand it, empathize, and try to aid him, for he is bereft.

It occurs to me that a similar path could be taken by atheists since from one point of view, believers are also bereft.

HI Persiflage,

Thanks for the post! Yes, of course you are right--doubt is not welcome in Rome, just as it is not among certain folks adhering to other religions.

Some years ago, a Jesuit University announced that it welcomed people of all faiths and of no faith, for the foundation of faith is freedom of inquiry.

Breathtaking words for yours truly. However, they don't sound the same welcome anymore. Perhaps, one day....

Hitman2,

You may have overlooked a post addressed to you prior to your remarks on Faustus. At all events, if you have a moment, I would be interested in a reply. Here is the post:
-------------------------------
Hitman2:

Interesting post. Did you read "God Arises," Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, or just the excerpt from talkIslam.com?

I ask because, if you have read the book (I haven't), I'd be interested to know more of the argument.

Part of the problem I have with it, thus far, is that although I agree we strongly feel "there must come a time," a day of reckoning, a time of vindication, it does not follow that such a moment will come.

Further, we are not of one mind as to the identities of perpetrators and victims. Some experience themselves as victims, while others see them as oppressors, etc.

At all events, I'd be interested in knowing either your thoughts on this or Kahn's or both.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | January 24, 2010 9:07 AM

Timmy2:

"Schaum, I'd love to hear your take on altruism. I've certainly loved your take on everything else."

To make a very long and tedious discussion much shorter than it was, altruism(unselfish concern for the welfare of others) does not exist. It is impossible to undertake any action on behalf of others, for any reason, that does not also serve the purposes of/benefit self...even if the purpose/benefit is no greater than feeling good about having helped someone else. Altruism is, at the end of the day, an imagined human virtue.

Hitman2:

Previous post was meant for you.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

"Helen was not brought to Faustus when he was dying."

Not in the real sense.

Amused to note your angle to observe Marlowe's play.

What he was is known - It was his sense of guilt rather which is reflected.
-------------------------------------
Yes, not in the real sense. (Excellent escape, my compliments.)

Glad you're amused. What he was is not known for certain. However, much can be reasonably hypothesized.

Amused to see you haven't availed yourself of that capacity.

That said, NonGod knows, it was not "his guilt which is reflected" in Doctor Faustus. It is rather his educated institution of what would draw an audience, i.e, what would sell. That said, I'm not altogether certain that he was an atheist, although the possibility remains strong in my mind and in the minds of others. IN this play, IMHO, he may also have hoped to keep the Law, as it were, at bay.

However, since he was a double agent, one does not know.

If he had any guilt about anything, questionable, I would hope it would have been for the anti-Catholic violence he continually incited in his plays, Doctor Faustus included. But nowhere is there evidence of "guilt," nowhere in his work.

Oh no Frio!

"You might like to discuss this one with Schaum. He has written at length - and convincingly - that there ain't no such -ism as altru.

Well we know it exists as a concept because we invented it as a concept. But you might be talking about the fact that altruism is in fact, a selfish act, which it seems to be. And how wonderful is that? But I would love to hear Schaum on that topic. Schaum is an excellent contributor of actual ideas.

"Perhaps "atheists" ought to agree before any preaching commences..."

I doubt Schaum and I disagree on much of anything. But we'll see.

Schaum, I'd love to hear your take on altruism. I've certainly loved your take on everything else.

"Whaddya know - GROUPTHINK. And from the CAT himself..."

Yes Onofrio. Charity drives are groupthink.

Timmy2,

"I am trying to liberate mind slaves."

Which one of you is Spartacus!

I am Spartacus!

I too am Spartacus!

I, Spartacus!

....

Hey, Thracian, mind those slaves. Give 'em freedom, and they'll only pillage. And, for all your highflown cant, you'll end up on a cross.

Jesus Christ pose AGAIN?

Suits you.

Onofrio:

"And, my, what long penduli they swing."

Smoke and mirrors, my friend...smoke and mirrors.

Schaum,

Love, nice to be exclamated by thee ;^) How are you?

...bin too entangled in the extra-WaPo-ular world of actual occasions (sorry A.N.W) - livelihood, moonlight, and domus all ajuggle - to keep abosomed of things here.

I see some old favourites are back. And, my, what long penduli they swing.

Timmy2,

Thee, at January 25, 2010 3:29 PM
"We [atheists] can offer evidence that altruism is a natural human instinct and that there is no need to fear losing it along with god belief."

You might like to discuss this one with Schaum. He has written at length - and convincingly - that there ain't no such -ism as altru. Perhaps "atheists" ought to agree before any preaching commences...

And yet:

"The organization I am starting is called "Atheist Angels" with the byline "flightless philanthropy". The idea is to change the negative connotation that has been put on the world "atheists"."

Whaddya know - GROUPTHINK. And from the CAT himself...

Given that angels are understood by most of the world to be messengers of god/s, your view of your own stature looms clear.

We are not worthy.

ONOFRIO!!!

Welcome back. Where have you been?

Zyclon SSchaum speaks:

"Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful speech and the inability to listen to others, I am committed to cultivate loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others and relieve others of their suffering. Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I am committed to learn to speak truthfully, with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope."

Its a long way from where you are to where this is Buba. A very long way. Good luck.

TTWSYF, P.Huff, Timmy2

= Father, Son, Holy Spirit (that blusters where e'er it will...fffft)

Absolute-lie, -lee, -low, -Lo!

Persiflage

You asked if I have ever considered that everything is perfect as it is - suffering and all. It must be perfect, because it's the way things are.

No, I have never thought of that. I have tried to wonder what Heaven would be like with no suffereing, because that is where I wanted to go when I was suffering. But as I pictured it more and more, I began to realize what a world without suffering would be; it would be very different from this world.

Part of suffering is the fear of leaving this world for an unknown world. So, there is something, even alot about this world that is good and that is why we want to stay here.

I do not think that we live in a perfect world and suffering is part of what makes it perfect. I think that we live in a good world with a good life that is worth living, and that suffering obstructs all that is good in this good world, but there is no way to picture this world without suffering, for if suffering would be banished, all would be radically different. We would have cares, no worries, no anxieties, no wants, nor need ever to plan for anything, nor do anything, not even any consciousness of anything. I do not want a world where all that I am simply fades away. The presence of suffering in the world keeps us aware, alert, active, planning, seeking, trying, hoping, doing. With suffering gone, all of this would dissappear, as well.

This is not perfection. It is a difficult predicament that we are ensnared in, and cannot get out of.

And when I speak of order, I do not meaning the orderliness of our lives, or of life. What I mean, is that by way of our senses, we perceive impressions of order in the universe, and from this order, we notice patterns. I am speaking of general order, the order of the cosmos, the stars, the sun, and the planets, the elements of the earth, gravity and light, all that we sense of up and down, of rythms of time, all this is what I mean by order, not that someone has an orderly or neat life.

We find ourselves plopped down in this world ready made; we are ready made, and the world which receives us into its care is ready made. How? or Why? are questions that cannot be answered. But this is the world as it is; we must take or leave it; except, we do not even get to leave it; we MUST take it.

When I say that I accept suffering as a necessary part of life, a condition of life, in fact, I do not mean to imply that I think suffering is good, or that people should suffer, or that we should not try to help people who are suffering. I only mean that suffering as a general condition of life cannot ever be made to go away.

Yet, an individual person's suffering is urgent and requires attention and care. The fact that we know we cannot rid the world of all suffering does mean we should not help those who do suffer. As I said earlier, the fact of suffering is what motivaties us to action and to life.

Persiflage:

"We got away from sex according to Vatican standards a few centuries ago "

Indeed! The ancient Egyptians practiced contraception, with sponges and tied-off sections of sheep intestines.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
NAVIN 1”
“HUMAN LIFE”

IRT:
“How do you decide whose observation is valid and whose is not? Can you distinguish the amount of genetic difference needed to include a species as human and not-human? Can you establish when a human embryo becomes human?”

ANS:
Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

“2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

"THE FATHER OF MODERN GENETICS" TESTIFIES

“3. Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

“Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl.” At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm.

“As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Lejeune also pointed out that each human being is unique -- different from the mother -- from the moment of conception. He said, "Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique."

Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery.

In addition, Lejeuned received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.

He practiced his profession at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris.
Dr. Lejeune was a member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science,
A member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London,
The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm,
The Science Academy in Italy
The Science Academy of Argentina,
The Pontifical Academy of Science and
The Academy of Medicine in France”

TWTSTY opines:

'Contraception is an act of self-gratification when conjugal love should be a giving of each to the other fully. The opposite is true; each are engaged for their own self pleasure. Consequently, the unitive and procreative act of conjugal love are seperated from its natural end.'
_____________________

Please share your experiences with conjugal love and child rearing, if you don't mind. Give us your nuclear family profile, in other words.

We got away from sex according to Vatican standards a few centuries ago - fortunately no one got pregnant in the Vatican because sex between clerics and their paramours was not necessarily a hetero affair. Instead, it was more likely to be mano a mano.

In recent years in the USA, Vatican sex has most unfortunately become more a mano a boyo business - a good way to go broke.

Hopefully the Pope has always diligently maintained his vows of chastity and celibacy, but if not he always has a confessor handy for absolution.... and confessors always need confessors.

As things stand today, sex between consenting adults is actually as it always has been and ever should be - whatever comes naturally.

Procreation is sometimes the goal, and oftentimes not. If it didn't feel good, humanity would have died out ages ago - and practice makes perfect. So it goes in the real world.

Everything is rhythms and cycles.....

NAVIN 1

Part One

"Observation alone? How do you decide whose observation is valid and whose is not?"

What you mean is how do you decide whose INTERPRETATION of an observation is valid and whose is not. The actual observation is the same. As for interpretation, everyone can interpret observations for themselves. Unless they're in a religion. Then the religion interprets for them.

"Can you distinguish the amount of genetic difference needed to include a species as human and not-human?"

Why would I need to?

"Can you establish when a human embryo becomes human?"

Why would I need to? That's a subjective belief, and I have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body anyway, regardless of what I believe on that matter.

"When does a handicapped kid become non-human?"

Never, in my opinion.

"What species have you observed that predates the human directly in evolution or is that an assumption in you mythology?"

I have observed the mountains of evidence showing how evolution is pretty much a certainty. There is no faith required to believe it because of all of the evidence. Mythology describes things which we know were made up and have no evidence. You are getting all fundy on me know and I will cut this off soon. I really don't debate with those who try to pretend that evolution equates with mythology. Grow up.

"This thing you believe in, what is it?"

I believe in literally millions of things. Which one would you like to know about?

NAVIN 1

Part Two

"Do you accept that a human dies because he spends a few days in a coma?"

Obviously not because people come out of comas all the time and resume life.

"This entity called human, is it mortal, what dies when it dies?"

Well the body for sure. The brain and all of the brain function. Beyond that, I dunno. Do you?

"If the cells of this thing fall off, or tissues of the brain fall off, is it less human?"

Absurd question. Not even going to dignify.

"Or do you believe in the observation that what you want to call human is human, what you don't want to call human isn't:

It has nothing to do with what I want. The society I was born into has chosen to classify like species for the purposes of being able to converse about them and distinguish between them. It all seems pretty sensible to me. I'm not confused at all about what a human is. I leave that for the Hindus.

"your own mythology of the human being"

How is classifying obviously like species for clarity of conversation qualify as a myth?

"My observation is that you want to define the truth for what you want it to be, short of evidence contrary to that observation, you are a myth creator"

No, that is not an observation. Your observation is my exact words on a computer screen. That's all an observation is. Above is your interpretation. And it's yours to have. But you have definitely confused observation with interpretation here. Observation is what we can see, smell, touch, hear, etc. You can see my words, but you can not see my intent. That you interpret, and twist to make your argument work.

"Why is your myth better than any other so called human being?"

What myth?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PERSIFLAGE

IRT;
“If ever there was an overflowing and impoverished population that needed conventional birth control and the freedom to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, Calcutta would be that place.”

ANS:
Muggeridge, after 70 years from a Communist, to a Christian, to a Catholic said, "The orgasm has replaced the cross as the focus of longing and fulfillment”

Contraception is an act of self-gratification when conjugal love should be a giving of each to the other fully. The opposite is true; each are engaged for their own self pleasure. Consequently, the unitive and procreative act of conjugal love are seperated from its natural end.

Contraception is not only a virulent toxin that infects Marriage; it is a prerequisite for abortion, and a malignancy for society that undermines the family. Moreover, the contraceptive mentality is an incentive for free sex and self agarandizement.

Man, with a contraceptive mentality, becomes a slave to his passions. Contraceptives engender a false self-expression of one’s autonomy and freedom when it is anything but freedom.

Morality becomes relativity and assumes to be “Do what you wish, there are no consequences. You only have one life, so live it to the fullest.” Morality assumes what we want it to be, viz. “Don’t force your morals on me. What’s good for you is not good for me.”

There is a high rate of spontaneous unnoticed abortions due to contraceptives. These abortions are readily explained by the severe atrophy of the endometrium (the inner mucous layer of the uterus) caused by the pill.

“As this estimated rate of possible fecundation from ‘contraception,’ abortions clearly outnumbers the number of known abortions procured by women who use such contraceptives.

One therefore concludes that there is a high rate of spontaneous unnoticed abortions due to contraceptives. These abortions are readily explained by the severe atrophy of the endometrium (the inner mucous layer of the uterus) caused by the pill.

Try checking this link out and think about what you want people to be given.

http://www.medicinenet.com/oral_contraceptives/article.htm

GENERIC NAME: ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES
WARNINGS | Medication Uses | How To Use | SIDE EFFECTS | PRECAUTIONS | DRUG INTERACTIONS| Overdose | Notes | Missed Dose | Storage

Observation alone?

How do you decide whose observation is valid and whose is not?

Can you distinguish the amount of genetic difference needed to include a species as human and not-human? Can you establish when a human embryo becomes human? When does a handicapped kid become non-human? What species have you observed that predates the human directly in evolution or is that an assumption in you mythology?

This thing you believe in, what is it? Do you accept that a human dies because he spends a few days in a coma? This entity called human, is it mortal, what dies when it dies? If the cells of this thing fall off, or tissues of the brain fall off, is it less human?

Or do you believe in the observation that what you want to call human is human, what you don't want to call human isn't - your own mythology of the human being.

My observation is that you want to define the truth for what you want it to be, short of evidence contrary to that observation, you are a myth creator.

Why is your myth better than any other so called human being?

hariaum

DanielInTheLionsDen:

"But all of these questions are non-starters."

Indeed! All these questions you list presuppose 1) that there is a god, 2) that we all agree there is a god, and 3) that we are all in agreement about the nature of that god. All three presuppositions fail, of course. So the questions are illogical.

But...if there were logical, scientific proof of the existence of a god and general agreement about his nature, a better question would be: Why does god make/allow/cause suffering for some, but not for all?

DITLD:

'As I have already said earlier, suffering is a part of the world in which we live and to live is to suffer. Suffering could not be banished from the world wtihout also making the world disapear. I want suffering to disappear, but not the whole world, yet I cannot see how to do that.'
_______________

I always appreciate your thoughtful posts. I'm wondering if you ever considered that everything is perfect as it is - suffering and all. It must be perfect, because it's the way things are.

In my line of work, I'm made aware of suffering and death on a regular basis. I witness suffering in my own family, one of whom now has a terminal illness.

To arrive at satisfactory answers, I think we need to go deeper than religion generally allows. Personal philosophies such as yours (and mine) are arrived at through personal experience and considerable reflection.

I agree that life seems to consist of order, but that order also continues to break down even as we observe it. Here we may have a key to the perfection that we sometimes observe in more cogent moments.

My only touchstone is conscious awareness -which we seem never to be without, even when unconscious. I don't see how religion can ever get beyond this immediate fact or it's implications.

Since I consider myself a non-theist (atheism being such a pejorative term) I'm wondering how you arrive at what seems to be a theistic approach? And I would ask the same thing of Navin, who knows very well that Brahmin is a transpersonal concept - as is Atman. Where is God in all of this??

regards, Persiflage

DITLD:

'As I have already said earlier, suffering is a part of the world in which we live and to live is to suffer. Suffering could not be banished from the world wtihout also making the world disapear. I want suffering to disappear, but not the whole world, yet I cannot see how to do that.'
_______________

I always appreciate your thoughtful posts. I'm wondering if you ever considered that everything is perfect as it is - suffering and all. It must be perfect, because it's the way things are.

In my line of work, I'm made aware of suffering and death on a regular basis. I witness suffering in my own family, one of whom now has a terminal illness.

To arrive at satisfactory answers, I think we need to go deeper than religion generally allows. Personal philosophies such as yours (and mine) are arrived at through personal experience and considerable reflection.

I agree that life seems to consist of order, but that order also continues to break down even as we observe it. Here we may have a key to the perfection that we sometimes observe in more cogent moments.

My only touchstone is conscious awareness -which we seem never to be without, even when unconscious. I don't see how religion can ever get beyond this immediate fact or it's implications.

Since I consider myself a non-theist (atheism being such a pejorative term) I'm wondering how you arrive at what seems to be a theistic approach? And I would ask the same thing of Navin, who knows very well that Brahmin is a transpersonal concept - as is Atman. Where is God in all of this??

regards, Persiflage

Back to suffering, the suffering of Haiti, for example:

Does God cause suffering? or
Does God allow suffering? or
Why would God allow suffering? or
Does God make us suffer? or
Why does God make us suffer?

Some people on this blog have been discussing these type of questions. But all of these questions are non-starters. I cannot even begin to comment on these questions. They have only a meaning in a rhetorical sense. A conservative Christian or Moslem might try to argue some answers to justify their conservative religion, but even the very questions are too fanciful and unrealistic to consider seriously.

As I have already said earlier, suffering is a part of the world in which we live and to live is to suffer. Suffering could not be banished from the world wtihout also making the world disapear. I want suffering to disappear, but not the whole world, yet I cannot see how to do that.

For example, the people in Haiti were injured and killed because heavy objects fell on them. I wish the heavy things had not fallen on them, but I do not wish that gravity would go away. I say that, even realizing that tomorrow, I could experience an earthquake and a heavy object could fall on me and kill me. I cannot wish gravity to go away. It is necessary for my existence in the world as I have always known it.

I believe that order is intrinsic to existence, and this order sustains us and enables us to be conscious of the experience of order. Our consciousness of reality is a reflection, sustained in bodies that are delicatly and fragilly, spun from the intrinsic order, and we are destined, as delicate and fragile things to suffer ultimate destruction.

All of our sufferings derive from the order that enables us to be. The jolt of the earthquake is a disturbance of the earth on which we stand, and the heavy things falling on people is the normal operation of gravity that enables the earth to be a planet and enables us to be on the earth.

I am not arguing for or against God. I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven by any scientifically modelled argument. Navin said that he prefers to refer to God as Braman. I am not sure what that would mean. But I perfer to refer to God as Providence, the providence of the intrinsic order of existence, which includes the suffering of man.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then why does God allow this suffering? But I do not know that God (or Providence) is any of these things. I do not know that God had much choice in the way the universe is organized. I do not know that this is not the best that God could do. I do not know that God isn't trying harder to enforce an intrinsic order where intelligent beings can exist without suffering.

I do not know that God is not trying very hard with great anxiety to make a better world, but so far, this is the best he could do.

Justilthen,

"One day you may find peace and forgiveness for these religions that you are hateful of"

Religions aren't people. They are things. You don't offer forgiveness to things that have no emotions. That would be in my subjective opinion, insane. Hating people is not a good thing and so I don't. There is nothing wrong with hating a brainwashing belief system.

"There is no evidence for the spiritual or religious that would suffice for you"

I am spiritual. No evidence necessary for that.
Religions however make truth claims about the unknown and so require evidence for those truth claims. And there most certainly is evidence that would suffice for this. It's called credible evidence. If I saw any, I would change my open mind.

"Different strokes for different folks"

Exactly. Just like heroin. Good for some. Not for others. It's personal.

"You just cannot accept that spiritual processes or religious ways can benefit"

I can accept it. But not by your assurance which is all you have given me. I can accept it with evidence. There just isn't any.

"You have discovered an Absolute"

Nope. Just a belief. Absolutes are a religious idea.

"That Absolute would be that religion is Only Bad and Can Do No Good!"

Not an absolute. An observation, as of yet not refuted by evidence to the contrary. If it was an absolute, I would not be begging you for evidence to refute it. I would not be looking for wholes in my belief, which is what this open minded cat is doing.

"You do not and can not know what is the prescription for an individuals betterment"

Neither do you. Yet you endorse religion. And I endorse not religion. Same thing. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. Just giving opinions and making suggestions. You don't have to agree. But if you choose to address me with your disagreement, as you have done, then the onus is on you to back up your disagreement with evidence that refutes my beliefs, not just assurances that I am wrong.

"And for you, all religions share the stench that you sense and label "groupthink cults"

All that I have encountered thus far. Got any suggestions of religions that are not groupthink cults?

"Not all pathways are so vile as you see them. But then, 'tis a matter of belief, yes?"

I see very few pathways as vile. Just things like preying on the weak minded by pretending to know things you do not know and using brainwashing tactics to hook adherents into a cult. The victims are not vile, the belief system is.

"We cannot define and include and exclude what is good and what is bad for others. We can only do that for ourselves"

We can make suggestions and give our opinions and beliefs. That is all i am doing. You disagree with my points, but offer no refuting evidence. Just assurances.

"Correct. I am at home meditating, engaging in contemplative thought, and being spiritual in my own way."

Beautiful. 'Tis a blessed and beautiful way. An introspective and introverted pursuit of individual spirituality. My supportive applause for your work.

I would bet that the many others that pursue spiritual matters in community, and may also continue it in private, would feel equally compelled to view your inputs as the benevolent blessings that they are.

Peacefulness at your spiritual lotus heart!

NAVIN 1

"So, either you do believe in a Being or you don't"

I believe in human beings. They exist. This is an observation as of yet not refuted by evidence to the contrary.

I do not believe in POSITS of beings that come with no evidence.

"Please be clear, is there a reality or isn't there?"

Of course. We're living in it. This is an observation as of yet not refuted by evidence to the contrary.

"Then please let me know how you know"

Observation as of yet not refuted by evidence to the contrary.

"Further, can you give me evidence that that reality exists or even that you exist?"

Sure. Observation. As of yet not refuted by evidence to the contrary. Got any evidence to refute my obvious existence? Didn't think so.

"Your knowledge of the world is as much myth as a theists unless you can demonstrate the infallibility of your methodology."

Nonsense. My knowledge is based on the only method we know of attaining knowledge. Observation. The theists knowledge is not based on observation and has no evidence to support it. That's why their called "theists".

Hi-ho, Timmys woe,

Which would be religions and cultish groupthinktanks.

I shall be short(er), and then on to other follies.

I have had many experiences through my life that convince me of the reality of and my interaction in the 'spiritual realm'. I have come to that in many ways, independently and in religious formats as well as spiritual pathways that were less religious than practice. In these experiences I have at times immersed in these ways. Although, like anything in life, some were comfortable and even ecstatic, others were less than that.

I am better for all of it, am thankful for the experiences, and would not change one.

I will not specify with you the specifics or names. You do not have a positive receptor for it, and I do not care to. Your game is to invalidate all of it, in my experience, and you do that repeatedly. One day you may find peace and forgiveness for these religions that you are hateful of, and perhaps may find some value there at that point. Dunno.

There is no evidence for the spiritual or religious that would suffice for you. You have done the hours of research, as you said, and have concluded. Brilliant!

Regardless of all that, religion and the spiritual can be a benefit to many. As well, evidenced in your distaste for it all, religion can be a detriment for many. Different strokes for different folks.

You just cannot accept that spiritual processes or religious ways can benefit. Too bad. However, feel fabulous! You have discovered an Absolute, and I am sure have already fashioned a Pearl of Wisdom for yourself from it. That Absolute would be that religion is Only Bad and Can Do No Good!

Apply for a patent.

"Yeah, just like heroin users would leave if it wasn't doing great things for them."

Yes. Or the heroin addicts that go to religion as they reject drug use and find something more valuable to do with their lives than intoxicate and thieve. Redemption and betterment can come in many forms.

Timmys woe, numero dos,

"I've not seen any religion that could do that. Every one I've seen is deluded and deludes it's followers. "

Okay. I understand that is your experience.

"I am trying to liberate mind slaves."

My, you do have your work cut out for you then.

"You continue to argue as though people generally come into religion on their own accord after weighing the evidence and options and making an informed adult decision. Irresponsible and disgusting."

I made no such argument. But they do continue to decide to stay or to go, particularly as adults. Then they may take themselves along with the conditioning that defines them and choose to do what they do. That is irresponsible and disgusting to you?

Me: "Everyone is different and each need their own prescription for self-betterment"

"You are making my argument. Remember who the one arguing against groupthink is?..., I want them not to get sucked into groupthink cults where they are taught what to believe by people pretending to know things they do not know."

I stay with my above statement. You do not and can not know what is the prescription for an individuals betterment, but you claim you do know what it is not. And for you, all religions share the stench that you sense and label "groupthink cults". Not all pathways are so vile as you see them. But then, 'tis a matter of belief, yes?

We cannot define and include and exclude what is good and what is bad for others. We can only do that for ourselves.

Peace be on your head, Timmy.

Justilthen,

"Justilthen,

"'Tis all subjective when spirituality is concerned, you know that!"

Argument against groupthink religions. Thank you.

"Of course, you would be unlikely to see me at any "spiritual pond" I think, Timmy, for I doubt that you show up at any yourself"

Correct. I am at home meditating, engaging in contemplative thought, and being spiritual in my own way. With no one who thinks they know something about the right spiritual path for me and oh yeah, hundreds of millions of others too.

Funny, you know my conversations with atheists. You must be god, you have an omniscience of what I said and didn't to others. Nice to meet you.

So, either you do believe in a Being or you don't. Please be clear, is there a reality or isn't there? Then please let me know how you know. Further, can you give me evidence that that reality exists or even that you exist?

Your knowledge of the world is as much myth as a theists unless you can demonstrate the infallibility of your methodology. I am open to your demonstration of such. A two year old child can ask why, it takes an adult to try and answer the question.

hariaum

Timmy, Sutra Response code 1

I am thrilled you are okay that I am okay that you have a problem with All Things Religious. Pleasure all around.

Teamwork requires some degree of what I would call a collective agreement. You doubtless have a specific definition of "groupthink", but I am suggesting that at least aspects of groupthink are required for teamwork. A team has a paradigm that they operate from and assumption that are collectively agreed upon. They are not "completely different things" from my sitting place.

" No it's not identity I'm worried about. It's the loss of individual thought uncoerced by the special brand of peer pressure in a groupthink situation."

Reassess that statement. I suggest that you are indeed speaking about identity.

"Surely it must hurt when you make such magnificent stretches."

:-) No, that was really quite painless. In fact, it brought joy!

"That's right, if it's okay to immerse into an insane party, then surely it's okay to immerse into an insane religious belief system for life. lol."

And now you make the next assumptive leap that immersion carries requisite life membership!? Nay, nay. Does immersion in a love relationship requite life commitment, (yes, it may depend on which party speaks, admittedly).

Some take to bacchanalian parties, some never get near them. Some never want the 'boat of their lives' to be rocked, some get to rocking the boat for fun. I find the metaphor to be fine, with your kind permission.

"Which is what I was asking for. Your individual, subjective opinion. But you won't give it for some reason."

If you have not been listening, I have given loads of my subjective opinions. I have not named specific religions to you that I may find 'immersable'. That would be subjective, for me, and would not translate, (I am sure!), to you. To save hearing you do what you do with all religious experience, negate it in your eyes, I refrain from advancing it for your disapproval. I trust you can understand.

Timmy2:

Are you by any chance an INTJ?

NAVIN 1

""Hindus, and I believe all humans, even when you deny it, seek truth"

Good for you

"In order for me to deny a being, I need to recognize that a being is denying the being"

Atheists don't deny beings. we deny posits of made up beings.

"In the expression of denial itself (not the denial) is evidence, certain, of being. As soon as I say I do not exist, I create a fallacy"

When did I say that I do not exist?

"a theist sees in his child an ounce (actually 8 lbs) of evidence in the things he believes"

What things?

"But, to put words in your mouth, you might say his knowledge is false"

What knowledge?

"How would we know that his knowledge is true, false, or not knowledge?"

Well we start by you telling us what knowledge you are talking about? Then we assess.

"I have asked numerous atheists if they deny the existence of god, they say yes"

That's because you didn't qualify "god". So they naturally assumed you were talking about the definition of God used by 90% of the people in this country, and 70% of the people in this world. I have given you the solution to this confusion which you are the cause of but you seem to like the confusion. It seems to help, rather than hurt your arguments. Like most religious arguments, they rely on cloudiness.

"I did offer other epistemological methods below, you did not comment as I can see."

Didn't see them. Methods for what?

Regarding the perceived order in the universe, science has not gotten to the bottom of it, but they're still new at the game. God is not part of this particular equation. Interesting reading on self-organizing systems, complexity and chaos theory below.

It is exceedingly curious that while we all take for granted that space is an empty, uniform and continuous matrix in which physical phenomena reside and interact, physicists at the cutting edge do not share this understanding.

For string theorists and loop quantum gravity theorists, space is comprised of a very discrete geometry i.e. spin networks and the like, at the quantum level. And beyond that, we may be living in a holographic universe. What we ordinarily perceive is not remotely what is - as far as science is concerned.

Odder yet, we get away with our false perceptions and our misapprehended reality on a moment by moment basis without much difficulty. Now that's mysterious......

http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Timmy, sutra 7,

The immersion sutra.

All bow heads in compassionate surrender....

"But have you immersed yourself fully into any of them and gotten anything extra out of that full immersion. This is the argument that you are making. That full immersion into one religion is a good thing and in fact, necessary to take away true value. You can not just "assure" me that this is true. You need evidence."

I am unclear if we need to go back to immersion itself and whether you consider it to be valuable for deepening and honing any endeavor. I believe it is a fabulous process for gaining mastery in any field you choose. You?

I do not think it essential to take away true value. That is a elusive thing anyway. But if one finds something of personal value, immersion can make sense. I assure you. And no, I do not need to give you evidence of it. 'Tis all subjective when spirituality is concerned, you know that! With no acceptable evidence of spirituality there can be none of a betterment of it through immersion, silly.

"I am the one promoting individuality in spirituality. You are the one endorsing full immersion into groupthink big box store systems of belief. I want people to eat at the mom and pop spirituality restaurant and you think that it's better if they eat at the Macdonnalds and Burger King of spirituality."

How is it that you come to this conclusion, Timmy. Please show me where, in any of the posts that I have made regarding this, (too many to this point, me thinks), where I have endorsed any specific religious or spiritual form to immerse in. You are going off on your own imaginations here, as I think is common. Your own spooks.

The main qualifier that I have supported is that the "Immerser", (or Immersion Agent Man), henceforth IAM, immerse in the pond or stream or lake or ocean of their choosing. It is reasonable that this body of water, (ether?), be one that feeds IAM and is beneficial to IAM. But if it is somehow detrimental or otherwise, it would not be the first time that the choices of IAM be ones that bring IAM to confront pain or suffering, (the latter being closely related to the subject of this thread!).

I am no lover of McDonalds, Burger King, or "big box store systems of belief" personally, so you would be unlikely to see me there.

Of course, you would be unlikely to see me at any "spiritual pond" I think, Timmy, for I doubt that you show up at any yourself.

Of course, I do not "show up" at many myself, these days. Ah, well.

Peace be on your head.

Justilthen,

Part One

"You just have a problem with All Things Religious, particularly with groupthink in religious community. OK, that is fine with me."

Whew. :)

I have a problem with the combination of groupthink and doctrines that pretend to know things that they do not know. Now if you can find me a religion that does not qualify for this, I will back down from my stance of having a problem with all religion.

"teamwork is what makes an organization rock"

Teamwork and groupthink are completely different things. Nice try.

"Perhaps your fear of what you call groupthink is the assumed loss of identity"

No it's not identity I'm worried about. It's the loss of individual thought uncoerced by the special brand of peer pressure in a groupthink situation. I have found all religions I have studied have strong brainwashing tactics built into them. But again, if you'd like to offer one example of a religion that does not, I'm all ears. But I won't hold my breath.

"One can immerse in a bawdy bacchanalian party"

Surely it must hurt when you make such magnificent stretches. That's right, if it's okay to immerse into an insane party, then surely it's okay to immerse into an insane religious belief system for life. lol.

"But secondarily, as I noted earlier, what is deemed sane is just another individual, subjective decision"

Which is what I was asking for. Your individual, subjective opinion. But you won't give it for some reason.

Justilthen

Part One A
"You can make that choice for yourself, as you have, but when you extend that self-derived certainty, ("due to thousands of hours of research, experimentation, trial and error, and deep deep contemplative thought"), you condemn the billions that do find whatever value in religion that they do"

lol. This illustrates your disconnect. You think by offering my opinions on religion in a blog on religion, I "condemn billions"? Giving your opinion is not "condemning". Unless of course your opinion is something insane like "all non believers in Jesus will burn in hell for eternity". But you know I would never say anything like that. Unless of course I one day join a religion where brainwashing and groupthink make me believe it.

"People are not incapable of seeing beyond the indoctrination and conditioning that you place at the feet of religions and the parents that are continuing to carry religions colors. They have ample tools to choose for themselves, for the most part, and usually do"

I placed no such thing at religion's feet. I just pointed out what is there and obvious. Most children are taught about God before their brains are fully developed. This particular line of argument on your part I find disgusting and irresponsible. And with it, you are the condemner.

ME: "Insanity is right for no one."

YOU: "Ahh, he does know what is good for all! This is another pearl of wisdom we are blessed with!"

Just an opinion. Got an opposing one? Can you tell me who insanity is good for? Can you name a religion that you personally find sane enough for full immersion? In your own personal subjective opinion. Can you?

Justilthen

Part Two

"Everyone is different and each need their own prescription for self-betterment"

You are making my argument. Remember who the one arguing against groupthink is? I don't want people to come to my belief system, I want them not to get sucked into groupthink cults where they are taught what to believe by people pretending to know things they do not know. You are the one endorsing groupthink. That quote above could be me to you. Get it? Probably not. sigh.

"For some, like you, religion is toxic. But for someone else it may indeed save them and redeem them"

It may you say? I'm sorry but that's not a very convincing argument. I've not seen any religion that could do that. Every one I've seen is deluded and deludes it's followers. But if you have an example of a religion that is not deluded and does not delude it followers, in your own personal subjective opinion, I'm all ears.

"Just depends who they are, where they are in life, where they are coming from and where they are going, and what they think about it"

Where would someone have to be in life to gain benefit from immersing into a cult that pretends to know things they do not know. And if you can name a religion that does not do that, in your own personal subjective opinion, I'm all ears.

"Religion works for some, and is good"

Are you assuring me? Because I've seen no evidence of this and you have presented none.

"and if it was not serving them they would leave"

Yeah, just like heroin users would leave if it wasn't doing great things for them. lol. You are the one who condemns the brainwashed with your attempt at political correctness. I am trying to liberate mind slaves. You continue to argue as though people generally come into religion on their own accord after weighing the evidence and options and making an informed adult decision. Irresponsible and disgusting.

Justilthen

Part Three

"if it serves them and betters them, regardless of the system they use, it is good for them"

The only thing missing here is evidence that it betters them.

"as you already have prejudged them all to be insane"

Horse doo doo. Thousands of hours of research, experimentation and contemplative reasoned thought occurred prior to the judgement.

"So what exactly is the point of me naming what for me is a religion or spiritual path that is worthy of immersion?"

You can't. It's clear. And this is a transparent cop out. "you're too close minded to hear my credible evidence". "I can sense that you've prejudged so I'm just not even going to present any evidence for my argument". lmao

"What makes anything worthy of immersion, Timmy?"

We're not talking about anything. We're not talking about "insane parties." We're talking about insane, brainwashing belief systems. Or at least that's my opinion based on the evidence I've seen thus far.

"do you find immersion valuable for anything"

Sure, many many things.

Just not groupthink belief systems that pretend to know things they do not know, and use brainwashing tactics to hook adherents. Again, if you can name a religion that does not apply.....

Timmy

“I know of no atheists who are dumb enough to posit the non existence of anything with certainty. “

Well it seems that the author of the article is aware of at least one atheist who does.

We all seek the truth -“Not me. I seek knowledge. truth is subjective and ever changing. “ The word veda means knowledge. The satya means truth. Hindus, and I believe all humans, even when you deny it, seek truth. OK, call it the knowledge of truth. Call it what ever you want. In sanskrit, it is That Being. (Tat Sat). If you are seeking knowledge that is not true, are you not seeking knowledge that is untrue? There is truth that is relative. But the logical space of truth is the being upon which all other things are predicate; It seems that we are not connecting on this simple point. In order for me to deny a being, I need to recognize that a being is denying the being. In the expression of denial itself (not the denial) is evidence, certain, of being. As soon as I say I do not exist, I create a fallacy. You and I agree, perhaps, that once we try to define that being it is rather challenging. But the being of the Being is certain by the posited question of being. Sanatana (eternal) Dharma (beliefs, religion...) refers to truths that are eternal is more worthy of belief than transient truths. Most scientists want this as well, and yes I have met many.

“I don't need proof to believe in things. I need 1 ounce of evidence. I believe in evolution. I can't see it or prove it. But there is evidence for it. “ - a theist sees in his child an ounce (actually 8 lbs) of evidence in the things he believes. Then elaborates a series of ideas to synthesize the theists construct of reality (his knowledge). But, to put words in your mouth, you might say his knowledge is false. How would we know that his knowledge is true, false, or not knowledge?

I have asked numerous atheists if they deny the existence of god, they say yes.

I did offer other epistemological methods below, you did not comment as I can see.

hariaum

Timmy

You: “observations are not truth statements” can a fact be defined without a bias of the observer. You say, “it's the definition used by the vast majority of the people on our planet who use the word." would imply you have data on or have spoken to the vast majority of people. Or are you simplifying your observation, ie newsweek declared last year how beliefs in the US are more akin to Hindu ideologies than christian, Europe is not really chrsitian any more, Latin America is having a renaissance of indiegnous ideologies, most “muslims” are children who have never been even allowed to wonder what god is... The statement that the color blue is x-y electromagnetic band width is laden with truth statements but some may call it an observation. The sun sets is an observation, but fundamentally flawed by the modern constructs of celestial bodies.

The word for God that is preferable for what I believe in is Brahman. As I said earlier, if we all could use that word it would make things easier. But it is not words that I am too worried about. Words are symbols for something other than the word. I doubt that the western world or the islamists are about to engage in a discussion of the Being of Brahman. If (and I believe you and I are united in this) we are to bring about the loss of superstitious ideas of God in the christo-islaimists sense, we need to engage them in as common a language as possible. The importance of defining terms in cross cultural dialogue seems to me immanently important. You are right, I am a pagan, I am an infidel, I am a heathen. They define me as a non-believer doomed to hell, etc. In this sense I am an atheist. But I am not a non-believer nor one without a theism thus I though I embrace being a pagan, an infidel, and a heathen, I do not consider myself an atheist or non-believer. And I would rather place before them my devotional, passionate, love for that Being that is Truth in which my relationship to that truth is based on a diversity of epistemology. This is an observation, as you might say, but I speak about my experience of I. The Truth is not as finite as my experience as I. For here, you see, I am a mystic. My experiences, my confrontation with God, my ongoing search to wipe away ignorance, all show me conclusions that are beyond space and time. But I do not demand that of you. By writing and exploring together, as we are doing in cyberspace, we are foils to each other. The sanskrit word is avidya (ignorance), I am seeking vidya (knowledge) of and in Tat Sat.

hariaum

Timmy, sutra 5,

"Here's where you are missing the reality of the situation. The vast vast overwhelming majority of those billions you speak of were all brainwashed as children while their brains were still developing. They were indoctrinated into their belief before they could even speak."

You could also say that they were brainwashed toward and into cultural conditioned groupthink just as easily, indoctrinated into whatever cultural/tribal mindset that was the predominant factor or their birthplace and parental conditioning. Not to mention the genetic knowledge that is the legacy they received via ancestral DNA. You could say that the crap that parents teach their children is equally false and valueless as well.

So what is a surprise there? We have dialogued a bit ancestral wisdom and cultural pearls, (I will not venture into the discussion of validity of cultural wisdom if it is not universal :-) ). It IS the genetic knowledge that is passed down to descendents. The fact that you find the religious dogma false should, if you played it out, likewise cast a negative light on genetic and cultural knowledge that does not prove to be 'universally' valid. No?

"It is irresponsible of you to pretend that these billions you speak of came by their beliefs uncooerced, by looking at all of the evidence and putting critical thought to the matter, and then they came upon this belief with intellectual
honesty and due diligence."

We all are the result of imperfect belief systems teaching the wisdom they carry, and then we make our decisions from there.

Timmy, sutra 6,

"It is systematically brainwashed into the next generation by the previous, with virtually no means of escape.

That is rather dark, Timmy! Of course we are able to chose a new trajectory. Free will! Millions use it every day! Millions reject their parents, (most do, at least for a period), and reject their conditioning and go treking in the Himalyas or go to MIT from their ghetto roots.

"They are taught to distrust science and critical thought. They are taught from infancy that faith is a virtue."

Not all are taught this way and to say so is a gross generalization. And how can you say that faith is not a virtue for some? I am fully aware that you find it to be valueless, but for another this is not the case. Again, absolutism seeps through your judgments. Do you really believe that you know what is virtuous, (or best!), for everyone?

I am not being irresponsible in my views, I don't believe. I am not making the leap that you are. That religions are powerful forces that have been present in humans for eons is true, and the observation. I am not condoning all that is said or done in religions names. Nor do I agree with much of the dogma. Much I think of as utter hogwash. But my assertion is that there is an underlying aspect of human psyche that is rooted to and fixated on the 'spiritual', and that religion is the institutionalizing of some collective ways to address that spiritual nature.

Timmy, sutra 3,

""We cannot say that "no one knows"

"Yes we can. For if someone new, they would present the evidence and then we all would know." If there is no evidence, then they can not "know"."

In personal and subjective experience one can know without collective agreement. One may know what their dreams were, and what that symbolized, for instance, without proofs or evidence. One can then amplify and pontificate on these experiences.

Perhaps eventually all things will be able to be quantified and qualified and proven in an unbiased forum. That is not yet the case. That also does not make into false what is yet to be validated. And, even if it is not validated collectively it is not an indication that personal experience is a lie or a delusion, (though it certainly could be!).

"...deluded, crazy f*cks"

"Your language not mine."

I threw in the crazy f*cks part. Made sense in this context, and I liked it!

"I use the word delusion clinically by definition."

Please, spare me.

"Pretending to know something you do not know is delusional. Having spiritual experiences is not delusional. But pretending that you know something about the beyond is."

Another pearl? You love to define what is true and real, and what is not, Timmy. Have you noticed that about yourself? Not saying closeminded particularly here, but there is a form of rigid self-certainty. I do not adhere to your definition of valid knowledge or delusion. And there is far too much that is unknown (empirically!) to say what is real and what is delusion.

1.
If you are a christer, Jesusgod promises that your soul will have everlasting life. In John 3:16 the Bible says: "For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." All that you have to do is believe in Jesusgod and your soul gets to go to heaven.

Have you ever considered your “soul”? Have you ever thought about how the afterlife would work? Which life forms get an afterlife and which do not?

Start with a bacterium. Does it have a soul and does it get an afterlife? A bacterium is a cell membrane filled with a variety of molecules. These molecules react together in different ways to create what we call life. Although all of these molecules are reacting in fascinating, interlocking ways, they are still nothing more than chemicals reacting. The "miracle of life" is no miracle -- it is a chemical reaction. When those reactions stop, the cell is dead.

The question: When the bacterium dies, does it get an afterlife?

I suspect there are few people in the United States who believe that bacteria go to heaven. The bible does not talk about heaven being filled with all the disease, putrefaction and pestilence that bacteria cause. What, exactly, would go to heaven? Do all of the bacterium's molecules get transported to another dimension so that they can keep reacting? If that were happening, there would be thousands of tons of chemicals leaving earth every day. Clearly there is no afterlife for bacteria cells.

What about mosquitoes? A mosquito is much more complex than a bacterium cell. For one thing, a mosquito is a multi-cellular insect with amazing capabilities. But if you look at each cell in a mosquito, it is very much like a bacterium in its basic functioning.

Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of septillions of everlasting mosquitoes. There is also the same problem that we saw with bacteria -- the only way for a mosquito to go to heaven would be to somehow transport all the chemicals in a mosquito from earth to heaven.

2.
What about mice? They are no different from mosquitoes. Mice are multicellular organisms, but each cell is a little chemical factory very much like a bacterium. Dogs? Ditto. Chimps? Ditto.

So what about humans?

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no evidence, much less proof, of a "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your "soul" is a superstition invented by frightened humans who are intimidated by the ultimate fact of not being. The concept of a "soul" has been invented because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled.

Think back to when you were a kid and you discovered that Santa was imaginary. As soon as you knew it, it was obvious. Reindeer cannot fly. A man cannot slide down chimneys. There is no way for one little sleigh to carry all the toys for all the kids in the world. It is obvious that Santa is a myth.

In the same way, it is obvious that human beings are big, walking chemical reactions. Your "soul" is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it. You no longer exist. That is fact. There are no facts or proofs that support any superstitious beliefs in souls or afterlives – or resurrections.

3.
Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary. God, the bible, Jesusgod, the resurrection, prayer, the Ten Commandments, the creation story, your soul, everlasting life, heaven... every bit of it is the product of human imagination. The same goes for Allah, the Koran and so on. As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma, in its many and various forms, for millennia, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet... it is all fiction. Myth. Superstition. The "god" of today’s christers is just as fictitious as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs.

BTW, DITLD:

I am inclined to go along with your ideas about "natural" law.

Oh please Lion's Den, get real. I know atheists. I know they are often nice people. I am an atheist if an atheist can be considered one dissatisfied with religion, one all too aware of the hopeless contradictions of religion. But every atheist expects religion to continue declining or at least prefers a society free of religion. Therefore atheists must give us an example of their religion free society. They are obligated to do so. That is just basic responsibility. If one prefers to hold this over that one must be responsible for one's choice--or act free of morality. So what hope do atheists give us of themselves being in the majority in society? What do they expect society to become if society leaves religion behind? So far every avowedly atheistic society has been a human rights failure. So how can the atheist--any atheist--take himself as harmless to society, an automatically good person? Answer: He cannot. He is proposing a view of existence which historically is brand new. He is obligated to demonstrate why it is superior to age old religion. If he cannot understand that, then God help us all. I find it unfathomable how an atheist can take himself automatically as harmless when the Soviet Union and Red China--all those failed and cruel societies--are so recent in mind.

DanielITLD:

"You are once again miscategorizing what atheists believe."

That is the least of his problems. He is simply ignorant. He knows what he knows, and nothing more. He has no clue about atheists. He has no clue about mysticism. He makes unsubstantiated claims about the "atheist majority" in the world... It is easy, considering the mediocrity of his thinking and paucity of facts, to understand the mediocrity of his writing. He is what he is, and will never be less than a danger to truth and understanding.

Navin

You are the only one here that I think may understand what I have said. (Perhaps, Farnaz, also.)

So? what do you think?

And then we have the atheist Timmy declaring himself a mystic--never mind that in the West mysticism means the belief that one can be one with God NOW, and furthermore that this experience is not one that can be arrived at by any logical steps but rather happens to one, is of the order of believing in wisdom arrived at by revelation--that process--rather than anything that can be called scientific reasoning. In the West it is a logical impossibility to be an atheist and mystic.

Let us now turn to the possibility of being an atheist and mystic in the Far East. The Far Easterner might not believe in God, but his mysticism is the belief that on earth transcendent perfection can be achieved, an absolute of insight and morality can exist, that one can escape "the cycle of rebirth (reincarnation)" and become a perfectly enlightened being. This is not at all different from mystics in the West believing they can be one with God. Both the Easterner and Westerner here believe in transcendent perfection possible on earth.

Atheism is incompatible with mysticism. The atheist denies there is any transcendent reality, he is a materialist--in fact believing there is no intelligent design behind things. No perfection of the transcendent can be achieved in the atheist's word precisely because no transcendent exists. In fact one cannot have any real faith in science and reason in the atheist's world. There is nothing behind existence for the atheist so science and reason really cannot explain anything. How are reason and science supposed to explain a universe which is held to have no beginning by reason and science? In fact one cannot even be sure of sanity in the atheist's world. The atheist is fond of calling religion mental illness, but how can any sanity exist when it is held that the universe has no intelligent design behind it, that it is fundamentally amoral and ambiguous if not irrational as to rationality? Just some of the obvious difficulties atheists get themselves in....

Timmy, sutra 4,

"But of course that's as much as you are going to say about that, isn't it? No details right? Because I am close minded right?"

Yes. I do not see going forward into these dialogues as useful to me or of real interest to you, (but for the opportunity to refute them, as I have said). You are invested, Timmy, in your own definition and perspective of the world. We all are. You are not, in my experience, open to conflicting possibilities. You have 'proven' that to me. And so the rigid and closeminded comments. You attack what is contrary to your preconceived beliefs, consistently. Re read your many posts to others with that lens and you may even see it yourself!

"Of course I am.

Do you not understand, Justilthen, that if we decide to believe people who claim to know something about the great beyond, but who have no evidence, then we are opening ourselves up to fraud? And a fraud involving an extremely important matter. If we take people's word for these things, then we have to believe that Elvis is wandering malls in the midwest, and that Joseph Smith has magic stones that tell him what God wants.

"After all, Timmy, I am clearly deluded. You have proven that!"

"You are",(deluded), "if you believe that the billions of religious adherents around the world came by their belief naturally after examining all of the evidence and opposing points of view, and weighing the possibilities, and coming to a reasoned conclusion."

I do not believe this, and had not done so. Not part of my suggestions.

"In other words, if you think that the billions of adherents are evidence that there must be something worthwhile to this religion thing, then you are most certainly deluded."

There are worse things to take as evidence than the choices made by a species, Timmy. As proof of the literacy of the religions, no. As proof of worth, definitely. Follow Darwins Theory applied to choices made by a species. And now, religions are stubborn things! They HAVE been part of humanity for longer than most any other social structure. Certainly one of the fundamental pillars of the human psyche, the belief in 'spirit'.

Worthwhile?

Daniel12

Perhaps you are talking about specific atheistic writers or philosophers. I am talking about individuals that you might know or be friends with. Not only do they have no interest in eliminationg religion, they do not even want to talk about it at all, period. All of the things you worry about, I have said before, seem to be the political apsects of atheism, and its political implications. Your whole interest in religion is "the politics of religion."

I am more interested in how we perceive and know things. That is alot different than wondering how atheism might disrupt society or cause people to live without hope.

Daniel12

"What faith can be placed in the scientific method when precisely everything arose by no design, no intelligent method according to atheists?"

In the first place, I think a lot of atheists do seem to believe in natural order and natural law, and are appalled that I challenge the existence of natural law.

But regarding what you said, I believe that we have impressions of order that are intrinsic to existence; this instrinsic order enalbes us to exist, and to perceive existence; it is a circle.

This circle of order and perception of order, is intrinsic and always extant, and does not arise; we have not arisn without a God, but we have unfolded from what was always extant and intrinsic. If you want to suppose that God is somehow a part of this intrinsic order, then, maybe, but God is not necessary for the unfolding and elaboration of all that has been and is intrinsically ordered.

And finally, the scientific method just works. You don't need to know why it works; no one knows why it works; it works because it seeks to work out patterns of order, and there are patterns of order to be worked out. That is all that can be said of it. Have faith in or not, believe in it or not; attribute it to God or no God; none of that matters, for from all these many ways of looking at it, science works the same.

Lion's Den, are you at all serious about your last post? The post in which we have the myth of the purely innocent atheist, one simply denying a belief in God then going about his own private way, a harmless being? Obviously you have not heard of the history of the avowedly atheistic society. In every instance it has been demonstrated that increase the number of atheists in a society to the point that they are the majority and have the power and the result will be a society with a worse record of human rights than democracy--in fact a record of human rights often worse than the worst theocratic regimes. Obviously you have not heard of the Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia--not to mention all the tinhorn leftist regimes in places such as South America.

Where you are correct however is when you say that if the religious person cannot demonstrate to the atheist that God exists that it is the religious person's problem and not the atheist's. The religious person might find himself getting a taste of his own medicine, his tendency to repress all those who disagree with him! It certainly is a problem for a person who gets in conflict with an atheist--especially if he finds himself in the minority in an atheistic society! Please Lion's Den, give us some examples of the illustrious pacifism that occurs when atheists are in the majority in a society. Show us the harmlessness of the atheist as he groups with his fellow kind. I think the record demonstrates that increasing the number of atheists has no more positive effect as to morality than increasing the number of religious people. In fact every avowedly atheistic society has not only been a moral failure, it has been an economic failure! Has failed to perpetuate itself as a society! But Cuba holds on--due to the Castros--and Venezuala seems to be doing alright as long as it has all that oil...but when the oil runs out...and in fact people are already complaining about Chavez...And really, are Cuba and Venezuala really atheistic? Catholicism seems to be doing quite well.

NAVIN 1

"Since you want to define atheism differently than other atheists"

I do not. a) The referrence you offered is one person's opinion. And B) it actually backs my position. The qualifier for being an atheist is to not believe in god or gods. So your statement that "atheists" posit a negative, is false. To be correct, you need to say "some atheists actually posit the negative existence of all definitions of God". This statement would not be false, but it would be misleading since "some atheists" actually means "almost no atheists".

Ask every atheist you talk to from here on out. Ask them specifically if they posit the negative existence of all definitions of God? They will all tell you that since there are an infinite number of possible proposed gods and definitions of god, no one could ever posit the negative of such a thing. But for the purposes of conversation, one does not need to qualify a .0000001 % chance of being wrong about the Abrahamic God. And those who chose to use the Abrahamic religions' word for "all powerful creator of the universe" to mean something completely different form that, will just have to get used to atheists referring to God by the definition used by 70% of the world's population, and more than 90% of the United States where this forum is taking place.

"Please do talk to Danial about how s/he is wrong about "there is no god"

He/she is not wrong. He/she is referring to the most common definition of God used by 90% of this country's population and 70% of the population of the world. He is also referring to the only definition of "God" that causes problems. Get used to it or pick another word. You haven't given me your reason yet for why you don't pick another word for your completely different thing to end the confusion?

"I suppose someone may say they don't want true knowledge, but are happy with false knowledge"

Oh really? Who would say that? Got any quotes of people telling you they are happy with false knowledge? Or are you making another one of your famous straw men arguments? So pathetic. So transparent.

"does this suggest you want to be deluded as the truth is not what you seek?"

The deluded are the ones who think they know than THE objective truth exists. We have no evidence of such a thing or reason to believe that such a thing exists. The word truth describes a concept invented by humans. it is not objective therefore one can not seek THE (objective) truth. It is also ever changing. You know about that don't you? Things being ever changing? You are so twisted up in your own words you make a truth statement between every false accusation of truth statement.

1.
Here is what we know about god:

There is no scientific evidence indicating that god exists
There is no scientific evidence indicating that god answers prayers
If we set up an unambiguous situation -- like asking God to restore amputated limbs -- God never answers prayers.
The bible is clearly the work of primitive men, not of an all-knowing supernatural being. Etc.

In other words, god a myth and a superstition. Even papists can see that. It is obvious.

Yet, if you talk to actively practicing christers, they ignore all of this evidence. They will tell you that god certainly does exist and that he is answering prayers for them every day. Christer bookstores and christer magazines are filled with stories of answered prayers. Christers believe that god is reaching down out of heaven and answering billions of prayers on Earth for christers.

Thus the question arises: If there is all of this evidence showing that god is imaginary, and if there is certifiable, undeniable scientific evidence showing that God never answers prayers, then why do christers insist that god is real and that god is answering prayers for them on a daily basis? What would prompt christers to make these statements despite all the contrary evidence? Other than making a buck, I mean.

To put it another way, what might motivate christers to ignore the strong evidence that god is mythological? Here are five possibilities:
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because they are afraid of death. As I will prove in my next posting, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a "heaven" or an "afterlife." Yet the prospect of permanent mortality is very uncomfortable to many people. Because of this discomfort, they may have such a strong reason to believe in Jesusgod’s' promise of eternal life that they need to support their belief with other evidence. Since Jesusgod also promises that he answers prayers, they are willing to turn any coincidence into an "answered prayer" and ascribe the answer to Jesusgod.

2.
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because it is a huge boost to the ego. This explanation works both for big "miracles" and small ones. Imagine this: that you have cancer, you pray to god for a cure, you undergo surgery and chemotherapy, and the cancer does go into remission. What cured you? The surgery and chemo -- all evidence indicates that this is the case. If god was going to cure you, you would have been able to skip the surgery and chemo. Yet, as a christer, it is a huge ego boost to believe that the all-powerful creator of the universe cured you. It means he has "big plans" for the rest of your life
--A christer might pray that god removes a stain from your favorite blouse when you wash it, and after you wash it the stain is in fact gone. It is the detergent that removed it. But a christer interprets the event differently. What it means to a christer is that the all-powerful creator of the universe has reached down from heaven to specifically hear and answer a prayer. If you selectively ignore all the prayers that god does not "answer" with the statement that "it is not part of his plan", then the idea that god is listening to and responding to you individually can be tremendously satisfying to the ego. It means that you are special in god's eyes. The entire thing is an illusion that is created in the mind of the christer to stroke the ego.
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because they are afraid of being alone. They need an invisible friend to talk to in order to cope with loneliness, and god is the "community sanctioned" invisible friend that is accepted in our society. It may be that, for millions of people, an invisible friend is the only way they can cope with being alone. In order to make this invisible friend seem more real, it may help the illusion if you believe that he hears and answers prayers.

When we are born, we instinctively have a place in our brains for an "all-knowing, all-loving being". When we are young this being is called a parent, and children naturally and instinctively bond to their parents. What if a large number of people never outgrow this phase, and need to fill this place in their brains with something once they have left their real parents and moved on? In other words, what if this place in the brain remains into adulthood for many people, long after it has served its need, and people feel lonely unless they fill this place with something? Having an "all-knowing, all-loving" invisible friend would be an obvious thing to fill it with. If you can heighten the illusion by believing that this imaginary friend answers prayers, all the better.

3.
--Christers might choose to believe that god is answering their prayers, despite the evidence that "answered prayers" are nothing more than coincidences, because it makes them the center of attention with their peers at church. If you ever watch a group of christers comparing their answered prayers, you can see how this process works. One christer starts the conversation, "Well, my dog Binky was suffering from terrible skin sores, and the vet gave me some medicine and it didn't work when I first put it on, but I prayed to god and four days later the sores were gone! Praise Jesusgod!" Now what can happen is a game of one-upmanship. Another will say, "Well, I was planning my vacation and I had no idea where the money was going to come from, so I prayed to god and that very day a credit card offer came in my mail and the credit line was just enough to cover the bills! Praise the Lordjesusgod!" In such an environment, if you don't have a prayer story to tell, it appears that you have lost favor with god. Therefore, you may be willing to exagerate a little, and even make something up, in order not to lose face with your peer group.

This clearly shows that christers have strong incentives to delude themselves into believing. What you can see is that christers -- especially christers who are members of church communities -- have strong reasons to make up stories about prayer and to ignore all the evidence that "answered prayers" really are coincidences. These motivations completely explain the phenomenon of "answered prayers" in christer communities.

The fact remains: there is no god, except in myth and superstition.

Daniel12

Danial12 does not confuse me. It is easy to tell the difference. You shouldn't worry about it.

Hello Timmy, sutra 1

It was a busy weekend so I am now taking this discussion back up for a bit.

I am not quite sure where to begin, if I don't just follow your posts and respond. There are a few issues that are central here and I will bring them up as they come.

You clearly got fired up around the idea of immersion in religious or spiritual process, and the dreaded groupthink that seems to be a threat to you. Groupthink is common and, indeed, requisite, in any forum of likeminded, to some extent. It is not uncommon. Americanism, admittedly a wide ranging field of diversity, has a collective concept. Certainly adherents to liberal American values, like those that align to conservative ones, have some shared commonality. A Patagonia business model requires agreement to those principles practiced, as does the dog eat dog world of JP Morgan. Groupthink is common.

You just have a problem with All Things Religious, particularly with groupthink in religious community. OK, that is fine with me.

I do not have a problem with participating in a collective thought or way or consciousness of a group, as long as it is valuable for me and makes sense, adding to my world and growing my perceptions. I am not one who thinks that the individual is or should be supreme. Quite American that, steeped into American conditioning and mythologies. Cowboys don't do teamwork very well, and teamwork is what makes an organization rock, usually. Individual freedoms are extremely important, but at least equally so are the needs of the collective that we are involved with.

Perhaps your fear of what you call groupthink is the assumed loss of identity. Although this can happen, as murders or robberies in the city happen, they are likewise rare.

One of your conditions for an example of a religion 'worthy' or immersion is that it be "sane". First, that is your condition, not one that I forwarded or necessarily agreed to. One can immerse in a bawdy bacchanalian party, and that is not sane. Indeed one can become a regular, perhaps to "just say no to sane".

But secondarily, as I noted earlier, what is deemed sane is just another individual, subjective decision. Your view on religion is Absolutist. For you, it is true across the board that all religions are false and undesirable in human psyche and society. Un-Redeemable. :-)

You can make that choice for yourself, as you have, but when you extend that self-derived certainty, ("due to thousands of hours of research, experimentation, trial and error, and deep deep contemplative thought"), you condemn the billions that do find whatever value in religion that they do. People are not incapable of seeing beyond the indoctrination and conditioning that you place at the feet of religions and the parents that are continuing to carry religions colors. They have ample tools to choose for themselves, for the most part, and usually do.

"Insanity is right for no one."

Ahh, he does know what is good for all! This is another pearl of wisdom we are blessed with!

;-)

Timmy, sutra 2

I do not feel compelled to "assure you" of anything, (certainly not at this point!). If I did wish to get an idea or opinion across to you, however, it would be this last one. Everyone is different and each need their own prescription for self-betterment. Very, very little in life is an absolute good, rational, righteous, unblemished process or pot of knowledge. Not even your Blessed Science! For some, like you, religion is toxic. But for someone else it may indeed save them and redeem them. Just depends who they are, where they are in life, where they are coming from and where they are going, and what they think about it.

Religion works for some, and is good. Regardless of your own hours and years of experimentation, theirs brought them to where they are, and if it was not serving them they would leave. And deeper, if it serves them and betters them, regardless of the system they use, it is good for them.

"The fact that you have not convinced me that some religions are worthwhile and not insane, does not mean that I am "dead set"."

That alone does not mean that you are dead set and completely closeminded re religions. Agreed.

"It just means that your arguments have been unconvincing. Mainly because you can not name a
single religion that you personally find sane."

Again I believe that no arguments that I made or might make would convince you of anything, with this point. The second sentence is moot. It is your stated condition of religions that are worthy (to you!) for immersion that they be "sane", (sanity determined by you!). You are prejudiced in this department, as you already have prejudged them all to be insane. So what exactly is the point of me naming what for me is a religion or spiritual path that is worthy of immersion?

What makes anything worthy of immersion, Timmy? And do you find immersion valuable for anything, and if so what form of stuff? You have already made your opinions on the issue of immersion into love. What then is worthy to immerse oneself into?

Lion's Den, things might be a little simpler if the person posting as Danial12 would take a different name, one not easily confused with mine. But we all know what a vicious little man he is. He continually proves himself petty. This is the type of person one should surrender society toward? This is our hope after religion? With people like that is it so unreasonable to say God help us? Have we not had to say God help us every time a society has arisen with atheists in the majority? But we are told atheists make up so little of the prison population in the West...Perhaps atheists make up little of the prison population in the West, but it is also true that when they are in power, are the majority, they have determined that they will not make up any of the prison population at all--instead prison according to them must hold all those that dissent. The history of the atheistic society demonstrates such. Unless an atheist can show us an avowedly atheistic society which has had a superior record of human rights to any society with a trace of religion.

In reply to Daniel12

"The modern atheist lives in a world in which he believes that eliminating religion automatically results in a world in which contradiction and other problems are solved. He views atheism as SETTLING things. Every thing from psychology to politics to science supposedly is improved and in fact answered."

You are once again miscategorizing what atheists believe.

An atheist does not believe in God.

It does not follow that an atheist is eliminaiting religion, except from his own life, but not from culture or civilation. Some atheists may wish for this elimination, but others do not.

Furthermore, atheism does not imply that conflicts are all resolved, nor that everything is settled. And atheists do not belief that everything is answered.

Those are all assumptions that you have read into atheism which have nothing directly to do with atheism.

Once again, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of God. And the reason for not believing in God has nothing to do with defiance, nor seeking to disrupt the established order, not seeking to offend or insult religious people.

Atheists, simply, without effort, do not think that God exists because it does not seem true to them that God does exist. If it does not seem to true to them, then it is your job to make is seem true, if you want to convince them that they are wrong.

But if you cannot convince that the existence of God seems true, then that is your problem, not theirs.

The person posting as Danial12 cannot be taken seriously when it comes to discussing the moral superiority of the atheist over the believer. The person deliberately has posted in such a way as to confuse my posts with his. A cowardly way of answering my posts. Unable to stand on his own logic but rather an attempt to overwhelm my posts with his as if I said what he writes. The person posting as Danial12 should be a propogandist. He sure shows a talent for such. A pity he is not in the right society for his techniques to take real effect. He would have been happier in the Soviet Union cancelling out any dissenting voices. All that remains to be asked is who exactly he is. But I think we all know who...No name is necessary, call him the modern atheist. Certainly no atheist here finds anything objectionable about him. And we are told society will be so much better without religion....

The interleaf of all these multi-installment posts is getting a little comical, isn't it?

Oh well, you guyz figure it out.

Part one.

On the modern atheist.

The modern atheist lives in a world in which he believes that eliminating religion automatically results in a world in which contradiction and other problems are solved. He views atheism as SETTLING things. Every thing from psychology to politics to science supposedly is improved and in fact answered.

This process of the modern atheist is no doubt a holdover of the old belief in the perfect Marxian society. The modern atheist has no conception of--or at least does not admit--that atheism is a worldview with its own contradictions and problems. The modern atheist believes politically in a perfectly egalitarian--in fact quite communistic--society. Certainly the modern atheist has not given us a political response to the utter blundering of the atheistic Marxists of the twentieth century. He prefers to act as if no blundering occurred at all and that he knows what would make up the perfect political society.

Part two.

No, the modern atheist so far as politics is concerned is glad to point out that atheists in Western civilization make up a small percentage of the prison population--therefore atheism is supposedly the intellectual position more conducive to morality than any other. Which makes it the position which results in superior politics. But what exactly is this evidence that atheists are less likely to commit crime than the religious? Polling the prison population and finding out that more believers are there than expected? And what are we to make of the fact that increasing the number of these supposed moral atheists to the point that they have a free hand over society has resulted uniformly, in every instance, in a society which crushes human rights? It seems atheists did not make up much of the prison population of the Soviet Union and Red China either: They threw everyone else in prison, killed millions, then fought amongst themselves.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence that a society with atheists in the majority is superior as to politics. On the contrary, every avowedly atheistic society has been a nightmare. This is not to say this will always be the case, but we should at least expect atheists to acknowledge a problem exists here. But does the modern atheist acknowledge such? Of course not.

Part three.

It gets worse. Apparently modern atheists do not believe in God, but they have an infinite faith in progress--although they say they do not proceed by faith but by scientific fact. In fact it gets comical: I have heard of atheists declaring themselves mystics. No belief in God but mysticism being quite possible. Never mind that mysticism is an intellectual breakthrough impossible without emotional ecstasy, and that in the West it is the belief that one can be one with God on the material plane and that one does not have to wait until death to be united with God. And mysticism in the East is virtually identical: No God believed in perhaps, but certainly belief in the possibility of attaining a transcendent perfection (enlightenment). Needless to say, it is logically impossible to be a mystic and an atheist. The atheist proceeds by scientific fact. A knowledge impossible unless accompanied by emotional ecstasy is foreign to the atheist--but that is the preliminary of mysticism. And mysticism is of course more...the belief in transcendent perfection NOW.

But atheists believe no matter what in the powers of man without God. Just do not tell them that they evidentally believe that in the absence of God that man can be God. And certainly do not mention all the problems as to ontology and epistomology which arise with atheism. Atheists play up reason, the mind and science over mere faith and superstition, but they have this reason and science of theirs founded on exactly nothing! There is no intelligent design behind things to them! So how is it reason and science can arrive at truth when, first God (an absolute reference which promises perfection of mind and morality) is denied, and second everything, including man and reason and science, arose by precisely no intelligence behind existence?

What faith can be placed in the scientific method when precisely everything arose by no design, no intelligent method according to atheists? How is scientific method supposed to arrive at truth when it is held there is nothing intelligent at all behind existence? The very validity of reason and science is called into question when it is held that only material existence exists, that the universe is fundamentally amoral, promises nothing to man. Again, how can science arrive at truth when it is simultaneously held that everything--including man and his reason--arose by precisely no reason and scientific method at all? How is reason and science supposed to accomplish anything worthwhile when everything by default, without God, is inaccessible to reason and science?

CHAPTER 1

There are no laws of nature. What we think of as laws of nature are really descriptions or definitions of our observations about nature, about the world, about the universe, about existence. That is not to say that we do not have impressions of order that are not real, but only that giving descriptions of these impressions should not be mistaken for mystical "laws of nature."

Physical reality exists before we have any impression of it, operating as it does without laws governing its operation; but when impressions of order are formed in our conscioiuslness, then we describe and define thise impressions of order and call these descriptions "laws of nature." Yet they have no existence at all, except in our own minds.

Since there are no laws of nature, then God did not create them, and therefore, this assumptionm of laws of nature is not a valid argument for the existence of God. We have impressions of order, but it is not because laws of nature dictate order, but it is the very nature of existence itself that is intrinsically ordered, without the necessity of any intelligently designed laws to cause this order to be; there is no necessity for anything to have caused anything to be; everything simply is, as it is.

Part four.

What makes it even more perplexing is that atheists talk day and night of the theory of evolution by natural selection being correct and creationism wrong--natural selection, a theory which has man having arrived at intelligence by the most cruel process imaginable, a process which erases all that man was in favor of what he can be, which means supposing evolution is allowed to continue we will be an entirely different being than we are now...Now this is not necessarily a bad thing becoming something which leaves all we are now as nothing, but atheists talk about political egalitarianism and morality, that erasing religion means the increased success of egalitarianism and morality for man...

It seems atheists really do not act on their own scientific findings, on their own belief in the nonexistence of God. They talk about entropy but say eliminate religion and society will be so much better (but for how long better when man is inevitably destined for failure in the atheist's world? No God, no salvation at all). They talk about evolution but then speak of the possibility of a human society which is the complete opposite of what evolution has done to man. In the atheist's political structure all humans deserve happiness not to mention the right to exist. But evolution precisely believes in the success of the intelligent man over all others. The atheist's political conceptions when considered in the light of the theory of evolution are exactly idealisms, structures founded on the faith that such can exist rather than reason, are pieces of artificial reality superimposed on a fundamentally hostile to man universe (because man cannot but end in failure with no God to provide salvation).

Just some of the problems with atheism. This is not to say religion is any better. Both atheism and religion throw us into problems of logic, contradictions and dilemmas, just in different ways. But both the religious and the modern atheists act like their respective positions are infallible, incapable of being criticized, which means that both the religious and the atheists are a danger to society.

CHAPTER 2

There is no free will, at least not in the sweeping absolute sense that shallow philosophers casually toss off. Free will implies many things and processes, not just one thing. If you want to examine what free will implies, then try to say what is th oppostie of free will.

The opposite of free will is predestination.

Or the opposite of free will is determinism.

Or again, the oppostite of free will is coercion or forced servitude.

Or yet again, the opposite of free will is compulsion, or obsession.

Or even, yet, again, the opposite of free wil is conformity of thougt.

... the opposite of free will is lack of knowledge, dull senses, or obstructed senses, or brainwashing, or incuriosity ...

Free will is often thought of as acting and doing what you want, when you want. But there is an implication behind this that we control and manipulate our thoughts. But really, we do not. They come to us, from some psychological thought generating mechanism that is a synthesis of how our individual brains are formed, as well as what past experiences we have had. For, actually to control out minds and our thoughts would mean that we must control our mind as an external object to our mind, but that we cannot do. We can control our bodies as an external object, but not our minds.

CHAPTER 3

When we think of free will as doing what we want when we want, how do we know what we want? What makes us want something? Do we choose what we want? And if we do want something, can we choose not to want it? I do not think so.

We do not choose to believe anything, but we believe according to what seems true to us, and no argument or coersive force can cause our belief to change, until what seems true changes. I call this sense of what seems true the "inner will" as opposed to a free will.

When we think something seems true, what causes us to think it is true? And if we think something seems true, can we choose to stop thinking it is true? I do not think so.

Do we know how our thoughts work? No. Can we choose our thoughts? No. Can we control doubt? No. And can we make doubt go away? No. Can we choose what we want? No. And can we make ourselves not want something that we want? No.

A person cannot by the force of his own will stop believing one thing, and then start to believe something else. Even under torture, people cannot change what they believe. But even if someone is coerced to believe differently, by some sort of intense "brain washing," it is easy to observe that something fundamental about the personality has also changed, and this was not merely a choice to change beliefs, but a fundamental and destructive reorganization of personality.

Religious people claim to believe in free will. But if they do, then why do they seek to coerce belief in people? For if they coerce belief, then it is not free will. And if God punishes for wrong thinking or wrong belief, or lack of belief, then likewise, the right belief is not a belief of free will, but one of coersion.

Freedom is not the freedom to excercise free will, for this free will is an illusion; freedom is the state of allowing the inner will to be and exist as it is, without external coersion.

Justilthen Part 2

"Religion addresses and communes with something deeper in the psyche that is real to the believer, and perhaps innate in most humans"

Religion doesn't commune with that thing. Most have been diabolically designed to hijack that thing that is innate in most humans.

"but then offers the believer nothing of weight to replace deity worship"

What could we offer? Nothing could replace deity worship. It is an unnecessary thing. It's necessity has been brainwashed into it's adherents.

"The attacking atheist seeks to sink the believers ship without having a replacement vessel worthy of the abandonment of the old for the new"

No we aim to raise their awareness that they don't need a ship because they are standing on dry land.

1.
If you would like to prove to yourself that God is a superstitious myth, here is one easy way to do it: Look for places in the Bible where God is an absurd, unmitigated jerk instead of the "all-knowing", "all-loving", "fully-enlightened" being that he is supposed to be. The utter contradiction proves that God is superstition..

If you are a woman, the place where God's absurdity becomes completely clear is when you look at God's sexism.

The dictionary defines a misogynist as "One who hates women." [ref] It defines the word "sexist" as:
Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender

Is God a sexist? Llook at the evidence. 1 Corinthians chapter 14:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This seems like a straightforward passage. And God is the one who inspired the Bible. In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25. So here we have God, in his eternal and everlasting Word, saying that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

This quote from 1 Corinthians 11 is important:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

2.
Then there is this section from 1 Timothy chapter 2:
Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

It is hard to miss God's meaning when he says something as direct as, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

If you think about it, you will realize that God started this type of sexism at the very beginning of the Bible. In Genesis chapter 17 God says:
This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

God makes no mention of forming any sort of covenant with women.

There are many other examples that we can find in the Bible:
In Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."

In John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, but a few verses later, is happy to have Thomas touch him.

In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.

In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

3.
In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.

And so on. There are many, many examples like these throughout the old and new testaments. There are other, broader examples of misogyny that are readily apparent in the Bible as well:
Are any of Jesus' disciples women? No. Probably he was gay.
Are any of the elders in the book of Revelation women? No.
Are any of the books of the Bible written by women? No.
Etc...

God, it would seem, wants nothing to do with women.

Keep in mind that the Bible's misogyny has affected society for centuries. The United States constitution, for example, was originally drafted to specifically deny rights to women. Women could not even vote in the United States until 1920, and only then after decades of battle in the women's suffrage movement.

If you think about it, you will realize that there is something quite odd about this situation. In spite of the fact that the Bible is supposed to be God's eternal Word, modern human beings totally reject God's sexism. Modern human beings completely ignore God:
We make women the CEOs of major corporations.
We elect women to high government offices.
We appoint women as presidents of universities.
We fill our schools with female teachers.
We allow women to speak freely in church.

The contradiction should be as obvious as a lighthouse here. There is no ambiguity. We do all of this in direct defiance of God's Law in the Bible because we know God and his "eternal word" are completely wrong. We know that God is a superstitious myth.

4.
If God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems? Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder? Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry? Why are Christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the Bible?

In this instance, we find modern Christians trying to defend a God who obviously hates women on many different levels. To any unbiased observer, the reason for sexism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by a "all-knowing", "all-loving", "fully-enlightened" "god". It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kinds of men who wrote the Bible.

And we all know it – christers and non-christers alike. The reason modern societies totally reject sexism is because we all know that the Bible's sexism is completely contradictory and completely wrong. It is exactly the same situation we see when christers face slavery in the Bible. Christers and non-christers alike reject the Bible's teachings in these areas because the Bible is obviously wrong. The part that is profoundly strange is that, while completely rejecting these parts of the Bible, christers will claim that other parts of the Bible are god's “inerrant” word. They are blind to the obvious contradiction because of their utter delusion.

Once you break the delusion, it is completely obvious: God is myth and superstition.

Justilthen,

"For now, I want to emphasize that so long as Atheists define themselves in the negative, i.e., as those who do NOT, they cannot offer much to believers.

"Atheists need to do more than pontificate and name-call, more than bash the Bible, Quoran, etc. An affirming voice would do better"

I think the first quote is you quoting Farnaz?

Either way, both of these statements assume there is a thing called "atheism". There is not. Beyond disbelief in a certain posit or posits, there is no content with which to form a common belief system. Therefore it is correct to say that we have nothing to offer believers. It is for the church to offer something to believers. All we can do is provide the education and evidence necessary for those under the spell of religion to possibly see through the superstition and myth in ancient scriptures. We can offer evidence that altruism is a natural human instinct and that there is no need to fear losing it along with god belief.

But atheists have no belief system to offer as a replacement for faith, how could we? We live without the necessity for "religious" faith.

What we can do is apply "show it, don't tell it" to this concept of "good without god" and set an example that can not be ignored. I am currently working on getting a couple of different Atheist charities up and running. There are some already of course. I donated to Haiti through Richard Dawkins organization and I recommend all atheists do the same.

The organization I am starting is called "Atheist Angels" with the byline "flightless philanthropy". The idea is to change the negative connotation that has been put on the world "atheists". There are many well to do non believers in the western world and we will be appealing to them to show that human compassion is a natural instinct, with no deity belief necessary. We are hoping to grow this over time and make a real impact on the world with philanthropy in the name of science and reason. Of course I will let you all know when we are up and running and I know you will pull our your check books. :)

Daniel 12

ME: "I have no desire to kill, steal or rape, or cheat, or harm my environment"

DANIEL 12 "You really have never had those criminal desires in your life?" "finally, after all those attempts at sainthood by the religious, we have ourselves a saint who apparently has made no effort to be such and does not believe in God. A miracle!"

I'm a saint because I don't want to rape and kill? You scare me. One who thinks that it is abnormal if one does not desire to kill another human, or rape another human, or cheat, steel, and harm your environment. Really Daniel? You desire to do all of these things? But you don't ONLY because the Bible tells you it's wrong?

While most people will occasionally act on an impulse to steal something at some point in their life, their desire is not to rip off their fellow human. Their desire is to get an object they feel they can not afford to pay for. They know instinctively it is wrong. Evolution has taken care of that.

The same can be said for simple cheating on tests and butting in line-ups and minor things like that.

But most people have no desire to kill another human, it frightens me that you think otherwise. Most humans do not have the desire to rape, it frightens me that you think that they do. Most people do not have a desire to harm their environment, it scares me that you think they do.

You scare me Daniel 12. You think that people would go around killing and raping were it not for belief in a divine command not to. It's not true of course. But that you think it is true is truly scary. Please stop scaring me. You're really scaring me.

"There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point."

same article I referrenced below.

Since you want to define atheism differently than other atheists, and you are trying to be sticky about the loose definition of atheism, perhaps you should read a dictionary about defining god. You will find common usage beyond just what you want it to be.

Your evident frustration is unfortunate.

Please do talk to Danial about how s/he is wrong about "there is no god"

I suppose someone may say they don't want true knowledge, but are happy with false knowledge - does this suggest you want to be deluded as the truth is not what you seek?

Yes, I suppose you are right. scientist are looking for putting light on the unknown that is false. They make hypotheses of unkowing, not of attempting to define truth.

I suspect you have so gotten twisted in your words, that your need to hold on to a truth that you don't seek truth is turning your argument to sophistry.

Unfortunate, I though perhaps yours was a reasoned position as so many of my atheist friends have. Your seems like an example of how atheism itself can be a mono-ideology. I state x, you must agree with x, but I don't need to posit anything more. Evidence is what you want it to be. Too bad.

hariaum

Hello Farnaz,

"For now, I want to emphasize that so long as Atheists define themselves in the negative, i.e., as those who do NOT, they cannot offer much to believers.

Atheists need to do more than pontificate and name-call, more than bash the Bible, Quoran, etc. An affirming voice would do better.

That sort of thing one finds in Hecht, I think. ONe needs to show that atheism can be freeing."

I like what you say here and agree. Clearly believers have deep roots attached to the concept of God, by whatever name. That does not come from hypnosis or conditioning alone. Religion addresses and communes with something deeper in the psyche that is real to the believer, and perhaps innate in most humans. The so called spiritual may be phantom like in it's elusiveness to verification and scientific inquiry, to date, but it is hardly peripheral in the consciousness of the majority of believers in the world. Indeed it may not be peripheral for the atheists and agnostics either, who are often fine with the concept of the 'spiritual' if stripped of conditions and specifics of a singular monotheistic God.

Point is that it is natural and holistic for humans to desire and seek spiritual fulfillment, and has been since history has been written and before, if evidenced in petroglyphs, etc.

Most atheists, arguing against theism, assault and negate what is held dear to the believer, and has served their spiritual needs, but then offers the believer nothing of weight to replace deity worship. The attacking atheist seeks to sink the believers ship without having a replacement vessel worthy of the abandonment of the old for the new.

It is not a reasonable trade, for most believers. Atheism alone does not fulfill the needs of the believer.

DANIAL12 |
JANUARY 25, 2010 10:52 AM
GOD’S PLAN?

ANS:
Duhhh! I think you had better get a new source informaion. Hurricanes and Earthquakes are what Jacoby said is God’s plan, another of her many mistakes and like always you’ve picked up on it without checking it out which indicates your ignorance of the purpose and meaning of Christianity.

Of course, if one can’t believe in God, and denies the evidence of history, philosophy, and Science, that all testify to the existence of God, how could you know anything about the teachings of Christianity? Einstein said a man who didn't believe in God was brain dead.

For your information, God does exist, and his plan was not earthquakes cancer or whatever. Adam was made perfect. He screwed up, though not as bad as you seem to be doing. He still knew God existed; oh did He, especially when he was kicked out of the Garden. He learned quickly that he wasn’t God and neither was Satan but there was a God.

When Adam was no longer a resident of Eden, he lost a few privileges. He lost his immunity from pain and suffering. God didn’t force pain and suffering on Adam, Adam broke the law and suffered the consequences. Laws without consequences are only suggestions and not laws.

God’s plan was for man to enjoy eternal happiness after he passed just one test. He wasn’t slated to die, or suffer but Adam took the wrong turn and the sins of the father are upon the family. Subsequently, we became vulnerable to the differences between a privileged state and an unprivileged state. From once being protected from the laws of physics, we now became vulnerable to them.

Suffering is the cause of sin, and God is not sin, does not cause sin, and has not created sin. That would be a contradiction of God. Therefore, God did not plan evil in any form. It’s all in your mind and don’t believe everything you read that Jacoby writes or any atheists tells you. They are wrong, and they are a contradiction in the world of reality as is evil.

TTWSY sez:

"Mother Teresa marked the history of our century with courage. She served all human beings by promoting their dignity and respect, and made those who had been defeated by life feel the tenderness of God.''
- Pope John Paul II
___________________

Given that this statement comes from an infallible person, we had best believe it!She was an unabashed apologist for male authority figures in the Catholic Church, from a very early age....and for Papal authority in particular. Understandably she was the darling of Rome.

She is getting her reward now, and the Church is getting it's reward for producing such stellar champions of the poor - until we mention such taboo subjects as birth control for the poor, of course.

If ever there was an overflowing and impoverished population that needed conventional birth control and the freedom to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, Calcutta would be that place.

One wonders when saints will receive the miraculous grace of common sense - but that is entirely too ordinary for such special people.....who only await the command of their Father in Heaven, or the word of the Pope, whichever comes first.

I live only to publish the doctrines of the Church whenever possible, for all to see......logic and reason be damned. Never has another corporate entity had so many bi-laws, rules, regulations, and required beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Catholic_theology_and_doctrine

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

2.
Why would an all-knowing, all powerful being need to have humans kill himself (Jesus is god, after all) to make himself happy? Especially since it is a perfect god who set the whole thing in motion exactly the way he wanted it? The story of the crucifixion is absurd from top to bottom if you actually stop to think about it. By combining the crucifixion story with the resurrection story, you can see the truth -- "God" is a mythological creature just like every other human god. The entire religious domain is one of myth and superstition.

Hi Danial 12,

I'd like to address a few of your issues when I get a minute here and there in the next few days. Your thinking is faulty in your concept of the God of Christianity.

But since you have identified the problem of evil surely your worldview can give an adequate explanation of it, just like I'm sure Susan's can. Let's hear it. Why is there such a thing as evil without God, in a cold, impersonal, uncaring universe in which we are mere biological bags of motion reacting to our environment? What makes it evil? Who choses? What is the measure? What standard do you have to compare evil to? Why does it vary? These are questions you need to answer before you go accusing God of being unjust or a myth. I'm sure your worldview will fall way short in justifying itself on these accounts. Let's see you make sense of it before you go criticizing your Maker.

(see Job 38:1-6)

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PERSIFLAGE:
MOTHER TERESA
“INTEGRITY?”
ANS:

John 15:20 RHE
“Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you…,“ another truism of many from Scripture testifying to its authority. Even Paul persecuted Jesus and the Jewish hierarchy crucified Him be cause he helped the poor and needy.

The infamous lamebrain freethinker Christopher Hitchens who called Mother Theresa a "thieving Albanian dwarf." testified at the Vatican and was found absurd.

"Mother Teresa marked the history of our century with courage. She served all human beings by promoting their dignity and respect, and made those who had been defeated by life feel the tenderness of God.''
- Pope John Paul II

"This is very difficult for me to talk about even by way of a written statement. The day I became a bishop I became very close to Mother Teresa. She visited with me many times in New York, in Rome and elsewhere. I celebrated Mass more frequently for her than I can remember. The world has lost a saint on earth, but gained an extraordinary powerful intercessor in heaven. I never knew anyone quite like John Cardinal O’Connor, Archdiocese of New York

"This evening, there is less love, less compassion, less light in the world. She leaves us a strong message, which has no borders and which goes beyond faith: helping, listening, solidarity." French President Jacques Chirac

"She helped the poorest of the poor, gave them courage to live and the feeling of their worth, Mother Teresa will remain unforgotten and be an example after her death."
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl

"She is the United Nations. She is peace in the world."
Former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar

One India critic who lives in London claimed Theresa gave Calcutta a bad name. How many starving and dying did he help? Malcolm Muggeridge said one does not believe a lie because they have to, but because they want to. Are all these people wanting to believe a lie or is it Hitchens that believes a lie he wants to believe?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PERSIFLAGE:
MOTHER TERESA
“INTEGRITY”

ANS:
John 15:20
“Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you…,“ another truism of many from Scripture verifying its authenticity.

I am well aware of the apoplectic Hitchen who is an idiot and an imbecile. He testified at the Vatican and his charges were thoroughly investigated by the Vaticand and were found absurd. The infamous lamebrain freethinker called Mother Theresa a "thieving Albanian dwarf."

President Reagan presents Mother Teresa with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony, 1985. In 1962, Mother Teresa received the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award for International Understanding, given for work in South or East Asia. It recognizes her “merciful cognizance of the abject poor of a foreign land, in whose service she has led a new congregation”

"Universities in both the West and in India granted her honorary degrees. Other civilian awards include the Balzan Prize for promoting humanity, peace and brotherhood among peoples (1978), and the Albert Schweitzer International Prize (1975)

“In 1979, Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, "for work undertaken to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitutes a threat to peace." She refused the conventional ceremonial banquet given to laureates, and asked that the $192,000 funds be given to the poor in India, stating that earthly rewards were important only if they helped her help the world's needy.

"When Mother Teresa received the prize, she was asked, "What can we do to promote world peace?" She answered "Go home and love your family." In her Nobel Lecture, she said: "Around the world, not only in the poor countries, but I found the poverty of the West so much more difficult to remove.

"When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread...I have removed that hunger. But a person that is shut out, that feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has been thrown out from society—that poverty is so hurtable [sic] and so much, and I find that very difficult." She also singled out abortion as 'the greatest destroyer of peace in the world.”--Wikipedia

Who do you believe Hitchens or the multitude who knew her?

1.
"God's plan" is the way that christers traditionally explain things like amputations, cancer, hurricanes and car accidents. For example, if a christer dies a painful and tragic death because of cancer, she dies as part of god's plan. Her death has a purpose. God called her home for a reason. Even if something bad happens to a christer, it is actually good because it is part of god's plan.

Yu can see how pervasive "god's plan" is by looking in christer inspirational literature. For example, if we look in the book “A Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren, we find this remarkable paragraph in Chapter 2:

“Because God made you for a reason, he also decided when you would be born and how long you would live. He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]

There is also this:
“Regardless of the circumstances of your birth or who your parents are, God had a plan in creating you.”

In this view of the universe, god plans everything.

Think about what Warren wrote: "He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death." Examine one simple implication of this statement. What this means is that god has pre-planned every abortion that has taken place on our planet.

2.
If the concept of "god's plan" is true, you can first of all see that god wants us to be aborting children. Every single abortion is planned by god, so god must be doing it for a reason. Second, you can see that both the mother who requests the abortion and the doctor who performs it are blameless – in fact, they are doing god’s will. Since it is god who planned the abortion of the child (god chose the "exact time" of the death, according to Rick Warren), the mother and doctor are simply puppets who are fulfilling god's plan, are they not? What about all the christers who are fighting against abortion? If abortion is part of god's plan, why are they fighting it? God is the all-powerful ruler of the universe, and his plan is for more than a million children a year to die in the United States through abortion. If god's plan is true, then each one of those abortions was meticulously planned by god.

If god does not intend for us to perform abortions, are christers wrong when they say that god has a plan? If god has a plan, is he not the direct cause of every abortion? There seem to be many problems with the proposition that god has a plan..

Consider Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin. Christers say both were evil incarnate, and both were well known for the many atrocious things they did.. According to the christer’s idea of ‘gods plan’, both were part of that plan. Rick said:

“He planned the days of your life in advance, choosing the exact time of your birth and death. The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]
Rick also says:
“God never does anything accidentally, and he never makes mistakes. He has a reason for everything he creates. Every plant and every animal was planned by God, and every person was designed with a purpose in mind”.

So, if god has a divine plan for each of us, then he had a divine plan for Hitler and Stalin too.

3.
Now let's imagine that you choose to pray in this sort of universe. What difference does your prayer make? God has his plan, and that plan is running down its track like a freight train. If god has a plan, then everyone who died in the Holocaust died for a reason. They had to die, and each death had meaning. Therefore, Holocaust victims could pray all day, and they would still die. The idea of a "plan" makes the idea of a "prayer-answering relationship with god" a contradiction, doesn't it? Yet christers seem to attach themselves to both ideas, despite the irresolvable problem the two ideas create.

Consider what god's plan implies for you personally. If the plan happens to say that you will get hit by a bus tomorrow, or that terrorists will blow you up, or that you will be shot in the head four times, then that's what will happen. It would be the same with any disease. If you contract cancer this afternoon and die three months later, that is God's plan for you. Praying to cure the cancer is a waste of what time you have left. God plans for you to die, so you will die. He has pre-programmed the exact time of your death. There is nothing you can do to change the plan -- no amount of prayer will help -- because your death will have meaning and your death will cause side-effects that are also part of the plan.

Who will you marry? You actually have no choice in the matter. God has pre-planned your wedding in minute detail. Rick Warren says, "God knew that those two individuals [your parents] possessed exactly the right genetic makeup to create the custom 'you' that he had in mind. They had the DNA god wanted to make you." Therefore, your spouse was pre-chosen by god for you so that you would create the children who are a part of his plan. You also have no choice in the number of children you will have -- god has pre-planned their births.

In addition, this sort of universe means that Hitler is blameless. Hitler was not "evil," because Hitler had no free will at all. Hitler was simply an actor forced to play his role in god's plan. God planned for millions of people to die in the Holocaust -- he planned their deaths in exact detail according to Rick Warren. God forced Hitler had to kill those people. Hitler was God's puppet in making that those millions of deaths happen right on schedule.

4.
In the same way then, every murderer is blameless. Since god has planned each of our deaths in exact detail, murderers are actually essential to god's plan. Why do we punish them? We should be rewarding them for doing their god-planned duty. What if you get raped tomorrow and get pregnant? God did that because he planned the exact time of that child's birth and death. God actually pre-planned your rape, and the rapist wasgGod's puppet. Rather than hating the rapist, we should celebrate god's plan.

Shall we believe that murderers and rapists should be rewarded? Shall we believe that Hitler was sent by god to kill millions of people in the Holocaust? Shall we believe that god is the direct cause of every abortion on this planet? Shall we believe that you have no choice in your spouse or the number of children you have? Probably not. But that is what god-believers are saying when they state that Hitler or cancer or anything else is part of "god's plan."

"It is part of god's plan" is one of those meaningless palliatives. When we think it through, using common sense, the statement is obviously delusional. We can plainly see how imaginary god is.

1.

Understand that religion is superstition. Let's say that you were to create a far-flung news network, and you somehow had the capacity to observe all of the inexplicable tragedy that occurs on Earth each day:
all of the murders,
all of the car wrecks
all of the rapes
all of the mutilations
all of the torture
all the miscarriages and stillbirths
all of the disease
all of the starvation
all of the destruction
all of the terrorism
Let's say you had a news feed that delivered this all to you in real time. Just ten minutes with this news feed would be unbearable. Thousands of tragic, heart-wrenching events would inflict themselves upon you every minute. The volume of gut-wrenching, anguished tragedy in ‘god’s world’ is unspeakable.

Meanwhile, there is a girl in Pasadena who firmly believes that god answered her prayer this morning to remove the blood stain from her favorite panties. She prayed to god to help with the stain, and after she washed it the stain was gone. Praise Jesus! There are tens of millions of people in the United States who firmly believe that god is personally helping them each day with their trivial prayers like this. They believe that they have a personal relationship with god, that god hears their prayers each day, and that god has time to reach down and remove the blood molecules one by one. They believe it with all of their hearts.

It makes you wonder: If god has the interest and the will to answer these trivial prayers, then why does he have no time for the millions of other massively serious problems that arise on earth every day?

Look at the world we live in. All around us we have murderers, rapists, robbers, child molesters, terrorists, etc... How do they do their deeds?

3.
If you are a typical christer, however, you are just like Suzy in Pasadena. You say dozens of little prayers every day. You may pray for 20 trivial things today:
Pray for your car to start in the morning.
Pray for traffic to be light so you get to work on time.
Pray that you don't get fired for the mistake you made yesterday.
Pray that the coffee stain on your purse comes out.
Pray that it doesn't rain.
Pray that the price of a stock has gone up.
Pray that your computer doesn't crash.
Pray that your son got a decent grade on his math test.
Pray that there's enough money in your checking account.
Pray that the guy you went out with on Saturday calls you.
Pray that your mother in law cancels her trip for the weekend.
Pray for there to be an available washing machine at the Laundromat.
Pray that your car passes inspection.
Pray that they have your size in the shoes you are thinking about buying.
Pray that the envelope you are opening contains a check rather than a bill.
Pray that your cat didn't pee on the new sofa.
Pray for your baby not to wake you up tonight so you can get some sleep.
Pray that you have the winning bid for that camera on EBay.
Pray that they have the video you want at the video store tonight.
Pray that your team wins the game on Sunday.

And what happens? Some of your prayers would get "answered," some would not. If you are a believer, and if something nice happens, you attribute that to god -- he answered your prayer and is "looking out" for you. If you pray for something and it does not happen, or if something bad happens, you rationalize that it is part of "God's plan" . It is "his will" that this bad event occurred.

An unbiased observer looks at the same good and bad events and sees them for what they are -- random events. God has nothing to do with them. To the unbiased observer, it is obvious that religion is nothing but superstition.

4.
If you are a believer, you can prove to yourself that they are random events. Tomorrow, instead of praying about everything, simply watch 20 trivial things happen without praying. Some will work out, some will not. There will be no difference. The act of praying about them does not change the outcome in any way. If you were to statistically analyze your prayers, it would become obvious to you that every "answered prayer" is a coincidence. The belief in prayer is just like any religious superstition. Walking under a ladder is not "bad luck". Neither is breaking a mirror. Neither is seeing a black cat. Statistics prove that a broken mirror has zero effect on your life. In the same way, statistics prove that god never answers prayers.

The dictionary defines the word "superstition" in this way:
An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
Prayer is rank superstition, nothing more. People who believe in the power of prayer are no different than people who believe in the power of crystal balls, horoscopes or lucky rabbit’s feet. Prayer is proven to be meaningless.

The reason why there is so much suffering in this world, and the reason why a statistical analysis of your trivial prayers always shows them to be complete coincidences, is because god is imaginary. Belief in god is pure superstition.

TTWSTY pontificates thusly:

'To a neophyte critic not attuned to the Catholic faith, like Hitchens, it would mean she had no faith. To the contrary, it means she feels she doesn’t have enough faith because she has briefly experienced the ultimate union with God, dwelling in His existence, and it has made her know how awesome that God‘s majesty is and how humble and small she is in comparison to the indescribable God who is Omnipotent Love.'
_______________

Hmmmmmm..... and you know all of this how exactly? Did this come from the New Advent Catholic website per chance?

An 'ultimate union with God' no matter how briefly, usually results in the immediate vaporization of the experiencer, or so I've heard. How did our Mother Teresa live to see another day, one wonders?

We can only imagine her ecstasy as being of a different kind or of a least a different magnitude, than that of her sainted namesake, Teresa of Avilla - who is depicted as enjoying her experience just a little too much, if you know what I mean.

Her contemporary stick-in-the-mud fellow saint, John of the Cross, was more dour by far than the spunky Teresa. No 'dark night of the soul' for her, no sir!

Farnaz,

Thanks for your insights, as always. Regarding Jesuits and saints, certain highly educated and thoughtful clerics are probably unable to muster the complete faith in all things supernatural required by the Church. Their insights are rarely welcome in Rome!

Meanwhile, Church doctrine on sainthood and otherwise, remains completely at odds with the virtue of a pragmatism that addresses the real-world needs of the faithful - as we discuss endlessly on these threads!

However, these days the canonization process seems more politically motivated than ever, so maybe that can be construed as a kind of earthly corporate pragmatism after all.

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

regards, Persiflage

Farnaz1Mansouri1

"Helen was not brought to Faustus when he was dying."

Not in the real sense.

Amused to note your angle to observe Marlowe's play.

What he was is known - It was his sense of guilt rather which is reflected.

I once was lost in darkest night
Yet thought I knew the way
The sin that promised joy and life
Had led me to the grave
I had no hope that You would own
A rebel to Your will
And if You had not loved me first
I would refuse You still

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
PERSIFLAGE:
MOTHER TERESA
“LACK OF FAITH?”

ANS:
Mother Teresa’s struggle is not a struggle of lack of faith but a struggle of contemplation and unless you know what it means by the seven deep plateaus of prayer or understand what they are, you can’t understand what was happening to Teresa. It’s called the “dark night of the soul.” It is a state of the soul that empties itself and is filled with nothing but the indwelling of God, a state of being in Heaven.

The struggle occurs when the soul returns back to its normal state there is a feeling that God has disserted the soul because the ecstasy is so intense and so enthralling that the soul feels abandoned. Jesus, in His human nature cried out on the Cross, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” Two contemplative Mystic Saints of the Church, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of the Discalced Carmelites, doctors of mystic theology explain this.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08480a.htm

John Paul II asked, "Where did Mother Teresa find the strength and perseverance to place herself completely at the service of others? She found it in prayer and in the silent contemplation of Jesus Christ, his Holy Face, his Sacred Heart."

“Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk. Mother Teresa expressed grave doubts about God's existence and pain over her LACK of faith: “Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul ... How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, ... What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”

To a neophyte critic not attuned to the Catholic faith, like Hitchens, it would mean she had no faith. To the contrary, it means she feels she doesn’t have enough faith because she has briefly experienced the ultimate union with God, dwelling in His existence, and it has made her know how awesome that God‘s majesty is and how humble and small she is in comparison to the indescribable God who is Omnipotent Love.

Hitman2,

Helen was not brought to Faustus when he was dying. (You might want to read the play.)

"Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?"

Among the most famous lines in English literature, famous for their artistry--figure upon figure.

Hitman2,

Now you are up my alley. Marlowe, the gay atheist, did, indeed, write that strange and remarkable play. And his attack on religion is well worth noting. The ambivalence, ambiguity in this tragedy are stunning. I've no doubt they, in part, account for the longevity of the work--that, and Marlowe's "might line."

There are several problems with atheism, agnosticism, and religion evident in the pronouncements of their advocates.

The current defense of atheism is intellectually unsatisfying. Thanks to Dawkins, et al, we have only the same Reason and Science arguments which reached full fruition in the Enlightenment, sans the excitement in that period evident in the Substantive prose.

Rather than joy, we see nay-saying straight from Dawkins, sometimes verbatim. It was not always thus. Agnosticism and Atheism accompanied breathtaking advancements in math, science, and philosophy, giving rise to new understandings of the earth, the universe, civilizations, leading to new developments in art, architecture, literature, etc. On none of these do we see much comment in today's discussions. Nowhere do we see evidence of the wonder that has and still can accompany atheism.

As another blogger memorably put it, "YEsterday's philosophy is today's common sense." More's the pity.

Jacqueline Salomon wisely recommended a departure from this tiresome, empty discourse, beginning with an exploration of the Tradition of Doubt, more specifically, the tradition traced by Jennifer Hecht in "A History of Doubt."

All said, what I've written is highly reductive. The critique of (im)pure reason launched by Adorno is highly relevant. The fact that many of the greatest periods of liberal arts advancement occurred during periods of enormous economic growth is also quite important. But these issues are best left to a later date.

For now, I want to emphasize that so long as Atheists define themselves in the negative, i.e., as those who do NOT, they cannot offer much to believers.

Atheists need to do more than pontificate and name-call, more than bash the Bible, Quoran, etc. An affirming voice would do better.

That sort of thing one finds in Hecht, I think. ONe needs to show that atheism can be freeing.

All these discussions are in vain. Either you believe in God, or you do not,you have freedom of choice. And this freedom is a gift from Him. If God would have revealed Himself and remained present overtly, then? you we would have lost our freedom.
You can imagine how you feel while your boss is present while you work and when he is not.
Refresh yourself with something from Dr.Faustus.
Doctor Faustus, is a play by Christopher Marlowe, based on the Faust story, in which a man sells his soul to the devil for power and knowledge.

In the play faustus comments that he has reached the end of every subject he has studied. He appreciates Logic as being a tool for arguing; Medicine as being unvalued unless it allowed raising the dead and immortality; Law as being upstanding and above him; Divinity as useless because he feels that all humans commit sin, and thus to have sins punishable by death complicates the logic of Divinity. He dismisses it as "What doctrine call you this?

When Dr.Fastus was dying the devil brought Helen of Troy to lessen his pain.
Faustus says:
"Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?--
Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.--
''[kisses her]''
Her lips suck forth my soul: see, where it flies!--
Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again.
Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips,
And all is dross that is not Helena.
I will be Paris, and for love of thee,
Instead of Troy, shall Wittenberg be sack'd;
And I will combat with weak Menelaus,
And wear thy colours on my plumed crest;
Yea, I will wound Achilles in the heel,
And then return to Helen for a kiss.
O, thou art fairer than the evening air
Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars;
Brighter art thou than flaming Jupiter
When he appear'd to hapless Semele;
More lovely than the monarch of the sky
In wanton Arethusa's azur'd arms;
And none but thou shalt be my paramour!"
(Quoted from wikipidia)
Is this what the atheists expect in the last.vainity upon vainity in thoughts and in actions.

The modern atheist is so laughable. Someone criticizes his position, therefore that person must be religious. Just like a religious person. A religious person has his religion and if any criticism of it is made the critic must belong to another religion or be an atheist. So simpleminded--or rather cowardly.

Obviously it is unheard of for an atheist to criticize atheism. I am pretty much an atheist. Certainly I am not religious. Take the Catholicism of my youth. No faith in God for the Catholic--supposedly proof exists for the doings of Christ, eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, etc. Some faith expecting all that proof! And forcing the proof to one's expectations too!

And all those ridiculous attempts to prove the existence of God. The best I have seen is that the existence of God might be proved, but one cannot also prove him good. In other words, we can trace all effect back to an ultimate cause--argue for the logic of such and that the universe must have been designed--but we cannot also prove that God is good. On the contrary, an omnipotent being must have created evil or not be omnipotent. There is no way around it. But Catholics attempt to pin evil on man, original sin, etc.--as if man could not have sinned being a being created by God which is lesser than God! The only way man could not have sinned is if he was as God. But God created a lesser being, therefore God is the responsible party. Create a flawed being accept responsibility for its doings. Then we have Christ, the supposed magnificent sacrifice of Christ...but how much of a sacrifice could it have been when it was the son of God (meaning God himself according to the trinity) being sacrificed and knowing he was the son of God? Could not have been much effort--certainly not the effort man has to make to just get by...

So I am not really religious. But I have no great love for the cowardly, incapable of criticizing himself, modern atheist either.

so, daniel12, tell us why you're not a muslim now. tell us which of the thousands of gods humanity worships is yours, and why all the others are wrong.

Schaum has accused me of plagiarism. Please prove such Schaum, atheist as you are and unable to speak unless stating a fact and not a mere belief. But here is the best part: my theory of writing. I have long observed that in music one just composes, one does not make any effort to demonstrate that one has not plagiarized. That is up to the listener to determine. Compare this with writing. We are drilled from childhood not to write a sentence unless going through a whole rigamarole of proving sources, following this or that rule of composition and so on. I decided to write as musicians compose. Leave it up to the reader to determine whether plagiarism has occurred. And knowing the laziness of the reader, I fully expected to hear this complaint and that--especially as to plagiarism. So I decided to just declare all my writing--whether plagiarized or not--as not my writing but public property. This way nothing is mine. No plagiarism accusation stands. I did no writing. No one here did. It is public property. Anyone can pass my writing under his name. And if one is still concerned about plagiarism, then determine such oneself. I just write and think. I let no common rules of writing stand in the way of thinking--like all too many people do.

Part one.

The problem with the modern atheist.

The problem with the modern atheist is that he is essentially a schoolboy, beating the dog of religion when anyone with basic understanding and logic knows of all the problems of logic and otherwise with religion.

A simple but obvious example of the problem with religion: A supposedly good God, devoid of evil, yet evil existing in the world. The problems with religion are obvious. One would think atheists would have progressed by now to the problems inherent in their own position. But one would have thought wrong. Modern atheists are so dogmatic and insistent their position is free of problems that it can be wondered if any of them will admit that problems with atheism have been written of in the past.

But let us move on to some of the problems with atheism. An evident problem is how reason can be taken as reason let alone exist by exactly no intelligent design behind existence. We are told by the good atheists however that things "can be explained as having arisen from the ground up, that no top down, divine answer is necessary". So we have the subhuman giving birth to the human and the human considered to be quite permanent even though literally created out of clay forming itself.

Part two.

In a larger sense we have the problem with atheism that existence no matter man's mastery of nature is hostile to man, that man can never attain a true material let alone spiritual achievement. But of course in the atheist's world one must try...and arrive at some sort of political solution which however every avowedly atheist society so far has blundered at (Soviet Union killing millions; Red China destroying thousands, or rather millions as well, in its great leap forward). One would think that atheists at the least would give us the courtesy of acknowledging the problem of politics in the atheistic world. One would have thought wrong...

And of course without God man is not called into question as anything more than a purely economic animal, so the inevitable result is a leftwing egalitarian society (read Marxian) or at best man engrossed with trivialities (as in Western democracy today). The atheist's view of the world leaves us with the fundamental view that ultimately man is destined for nothing, so all projects are reduced as to seriousness and approach the level of triviality. If man is destined for nothing then how can anything be truly engaging? Answer: nothing can because never really leading to anything except failure in the end.

One would also think one would have a study of the psychological effects of atheism on a population. In fact the typical political response of the atheist calls for a psychological explanation. The atheist dispenses with religion--the old and outworn in general--and then considers everything pretty much settled. No problems with atheism as religion and other ways have been problematical in the past.

But of course this settlement is largely due to technological advancement, a society which has as its ruling objective the elimination of pain. Never mind that atheists also believe in the theory of evolution and evolution if characterized as a political process would be called an aristocracy. Natural selection has worked so far as human existence is concerned toward the creation of the intelligent man--a ruthless process of eliminating any type of man who stands in the way of intelligent man. An aristocracy in a word.

Part three.

Atheists have not come to grips at all with the very science they always talk about. They talk of entropy but this does not bother them much. They talk of evolution but apparently evolution in their minds is consistent with leftwing egalitarianism. They also talk of morality even though in the same breath they speak of the relativity of cultures and especially man so we have a Chomsky or Jared Diamond saying essentially all is culturally and biologically equal concerning man but then offering...no real moral ground whatsoever. Heideggar however had the courage to say ethics is impossible. No God no real ground for such.

In general atheists believe in the relativity of things. Everyone's opinion is welcome so long as it does not conflict with anyone else's. No standard of excellence. The goal of society the greatest happiness. No stoic approach to an existence because without God fundamentally pain causing. More like an avoidance of all pain is the goal--while at the same time acknowledging nothing is behind existence and all is ultimately futile...

But I like best the reason of atheists, which is to say the reasoning mind. No intelligent design behind things but a supreme belief in the scientific method. Do atheists ever adore science! The very science they undercut by saying nothing is behind existence...What can be predicted by science other than ultimate failure in the atheist's world? What progress by science is to be expected? How can science even have a value when reason and its method (the scientific method) have arisen from exactly no intelligence behind things? Why do humans think things can be made better by reason and the scientific method when the entire universe including man and his reason arose by exactly no intelligence, no reason, no scientific method behind things?

Just a few of the problems with atheism. But let that not bother the good modern atheist. Let him go back to bashing religion--and feel he is the man of progress.

Timmy below:

"I have no belief in any God and I have full respect for all life. It is natural. No divine command necessary. I have no desire to kill, steal or rape, or cheat, or harm my environment, and yet I believe in no God. There are more believers in prison than atheists"

What next Timmy? You never masturbated in your life you saint? You really have never had those criminal desires in your life? If not Timmy, then you are no valid voice for the morality of the atheist being so obviously an exemption from quite ordinary human impulses. You have no right to declare how other atheists will behave. You are an exemption from the rule. What I like best though is that finally, after all those attempts at sainthood by the religious, we have ourselves a saint who apparently has made no effort to be such and does not believe in God. A miracle!

NAVIN 1

Part Three

"No atheist defines themself as an atheist without understanding the subtlety of the strong and weak components...."

Oh I understand it much better than you, that much is obvious. What you seem to have missed is that even strong atheists do not posit the non-existence of "God" as a general concept, as you like to accuse. Like me, they negate specifically proposed gods based on contradictions that make them impossible to exist based on the attributes given to them by those who posit that particular god. I know of no atheists who are dumb enough to posit the non existence of anything with certainty.

"We all seek the truth"

Not me. I seek knowledge. truth is subjective and ever changing.

"Instead of arguing about the certainty of knowledge, an argument on how we would know with certainty is important "

Straw man. Atheists don't demand certainty of knowledge. Neither does science. Just evidence.

"ergo, what would prove to you that a god exists?"

I don't need proof to believe in things. I need 1 ounce of evidence. I believe in evolution. I can't see it or prove it. But there is evidence for it.

NAVIN 1

Part Two

YOU: "is this not a set of truth statements?"

No. They were all observations. If not, then you make truth statements every second line of every post you have ever written on this blog. You are being ridiculous and hypocritical to an embarrassing level with this truth statement accusation fetish.

"But again, the Truth does exist. Of this we have certain knowledge"

Said the exposer of truth statements. I had respect for you as a blogger at first but you are starting to become the most hypocritical joke here. And that my friend is a truth statement.

"As such we must believe in a thing that we may not be able to prove by evidence (the being of truth)."

Is that a truth statement? Because it's not true. We created the concept of "truth". So of course it exists. It exists as a concept. Just like God exists as a concept. But that doesn't mean God exists. it just means that the concept of god exists. So don't get too excited.

"Is there no one who knows more on a subject than you?"

"No one Knows" means, if someone knew, they would tell us. But all those who've told us they "know" so far, have no evidence, or credibility to make such a statement. So it can reasonably be assumed that no one currently knows.

"Are you not more certain of your existence than I am of your existence"

I shouldn't be. It should be equal. I suppose before mirrors you would be the one more certain.

"An open mind needs a credo: I don't know, but you might"

It's a joke credo. Not a real credo. It's a short and crude way to say what I said above about how if someone knew, they'd come forth with credible evidence. Until that time, we can reasonably assume that no one knows. Unless he's keeping it to himself. Or herself.

"No scientist goes to his / her granting agency and says I want to study fiction. They want to study truth"

No, they want to study the unknown, and learn. Not learn the truth. Just learn.

NAVIN 1

Part One:

"I do have a firm recall of the unicorn analogy, though"

I made an analogy using God and unicorns but your paraphrasing completely changed the meaning of what I actually said and conveniently so in favor of your argument. You constantly do this. For example I say something like "no one knows the true nature of reality" and you then tell me that I said that "the true nature of reality can never be known". In the future, if you ever want to start a sentence to me with the words "you said" or "you think" or "you believe", you need to quote me saying, thinking or believing such things. You've lost your paraphrasing privileges.

"Observation can be considered a valid method to determine the existence or non-existence of a but it may not be the only method"

1. There is no method of determining the non-existence of anything.

2. May not be the only way? sure. But we currently have no evidence of any other way.

"is it not true that you are simplifying the idea of god to make it easy to argue against?"

There is no "it" when it comes to the idea of god. There are an infinite number of possible gods and versions of god. I take each version of god posited to me for it's own merits and make my call on it's validity. That includes the hundreds of different versions of the christian god pitched to me over the years. Although being that there are over 30, 0000 of those, I accept that it is possible that one of those I haven't heard yet might meet my criteria of evidence and logic. But it's highly unlikely. But so many other versions of god have been pitched to me and so far none have even come close to being credible. I don't define the gods I argue against, they are defined by the people pitching them to me.

ME: "it's the definition used by the vast majority of the people on our planet who use the word."

YOU: "any statistics to support your truth statement above?"

1. Observations are not truth statements.

2. Aproximately 69% of the world's population uses the word "god" religiously. 54% of them are Christian and Muslim which means they define God as the all powerful creator of the universe, creator of man, punisher of our wrongs, giver of our moral laws, with unquestionable authority, to be worshiped and praised, with compulsory respect, fear and love. Who watches our every move, judging our eternal fate.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

ONe does wonder, occasionally, how the psychopathic God the Dadddy, and Co., could be viewed as good, in even the most disturbed minds, how they could represent the expositors of the Religion of Love. SttangeLove. Not for nothing that NT words are inscribed on rifles. Haven't they always been? That is, beginning with Constantine?

Below are a few illustrative highlights from Matthew. PsychoLOve passages from MLJ, etc., are available upon request.
------------------------------------------

Matthew

# Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21

# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. 10:14-15

# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28

# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

# Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children. So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7

CONTINUED:

# Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." 18:8-9

# "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors." 18:34

# In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37

# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51

# The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46

Farnaz:

"I will say that those nonCatholics who oppose his canonization should examine their fears."

What do you mean?
--------------------------
Schaum:

I tried to explain in the succeeding paragraph.

Regards,
Farnaz

TTWYSTED

"Has Empirical Science told man how to love?"

No it has shown man why he loves and that no one needs to tell him how to love. Empirical science has shown why love is the most natural thing in the world. No need for scriptures of any kind. So science would never be so dumb as to offer any.

"What test-tube teaches values?"

No test tubes. Parents, siblings, friends, literature, movies, experiences, mistakes, intuition. Again, science has shown that altruism is an evolutionary creation. Again, the most natural thing in the world. No need for any scriptures. Science Just provides us with the evidence that it is natural in us. Which is far more inspiring a thought than it needing to have it lectured to us because we are naturally bad. One thought inspires me to love my neighbor and the other inspires me to be suspicious of them.

"What ohmmeter teaches virtue?"

Parents, siblings, friends, literature, movies, experiences, mistakes, intuition...

"Thus, Thomas Jefferson asked, “To whom shall we go for our moral guidance if not the Church?”

You mean Thomas Jefferson the slave owner? That Thomas Jefferson? Yes I have no doubt that he got his morality from the Bible which endorses slavery.

"Indeed, those who find God a myth have found the murder of a mother’s unborn child legal"

God a myth? You better hope so. Otherwise you worship the most genocidal maniac ever imagined.

From Deuteronomy:

When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

Farnaz:

"I will say that those nonCatholics who oppose his canonization should examine their fears."

What do you mean?

PERSIFLAGE:

TTWSTY, as word to the wise:

I'd be careful about using Mother Teresa as any kind of Church authority, much less a saintly role model of moral rectitude.

Below we have articles about her lifelong crisis of faith, and her involvement with the Charles Keating scandal - covered in a short work by Christopher Hitchens.
-------------------------------
It is much worse than that. She was also a great friend of the Duvaliers, of Haiti. In INdia, she did some things that are highly regretable.

For instance, because she believed that suffering was "good," to the dying in physical agony, she permitted no medication.
Needles were used and re-used. Those who mistook her hospice for a "hospital," were often not informed of where they were--the result, needless death.

A picture of a certain type of personality emerges. It should be noted that she went to the very best hospitals in the United States to meet her own health care needs. Whether or not she availed herself of pain medication is not known.

As for doubt, I know much less about Catholicism than you do; however, from what I have read, Catholicism accepts, welcomes doubt. I am talking, now, about intelligent, literate Catholics. How, after all, can there be faith without doubt?
This view also obtains in Judaism and Protestantism. No doubt, for the smarter believers among us, probably means no faith.

As you know, I'm not a defender of institutionalized religion. I haven't changed in that regard. So what I can say is that canonization, to me, is a form of idolatry. First, Human, decides who does and doesn't have comparatively more "divine essence." Self-idolatry. Then Human canonizes. Idolatry of Human.
-----------------------------------
Pius is another subject. It would take weeks to discuss him. HOwever, I will say that those nonCatholics who oppose his canonization should examine their fears.

Of course, no one wants to see people, of whatever religion, holding up as quasi-divine someone who conducted himself as he did. We all want the best for our fellow humans. If the Catholics want a saint, why don't they look to Oscar Romero (may God rest his soul)? Still, it is their decision.

You probably know that there are those in the clergy who would like to see all this saint business go away. I have a friend, a Jesuit, who is of this mind. Has other ideas about how exemplary Catholics could figure in theology and liturgy. STill, he continually says he is no Protestant. Don't entirely understand this, but it's interesting for me to listen to him speak.

Regards,
Farnaz

1.
Christers consider the existence of their god to be an obvious truth. This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible god is lacking, but because the very nature christers attribute to this god is self-contradictory.

Many christers, as well as atheists, claim that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. For example, while we may not have evidence that unicorns or dragons exist, we cannot prove that they do not exist. Unless we have a complete knowledge of the universe, we must admit the possibility that somewhere in the universe, there might be such creatures. But the claim that omniscience is needed to prove a universal negative presumes that the concept which we are discussing is logically coherent. If the attributes which we assign to a hypothetical object or being are self-contradictory, then we can conclude that it cannot exist, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which make their existence impossible. A cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible -- they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object.

Christers have endowed their god with all of the following attributes: he is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal god who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

2.
Their god's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity. These attributes of god are related by the bible, which christers believe to be the perfect and true word of god.

One verse which many christers are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. But clearly these concepts of god are completely incompatible, and reveal the impossibility of all of them being held simultaneously by the same being. There is no foolishness in denying the impossible. Foolishness is worshipping an impossible god. I will demonstrate that the supposed properties of the christer god, like those of a cubic sphere, are impossible and, therefore, that god’s existence is an impossibility.

What did god do during that eternity before he created everything? If god was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?

God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing the elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If god is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A god who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator-god is impossible.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that this perfect god did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in god's image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey god.

Another christer impossibility: if something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, yet this "perfect" god created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. How illogical can christers be? The ultimate source of imperfection is god. What is perfect cannot make itself imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so god must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect god who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

3.
The christers' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have free will to be happy. The omni-benevolent god did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans free will to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into god's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not god. But that argument is patently false.

First, if god is omnipotent, then the assumption that free will is necessary for happiness is false. If god could make it a rule that only beings with free will may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with free will could. A perfect and omnipotent god who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of free will for happiness, god could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, god supposedly has free will, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of god, our decisions should likewise be perfect. The occupants of heaven, who presumably must have free will to be happy, will never use that free will to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

The point is made: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

Supposedly, god is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

4.
Supposedly, god is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely injust. The absurdity of this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the god who created them. A perfectly just god who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the christers, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just god would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

The bible is supposedly god's perfect word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this god to provide us with this means for overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful god could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect god has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of god is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma. And yet the perfect god expects the imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful god would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

5.
One need look to no source other than the bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just god who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census. It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's, and his christers’, skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

The imperfect bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

The imperfect bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it with Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which christers are either passively or willfully ignorant. The sign given by Isaiah to King Ahaz was meant to assure him that his enemies King Rezin and King Remaliah would be defeated. The prophecy was fulfilled in the very next chapter. Yet Matthew 1 not only misinterprets the word for "maiden" as "virgin," but claims that this already-fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus!

6.
The fulfillment of prophecy in the imperfect bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is only one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged word of god. Many have been found. A perfect god who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

A god who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient god who is all-powerful and free willed is impossible.

A god who knows everything cannot have emotions. The bible says that god experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient god is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally.

Humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot repair. The perfect, omnipotent god, however, can repair anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect god lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect god who experiences emotion is impossible.

Thus the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the christer god. No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of the christer god,, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of god is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities, there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. One may choose to serve an impossible god; I will stick with the realities revealed by science and logic.

Part one.

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
-- Bertrand Russell

Fine. Let us take Russell at his word. This saying of his no doubt is posited against the belief in God. That is primarily what he has in mind. So there is no God. Now Russell should have the courage to state the consequences of such. That man is destined for nothing. All is ultimately futile. What I like best is that Russell writes "for the reader's favourable consideration". No doubt it is favourable to know that all man's effort is doomed to futility.

No doubt it is also favourable for the reader to know that there is not the slightest bit of intelligent design behind things, that everything has arisen--including his own reason--from nothing. This way the reader need not apply any reason at all, for he is assured that reason is utterly unnecessary to produce anything, including reason.

Furthermore the reader will be happy to know that he can even go mad and argue that it is not madness because there is no reason fundamentally for anything, we all live in a Godless, amoral universe that has no good or evil behind it but rather the both just doing this and doing that with no intelligent design.

The reader will be overjoyed to know that without God there is no ground for morality, that all is subjective. The worst that can happen if say, a bomb is exploded for the hell of it is that he will be tried by man. But of course there is no God so man cannot give any solid reason why a bomb should not be exploded. Or are we going to hear of a thousand reasons why not when over all these reasons we have fundamentally nothing and man destined to perish anyway?

Part two.

No doubt the reader will be happy to know suicide is viewed very favourably in the atheist's world. Nothing is behind things so why accomplish anything? Certainly no one will complain if one just wants to erase one's consciousness in drugs or alcohol. Or are atheists going to start speaking of social obligations?

Social obligations? What social obligations without God? Just what is expected to be achieved? Man over his six million year evolutionary development transformed at the price of wiping out all alternative lines of human and certainly everything that he was. I hope that the atheist is not going to say we are socially obligated to help everyone. Evolution does not demonstrate such, there is no fixed, absolute and possible to be achieved morality without God and we are destined for nothing anyway.

Last but not least, the atheist despite Russell does believe despite no proof for such that things can get better--certainly that things will get better without religion. The atheist never really examines his position. He merely rejects religion and does not examine the possible consequences of atheism. He is typically a humanist, a progressive personality. He erases God but believes quite a bit can be done within the limits of material existence. Certainly the Soviets and Red Chinese believed a lot could be done. They rearranged all of society in their quest for materialistic perfection for all. What proof did they have of the possible success of their belief? None at all.

The last person one should believe is one who says he does not believe in anything for which there is no proof. He will try to turn you to more than his word. And you will discover that this "more" is not really evident to the eye.

Part one.

First of all, we have a Danial12 obviously trying to confuse things, put words in my mouth--be mistaken for me as if I changed my mind and wrote new words. Some morality of the atheist. Cannot find a name to post under except one that can be confused with my name.

Second of all, it is transparently obvious that atheists are just as dogmatic as the religious, unwilling to give an inch when criticisms are made of their position. They think their position has no negative consequences or something, that it is perfectly logical.

1) How reason can be taken as reason let alone arise out of a fundamentally amoral and intellectually inconsistent universe. No God, no ground for morality or reason. All becomes subjective. Even science--except apparently for the universal atheistic truth that the universe at bottom has nothing for man, that no matter how much man accomplishes he is destined to end in nothing.

Part two.

2) Why exactly is it that reason is so important to the atheist when according to his very conception everything has arisen, including man, including his reason, from precisely no fundamental reason behind things?--in fact everything according to the atheist has arisen without the slightest bit of consciousness behind things! All has come about not by something aloft (divinity) but from the ground up, the subhuman! So why the importance of reason in the face of all this? Why not choose ignorance instead because everything has arisen out of ignorance? There is not the slightest bit of proof that anything much can arise out of reason (if one takes up the atheist's position). On the other hand, the entire universe according to the atheist has arisen without the slightest bit of intelligent design. Sounds like unreason is more of a success at creating everything--including reason--than reason!

3) And what exactly is reason supposed to achieve for the atheist? The decision has been made already by the atheist that nothing is behind existence. What possibly can be discovered or created by reason that has a weight at all comparable to the fundamental nothing behind things atheist's posit?

4) Atheism gives no hope. It erases hope. No hope in anything behind matter, and no matter the manipulation of matter by man eventually all human effort ends in nothing. Atheism is no addition. It is a subtraction--the elimination of religion of course--but also the elimination from science of anything of reason behind the universe. This is why an atheist's science has every theory hanging in a space which is a vast nothingness. Man evolves from goop, batters his way up to "reason", is destined to perish. Entropy over everything. Big bang. Big crash or spread of universe and death in an inevitable cold...

5) Atheists give us exactly nothing of the possible effects of atheism on disciplines from psychology to political science. All their arguments are against religion and then they sit back smug and self-satisfied. In general no willingness to criticize their own position although they most of all people talk of their open-mindedness, imagination, skepticism. I have never heard of much less read a book by an atheist criticizing his own position, pointing out possible shortcomings, problems of logic. At the least atheists should give us a picture of all that might occur--and might not--if religion is completely wiped out and children are taught in school there is no God. What effect atheism will have over generations schooled in atheism.

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
-- Bertrand Russell

Timmy, I apologize if I am mixing up my Timmys or atheists. (I do have a firm recall of the unicorn analogy, though)

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm
discussed strong v weak atheism. Danial 12 seems to be a strong atheist. You may be a weak one.

my example of the logical "a exists or a does not exist" is not based on observation, it is a logical space of the possibilities of the state of a. Observation can be considered a valid method to determine the existence or non-existence of a but it may not be the only method.

The article above points out that theists seem to simplify the concept of atheism; is it not true that you are simplifying the idea of god to make it easy to argue against?

"It's not my definition. It's the definition used by the vast majority of the people on our planet who use the word."

any statistics to support your truth statement above?

"Hinduism for example is a mono-ideology. Within it there may be poly-ideological notions, but it is as a whole, a mono-ideology. All religions are. I am the true believer in poly-ideology. That is why I am so dead set against the mono-ideology of religion. And no, that is not a mono-ideological statement. A single belief is not an ideology. An ideology is a complex set of beliefs. Like Hinduism for example." - is this not a set of truth statements?

But again, the Truth does exist. Of this we have certain knowledge: even a denial of this tautology establishes a truth of the nature of being. But can we observe Truth? You and I have discussed how this may not be possible. As such we must believe in a thing that we may not be able to prove by evidence (the being of truth).

'The credo is: "I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!" ' Now here is a challenge. Are you a brilliant mathematician, political leader, spirtualist, physical scientist..? Is there no one who knows more a subject than you. Are you not more certain of your existence than I am of your existence.

An open mind needs a credo: I don't know, but you might. - then exploration can have depth. No scientist goes to his / her granting agency and says I want to study fiction. They want to study truth. No artist says they want to write a book that has no relevance to the society in which it is written, they want to be relevant. No atheist defines themself as an atheist without understanding the subtlety of the strong and weak components....

We all seek the truth, some have found some, others found other pieces. Instead of arguing about the certainty of knowledge, an argument on how we would know with certainty is important - the types of epistemology. ergo, what would prove to you that a god exists?

hariaum

hariaum

In “God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of god:

-Hypothesize a god who plays an important role in the universe.
-Assume that god has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
-Look for such evidence with an open mind.
-If such evidence is found, conclude that god may exist.
-If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

This is basically how science can thus far disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is a modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: god, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, god cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but it just doesn’t fly.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence which I have just described were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

In the same way, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor at the moment. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIAL12 |
POSTED BY: JANUARY 24, 2010 3:27 PM
“GOD”

IRT:
"The usual response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is nonsensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time."

ANS:
Cause does not require time. Spiritual beings do not exist in time and they are caused, viz. their essence is given existence by the Creator. The creation of an idea cannot be measured by time it is an immaterial entity.

Time is nothing but a measure of movement of material beings. If a thing isn’t material it cannot be measured by time and doesn’t exist in time. Moreover time is basically a measure of a movement of a material being from potency to act and vice versa, so defined by Aristotle.

Briefly, from cause, a thing either is caused or is not caused. If it is caused it passes from potency to act but things in potency cannot cause themselves; nothing causes something, Second, it is impossible for an infinite continuum of infinite causes of movement of things that begin from potency to act unless there is a an umoved being, viz. a being whose existence is his essence.

Therefore, since all things that exist are caused or moved from potency to act in their beginning, or they would have always existed. If they have always existed, their essence would be their existence, and that defines God. If one's essence is their existence they are without potence and without change.

Hence, something must exist that has no beginning to move that which begins. That which has no beginning has no potency, consequently not subject to change or confined in time and is who we call God.

Moreover, beings with parts are changeable. Thus any being capable of change is a composite of potency and act. But God's existence is his essence and therefore has no potency and is immutable.

ARISTOTLE’S PROOF FROM MOTION: THE PRIME MOVER”

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm

TTWSTY, as word to the wise:

I'd be careful about using Mother Teresa as any kind of Church authority, much less a saintly role model of moral rectitude.

Below we have articles about her lifelong crisis of faith, and her involvement with the Charles Keating scandal - covered in a short work by Christopher Hitchens.

Having witnessed more intense suffering over many decades than most, she doubted the existence of God for 50 years - with good and sufficient reason.

The Church plows ahead with the canonization of such controversial figures as Mother Teresa and Pope Pious XII for it's own reasons.

Finding the requisite miracles needed for sainthood that can somehow be attributed to these two must take intrepid and devout investigators indeed!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/mother.htm

The concept of 'god' can mean anything, given the apparently limitless number of characteristics which various believers assign to their gods. When someone asks why I don’t believe in god, I always ask what they mean by ‘god’ in the first place…and invariably, their “definition” of god is not something which requires belief.

The contrast between the laws of nature and gods is very interesting. Peoplet have legitimately different views on just what the laws of nature are and how they operate, but at the end of the day, no one denies that there ARE laws of nature and there is very little disagreement on what those basic laws of nature are.

No one denies the existence of gravity, for example. Why not? There is just too much that happens every day for which gravity is the most obvious and best explanation. It doesn’t make sense to say that we fall when we trip because invisible fairies push us, or a pencil falls when we drop it because invisible fairies are pushing on it — that if the fairies didn’t exist, we and our pencils would never hit the ground. Some common force is acting here on us and the pencils; gravity not only explains what happens, but allows us to predict future events with great accuracy. The fairy theory doesn’t. Neither does the god theory.

We encounter a very different situation when we come to alleged gods. People claim the existence of all sorts of mutually exclusive deities, but they can never point to some basic, recurring aspect of the universe which absolutely COMPELS belief in some sort of god, even if it’s not theirs. What is going on in the universe in general, or around us in particular, which only makes sense in the context of some god? More importantly, what does this “god theory” predict with any accuracy, so that we can test it and discover that it’s a reliable, accurate explanation for events?

Nothing like this exists. Unequivocal EVIDENCE compels belief in something like gravity acting on us and everything around us; absolutely no evidence comes anywhere close to compelling belief in anything like a god: there’s simply nothing about the universe which suggests that the existence of any god is necessary – for anything.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DANIAL12
“NO NEED FOR RELIGION OR GOD”

IRT:
“Fortunately, as science, the scientific method, and critical thinking…religion is more debunked."

ANS:
Has Empirical Science told man how to love? What test-tube teaches values? What ohmmeter teaches virtue? Thus, Thomas Jefferson asked, “To whom shall we go for our moral guidance if not the Church?”

Indeed, those who find God a myth have found the murder of a mother’s unborn child legal, butchering unborn little live bodies with curette, legal; vacuuming little unborn into pieces, legal; scalding them with saline, legal; plunging surgical scissors into the back of a child's skull being born then sucking out its brains, legal; or strangling an abortion survivor, legal.

The infidels offer the old rationing and a death pill; they suggest the same in the Veteran Death Book for our disabled veterans.

IRT:
“There is, in fact, no god, nor even a hint of proof of god. It is all magical thinking.”

ANS:
Yes, the morally blind see no God; they use their magical thinking. For the Godless, the Court defines morality in “Roe v. Wade” irrespective of the Natural Law, and over 50 million unborn have been sentenced to death. Unfortunately, the Natural Law is not the domain of man but God‘s.

The Court ruled there is a right to lust, and impugned the sanctity of Marriage and Family.

The Godless are transmogrifying America. In “Lawrence v. Texas,” the Court ruled that traditional moral values serve no legitimate purpose to the States and are not a lawful basis for Civil Law.

Are the Founding Fathers now archaic or antediluvian? Has our Bill of Rights lost its basis by the advance of science? The agnostic Court thought so in “Roe” and “Lawrence.” In “Stone v. Graham,” they claimed the “Commandments” could corrupt the minds of Children by reading them.

Is God not needed? To the contrary, it is the messengers of death for the body and soul, the unenlightened Rationalist and Agnostics who we do not need.

“The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between." America in “Roe v. Wade” has deformed a great nation.... has pitted mothers against their children and women against men.”--Mother Teresa.

"His dad was a street preacher. My dad is a pharmacist"

lmfao

"Well it would seem that Danial 12 is much smarter than Daniel 12."

Thanks. Daniel12 is my younger brother. We had the same mother, different fathers. Mom was a working lady, if you get my meaning. His dad was a street preacher. My dad is a pharmacist. Daniel12 was in Vietnam, had a bad head injury, came home and lived with mom and my dad until dad found him stealing drugs. Don't know where he lives now, lost touch with him. I know government people are looking for him.

What would it mean if "God exists" were a truthful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.

Dan In the Den,

I agree with Schaumial 12

The suffering proves the non existence of God by the most common definition of God. The Christian and Muslim God is supposed to be all loving and all powerful. We know that no such creature can exist by our definitions of all of those words.

As for some people's inkling to use the term "God" to mean "some unknown force in the universe," I hope they wake up one day and realize how important it is to make a clear distinction here. Unless they want to clarify what they mean every single time they use the word "God" I suggest that they are harming the world by not choosing another name for their thing that does not mean "the all powerful creator and ruler of the universe, and the giver of moral laws for all humanity" to most of the people on this planet.

Just a suggestion. Not telling anyone what to do. Just pointing out a huge problem that clouds this debate to the detriment of the world.

NAVIN 1

Part One:

"You are making truth statements "

No, you are. I am arguing against them.

"A exists"

This is not a truth statement. It's an observation, as of yet unchallenged by evidence.

"A does not exist"

I have never said these words in my life.

"Even when you say that reality can not be known, you are positing a property onto reality"

I have never said "reality can not be known" in my life. You are arguing with people you have had previous conversations with, not me.

"It is in the nature of language and the human brain to differentiate"

Sounds like a truth statement to me. Do you have any idea how many of these you make?

NAVIN 1

Part One A

"The a-theist is a positing of the non-being of a deity."

No it is not. Get a dictionary. It is the term for a person who is not a theist. It is the term for a person who does not posit a deity. It's like if we had a term for the "non stamp collector". We don't. But if 2 thirds of the worlds population collected stamps with incredible zeal, believe me, we would come up with a term for the "non stamp collector". Something like an astampist. But of course there would be no such thing as "astampism" because it would have no content. There's nothing else common to being an "astampist" other than we don't collect stamps. With a-theists, there is no other distinguishing trait other than we don't posit a God. Beyond that, we all have individual beliefs.

Atheists are smart people generally. We know that a negative can never be proven. We're not dumb enough to pretend that it can. There are just degrees of unlikelihood. And The God hypothesis (most common definition of God) has an extremely high unlikelihood. So high in fact that one can be quite confident that God (most common definition) does not exist. By the most common definition of God, an educated person can be 99.99999% confident that no such creature exists.

NAVIN 1

Part Two:

"You once said that you don't believe in god just like you don't believe in unicorns"

No I didn't. You err every time you attempt to paraphrase me. Quote it or stuff it.

"I am sorry if you don't see the logic"

I do not see the logic of you putting words into my mouth and arguing with them, no. I see no logic in that, when you can do as I do, and put quotation marks around my comments that you want to refute, instead of paraphrasing and getting it wrong every time!

"As to the definition of god, we deal with imperfect language and try to look beyond that"

I am aware. And so are you. So continue to use the word "God" for your thing, which is not a dangerous idea. Even though your support for belief in "God" (your definition) will actually support belief in that other "God" by confusion due to the fact that the vast vast majority of the world use another definition for the word God. It is your choice to continue to do this. I'm just pointing out the negatives for you. And wondering what are the negatives of using a different word for your rather benign thing. That's all. Just making a suggestion. But you carry on as you see fit.

danielinthelionsden: "I do not see how this dramatic demontration of the reality of gravity should translate into observations about God"

Not talking about gravity, or the disaster. I am saying suffering disproves the existence of a allegedly merciful and just god.

Danial12

The suffering in Haiti proves that gravity exists. But we already thought that anyway, didn't we? I do not see how this dramatic demontration of the reality of gravity should translate into observations about God, any more than merely observing the complexity of climbing a stairs, or the impossibility of it with crippled legs.

1.

It is easy to prove that any particular concept of a god is either inherently meaningless, contradictory, or contradicts known scientific and/or historical facts. There is no god.

Inconsistent revelation clearly contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.

The problem of evil (or theodicy) in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist.

One can also argue that poor design contests the idea that a god-created life, on the basis that life forms exhibit poor or malevolent design, which can be easily explained by evolution and naturalism.

Non-belief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. This argument is contested by the claim that God wants to test humans to see who has the most faith. This suggestion, however, is easily dismissed by the argument surrounding the problem of evil.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory.

The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science.

The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the universe had to be created by God because a creator is required, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).

2.

The usual response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is nonsensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.

Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, disproves the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable and meaningless.

The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."

An omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.

There is no god.

Hi Justiulthen,

Sorry these posts are a little out of order.

This is post 1A

"Why would I discuss positive values that I personally experience of some of them with you?"

But have you immersed yourself fully into any of them and gotten anything extra out of that full immersion. This is the argument that you are making. That full immersion into one religion is a good thing and in fact, necessary to take away true value. You can not just "assure" me that this is true. You need evidence.

"Pearls at the feet of the closedminded is wasted pearls"

I am not close minded. No one is more open minded. But some people open their minds so much that some of their brains fall out.

"Pearls, of course, being valued on a personal basis, as we have learned"

No that is your definition. You seem to have a low bar for what qualifies as a pearl. To me, to be a "pearl" of wisdom must be universal. These are rare and precious, like.... well... like pearls! Here is an example: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is a pearl of wisdom because it is universal. It works for everyone. All can follow this wisdom and be better off for it, as the world will be if all follow it. And no one has to pretend to know anything they do not know to make use of it or to believe in it. It is non denominational. This is why I asked you for an example if a "pearl" that conflicts with other pearls. The example I gave is a pearl because it conflicts with no other wisdom.

Hello Justilthen,

Part One:

"You judge that followers of religions are deluded and misguided. While judging that you have a more sane grip on reality. How is that different, fundamentally, from true believers?"

I am not pretending to know things that I do not know. The believer is. That is called delusion.

"What the religion, spiritual system or practice(s) give an individual is by nature unique and personal"
Sure. All 1 billion of them are all getting something unique and personal out of a religion practiced the same way for centuries by billions of people. I am the one promoting individuality in spirituality. You are the one endorsing full immersion into groupthink big box store systems of belief. I want people to eat at the mom and pop spirituality restaurant and you think that it's better if they eat at the Macdonnalds and Burger King of spirituality.

"One finds social programs wasted taxpayer monies, others find them essential to a moral society. Personal opinion"

Again, I'm asking for your personal opinion! Why won't you give it?
Can you personally think of a religion that is sane enough for you to immerse yourself fully into? If not. What makes you think that they might be sane enough for others to fully immerse themselves into? This is not a case where you can say "well insanity is not right for me, but it might be right for others". Insanity is right for no one.
"You loathe religions and are dead set on your personal judgment they are insane and a negative value on society"

By "dead set" you appear to imply close minded. Do I have confidence in my conviction that all religions I have come across show a level of delusion that is not healthy for societal discourse. Yes. But that is due to thousands of hours of research, experimentation, trial and error, and deep deep contemplative thought. And I remain open to other viewpoints. That is why I am continuing a conversation with you and listening to everything you say carefully. The fact that you have not convinced me that some religions are worthwhile and not insane, does not mean that I am "dead set". It just means that your arguments have been unconvincing. Mainly because you can not name a single religion that you personally find sane.

Of course there is no God.

The suffering in Haiti proves that God does not exist. The traditional perception of God implies that if God exists then he knows how to, wants to, and is able to prevent all suffering. If such a God existed, then we would expect him to prevent all suffering. Suffering, though, is a familiar part of the world around us; it has not been prevented. There is, therefore, no such God.

Justilthen: "So call me a deluded and insane f*ck. I am not out to prove anything to you, especially not as it is quite clear that you are not interested in the least in listening as if I has something valid to say. After all, Timmy, I am clearly deluded."

You've convinced me. You are delusional. What makes you think you have anything valid to say? Why do you fall back on this whine every time you are disputed, or more frequently, every time you are ignored? How old are you?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

When someone tells a joke, and you think it is funny, and you laugh at it, you did not choose to think it was funny and you did not choose to laugh. Therefore, this example of laughing at a joke does not prove free will. It would be more likely to prove free will if you thought the joke was funny, but chose NOT to laugh. But even then, you did not choose to think the joke was funny. The sense that it was funny or not funny was a reaction, separate from your ability to excercise free will.

When theologians and philosophers make sweeping statements about free will, it is merely by the assumption that to you, you think that you have free will, just as people of former times thought that the little plot of land where they stood was flat, so the whole earth, even the whole universe was flat.

In the first place, you are confusing the very concept of "free will" with conscsiousness. To be conscious of a funny joke is VERY different from choosing to think that a joke is funny. That is all I need to say about your erroniously based statements on free will. Your statements of free will are not true; but substituting the word consciousness, they are true.

In the second place, what you call free will is not a simple phenomenon or process; you use a single word to characterize many complex features of consciousness, awareness, liberty, moral obligation, psychiatry, neuroscience, and existential order.

Likewise, your comments on natural order and natural law are based only on what seems right to you, from a narrow vantage point. Natural law, even the laws of science have no real, definable existence, but are philosophical assumptions. There is no scientific description of natural laws, nor even proof of their existence, nor even any reasonable characterizations on what they are, yet you use this concept of natural law, casaully, as though it is obvious what they are. But the reality of natural law is no more provable than the reality of God. And therefore, in a sense, this type of argument is also circular. This is the main reason why a proof of God based on intelligent design is not valid.

Your system or arguemt is based on shallow assumptions, that are not well thought out to the satisfaction of more curious people. Then you build on this, not to prove anything real, but merely to demonstrate the earthly and celestial political correctness of the Catholic Church.

But as I said before, I am not Catholic, and this particular brand of Christianity is not of interest to me, spiritully, and I do not think I will be converting at this stage of my life.

Hello Justilthen

Part three:

"but I believe that magic dragons exist on some level of reality"

Cuckoo!

"A lot exists that we are not yet accepting of collectively"

Such as?

"I believe, and the human mind and psyche, and spirit if I may be so bold, is capable of far more than it is currently employed to do."

Possible and even likely.

"We cannot say that "no one knows"

Yes we can. For if someone new, they would present the evidence and then we all would know. If there is no evidence, then they can not "know". Name something you "know" for which there is no evidence.

"Your judgment of all religious adherents, or even even individuals believing in a spiritual experiences in their lives as deluded, crazy f*cks"

Your language not mine. I use the word delusion clinically by definition. Pretending to know something you do not know is delusional. Having spiritual experiences is not delusional. But pretending that you know something about the beyond is.

"You done passed judgment."

Yes I do judge all kinds of things. But my trials can always be re-opened upon further evidence.

"I do believe in the spiritual realm and have had what are for me convincing and irrefutable personal experiences that the physical world and the spiritual/psychic overlay and interact"

But of course that's as much as you are going to say about that, isn't it? No details right? Because I am close minded right? lol.

"I am not out to prove anything to you, especially not as it is quite clear that you are not interested in the least in listening as if I has something valid to say"

Of course I am.

Do you not understand, Justilthen, that if we decide to believe people who claim to know something about the great beyond, but who have no evidence, then we are opening ourselves up to fraud? And a fraud involving an extremely important matter. If we take people's word for these things, then we have to believe that Elvis is wandering malls in the midwest, and that Joseph Smith has magic stones that tell him what God wants.

"After all, Timmy, I am clearly deluded. You have proven that!"

You are if you believe that the billions of religious adherents around the world came by their belief naturally after examining all of the evidence and opposing points of view, and weighing the possibilities, and coming to a reasoned conclusion. In other words, if you think that the billions of adherents are evidence that there must be something worthwhile to this religion thing, then you are most certainly deluded.

But I don't think that you are deluded. I think you will eventually come to your senses.

Hello Justilthen:

Part Two:

"I don't think so, thanks loads. Suffice it to say that there are billions of people that, at this point at least, find some degree of value in following a religious path. And it has been that way for eons"

Here's where you are missing the reality of the situation. The vast vast overwhelming majority of those billions you speak of were all brainwashed as children while their brains were still developing. They were indoctrinated into their belief before they could even speak. They were born into a society of people equally brainwashed by their parents and the groupthink is insurmountable for escape and this goes back for eons as you call it. It is irresponsible of you to not note this. It is irresponsible of you to pretend that these billions you speak of came by their beliefs uncooerced, by looking at all of the evidence and putting critical thought to the matter, and then they came upon this belief with intellectual honesty and due diligence. If I though for one second that was the case, I would have to say the kind of things I catch you saying. "Hey billions of people have believed this stuff for eons so there must be something special about it". We there is something special about it. It is systematically brainwashed into the next generation by the previous, with virtually no means of escape. They are taught to distrust science and critical thought. They are taught from infancy that faith is a virtue. How ca you be so naive as to make the old "well look at all of the people who believe" argument. It is exceptionally irresponsible for an intelligent person like you to make such statements.

"I expect that regardless of what inputs I may have, you will reject them"

BS cop out.

"When did we talk of magic dragons and witchery, Timmy?"

I brought it up. Are you biased or not?

"I am biased against most of the spouting on God that goes on, and the self affirming proclamations of what God wants and why He wants it that is done by religious figures and adherents"

Name a religion that does not do that?

"But I am not angrily bolting the door to religious life or those that follow it."

Neither am I. I'm speaking my mind and seeing if anyone has any evidence that might make me change my mind. In spite of your insistence to the contrary, my mind is wide open to any evidence that full immersion into any of the known religions is necessary and or valuable. Your insistence that you won't provide such evidence because you are convinced that my mind is made up is a cop out.

"but then I look at the rigidity of the secular or atheistic side and there is little difference but for the sources that each take for support and credibility."

This sentence could fertilize every farmers field on earth it is so full of BS.

Timmy,

You are making truth statements but don't seem to realize you are. How is that?

A exists. A does not exist. These are truth statements. A person who believes the world is flat may declare that they do not believe the world is spheroid. It remains a belief in the denial of the spheroid. A person who says that it is difficult to know if the world is round is honest and stops at that. But a person unfamiliar with triginometry who says that they don't believe the world is round is positing a property of reality.

Even when you say that reality can not be known, you are positing a property onto reality.

My point is that we must, in order to dialogue, posit properties. It is in the nature of language and the human brain to differentiate. That does not alter the nature of being. But it does allow us to discuss it and, as a faithful collective that believe each other to exist, go deeper into our understanding.

The a-gnosis is a lack of knowledge. The a-theist is a positing of the non-being of a deity. You once said that you don't believe in god just like you don't believe in unicorns. That is a posited statement of the non-being of unicorns and gods. I am sorry if you don't see the logic. Just look at it formally. The reason logicians draw a distinction is because empirical data makes evaluation of a negative easier: if one posits a does not exist, then the empirical finding of a disaffirms the posit. If one posits a does exist, then there is no way to disaffirm that without full knowledge of what exists or does not. Once we add qualifiers to the existence we can evaluate those individually. But a skeptic that recognizes the fallacy of the nouema and phenomona dichotomy can only say we can not know the nouema, but to deny the nouema is to know it.

As to the definition of god, we deal with imperfect language and try to look beyond that.

hariaum

TTWYSTED

lol. I guess I won the debate. NIce come back.

"This godless aggregation resembles the sardines in their conglomerate"

What a vivid imagination you have. You would make a great fiction writer.

"all who think they are their own god"

Preposterous. How can someone who believes in no gods think that they are one. This is the stunning disconnect of the average orthodox Christian.

Well it would seem that Danial 12 is much smarter than Daniel 12.

Daniel 12,

"First of all the world of the atheist has no ground for reason and morality"

This sentence could fertilize every farmers field from here to the end of the earth.

"There is no ultimate truth, standard of such"

Correct. This goes for both the believer and the theist. The only difference is that the atheist knows it ad the theist is deluded.

"no possibility of salvation"

Same goes for the theist. Believing that you have salvation doesn't make it so.

"How sturdy really is atheism today and how sturdy can it be made?"

There is no such thing as "atheism". It's a word made up by the religious to make our disbelief in their fairy tale look like a belief of it's own.

"How much misfortune can an atheistic society stand before it crawls back to God?"

Don't hold your breath.

"By contrast, disbelief is generally the work of deliberate, effortful work in critical thinking, against our natural superstitious dispositions"

Fortunately critical thinking is an even more natural disposition than superstition.

Seriously, Hitman 2: Your point?

Hey Timmy, to continue a bit,

Me: "Is "God" or the Transcendent/Spiritual real?"

You: "No one knows. And anyone who pretends to is delusional."

You go into a nice monologue on your reason to believe this, and I would refer you back to it.

The crux of this issue has been brought up repeatedly, and that is around the paradox of subjective experience and objective verification, (that we can all quantify and qualify and replicate personal experience).

We cannot say that "no one knows". We can say that there is no substantial proofs for a spirit level of reality. You carry this second statement out in prosecuting the first as false, and so delusional.

"And anyone who pretends to is delusional."

Your judgment of all religious adherents, or even even individuals believing in a spiritual experiences in their lives as deluded, crazy f*cks. You done passed judgment.

I am not that rigid. In fact, I do believe in the spiritual realm and have had what are for me convincing and irrefutable personal experiences that the physical world and the spiritual/psychic overlay and interact.

So call me a deluded and insane f*ck. I am not out to prove anything to you, especially not as it is quite clear that you are not interested in the least in listening as if I has something valid to say.

After all, Timmy, I am clearly deluded. You have proven that!

Peace at ya.

Hello Timmy,

"Yes it is. All judgements are personal and subjective. So I'm asking you for your personal judgement as to which religion you think is sane enough for such complete immersion."

"If you can't think of one that's okay. I can't either."

First, the value judgment of how sane is any religion is likewise personal. It is clear that you judge as true that none are sane. That is likewise okay, but gets tricky when you extend that judgment to those that are religious. You judge that followers of religions are deluded and misguided. While judging that you have a more sane grip on reality. How is that different, fundamentally, from true believers? Leave "proofs" aside for a sec and look at the dynamic.

"I do. My personal judgement, based on the evidence, is that there are no religions that I can think of that are worthy of the kind of devotion and immersion that you are talking about."

And so the point of the meaninglessness of giving examples of a worthy religion to immerse in. It is personal. What the religion, spiritual system or practice(s) give an individual is by nature unique and personal. Value is personal. Do your dreams excite you, enrich you, tear at you? Does work uplift or bring you down? Would it be the same for all workers?

One finds social programs wasted taxpayer monies, others find them essential to a moral society. Personal opinion.

You loathe religions and are dead set on your personal judgment they are insane and a negative value on society. Why would I discuss positive values that I personally experience of some of them with you?

I may if I felt there was purpose to that, but I do not. Pearls at the feet of the closedminded is wasted pearls. Pearls, of course, being valued on a personal basis, as we have learned!

"So you need to start by giving just 1 example of a religion that you endorse full immersion and devotion to."

I don't think so, thanks loads. Suffice it to say that there are billions of people that, at this point at least, find some degree of value in following a religious path. And it has been that way for eons.

Timmy, 2,

Now my disclaimer here is that I am no big cheering section for much of what religion does in the world today! There is a propensity of bullsh*t that is nurtured and spewed by the worlds religions. Competition for adherents and exclusivity alone cause untold billions of lives over time. Utter stupidity.

That does not mean that a whole system is valueless, though!

"But you can't just "assure" me that such religions
exist and expect me to take your word for it."

I do not! I assure you! ;-)

I expect that regardless of what inputs I may have, you will reject them, as your mind is made up around the issue. You are now interested in strengthening by practice your attachment to the negatives of religious belief. You are closed minded. It is done, for you. So, why debate if the issue is settled for you? To work to discredit those that believe in whatever you disbelieve in, Timmy. For destruction.

"It is simpler to just say "yes, I am biased against this God sh*t".

"Only if you admit to being biased against magic dragons and witchery. ;)"

When did we talk of magic dragons and witchery, Timmy? :-0

I am biased against most of the spouting on God that goes on, and the self affirming proclamations of what God wants and why He wants it that is done by religious figures and adherents. Definitely I am biased against the generalizing of morality and appropriate spirituality that is done by same.

But I am not angrily bolting the door to religious life or those that follow it. There are some on these boards that I might want to shake out of their hypnosis, but then I look at the rigidity of the secular or atheistic side and there is little difference but for the sources that each take for support and credibility.

I am biased against new agey delusion and pontification, but I believe that magic dragons exist on some level of reality, (don't look around here!), at least to some extent. And 'witchery', if I may follow a loose definition of it, exists in my experience.

A lot exists that we are not yet accepting of collectively, I believe, and the human mind and psyche, and spirit if I may be so bold, is capable of far more than it is currently employed to do.

Hard to believe that bullsh*t though if you look around the world, or at any newspaper or cable news channel.

"I promise to try to read and follow what you are actually saying if you would do me the same favor."

Hello Schaum,

"If you imagine that the remaining 2/3 would agree with the "wisdom" that christers claim, you are stupid and delusional."

You are in a fully different debate than I, Schaum, and you are alone there. There is nowhere in my conversation with Timmy the assertion that any of the worlds population would agree with any other part of it. I was in no was claiming they would, did, or should.

You should attempt to read better if you want to jump in somewhere with your opinion. You appear a fool making these leaps.

I fear that in your battle with the 'christers' they appear before you everywhere you turn, in every windmill in your mind.

Our dialogue regards the value of wisdom in societal, cultural, religious and spiritual systems in the world, and has included the concept of diversity of wisdom based on these difference.

There is no suggestion, on my part, that any one path has any absolute truth in it or is better than others. Rub your eyes, Don Schaum, before you gallop off to lance that evil.

Your comments to your imaginary friend Kertiel:

"Go read my last sentence again. NOWHERE will you find that I used the word "considered". That is your word, not mine, and you are obfuscating the change in meaning that using that word presents."

"I got exactly what I expected from you: ....."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TIM2

ANS:
In the Ocean, there formed a massive ball of sardines, so capacious it could contain the capacity of three football fields. Assortments of Blues, Dolphins and all kinds of predatory fish came and began devouring them. Sharks over 70 miles away sensed this eating frenzy. The cotillion of dancing sardines grew smaller and smaller as the predators ate the outer edges of this vortex, but the fish remained impervious to their fate, remaining in their convolution, never breaking rank, never panicking, until they were no more.

An amalgamation of atheists, iconoclasts, philistines, and troglodytes are analogically assembled in an opaque and hermetic alembic world, sealed by their morally enervated propensitIes.

These propensities seal them from the truths and authenticities of Philosophy, History, Science and Religion, and the Word of God; they render them impervious to the realities of the world and an unawareness of their impending fate.

This godless aggregation resembles the sardines in their conglomerate. The vortex of sardines had no sense of what was happening to them as they were being devoured.

In a metaphoric coterie of agnostics, atheists and all materialists, all who deny the true God, all who think they are their own god, are analogically trapped in an opaque hermitic bubble, devoid of truth and impervious to the real world, the world that is passing them by.

Just as the predators of the seas devoured the foolish sardines, a predator world devours this coterie of the living dead, captured in their prejudicial ideologies.

However, unlike the sardines that cease to exist, the lamentable, the disreputable, and abject, entrapped in their opaque alembic confinement break out when they realize reality. Unfortunately, the world has deserted them. They have no where to go. Unlike the sardines that ceased to exist, they remain and are swept to a destiny of unmitigated and eternal oblivion.

The moral of this allegory is a word to the wise should be sufficient.

HITMAN 2 - and your point??

Hitman2:

Interesting post. Did you read "God Arises," Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, or just the excerpt from talkIslam.com?

I ask because, if you have read the book (I haven't), I'd be interested to know more of the argument.

Part of the problem I have with it, thus far, is that although I agree we strongly feel "there must come a time," a day of reckoning, a time of vindication, it does not follow that such a moment will come.

Further, we are not of one mind as to the identities of perpetrators and victims. Some experience themselves as victims, while others see them as oppressors, etc.

At all events, I'd be interested in knowing either your thoughts on this or Kahn's or both.

Religious thinking, the ultimate embracing of superstition, is the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the work of deliberate, effortful work in critical thinking, against our natural superstitious dispositions. Because most people have been taught not to think for themselves – and in fact dislike thinking for themselves -- this is hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.

Adolescent cognition leads children to all sorts of supernatural beliefs about how the world works. As they grow up the inclination to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as superstitions about such things as Friday the 13th, breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, fear of black cats…and, greatest of all superstitions, religion.

Common superstitions can be described as beliefs that have no rational basis or supporting facts, such as the belief in god. Some superstitions may be “amusing”, while others may profoundly affect choices made in life. None is based in fact, but most have roots deep in tradition and history. Source of all superstitions is in the irrational and illogical belief in the existence of god. Rationalism and conscience obliterate any need for faith in unseen, unprovable sky gods. When humans lose sight of rationalism, irrational and dogmatic religions arise which are morally deficient, elevating to moral status ancient, arbitrary, and ill-informed rules—taboos on eating pork, for example, as well as dress codes and sexual practices—possibly designed for reasons of hygiene or even mere politics in a bygone era.

Fortunately, as science, the scientific method, and critical thinking skills become more commonplace in our society, religion is more debunked because civilized people lose their primitive fears of what was not previously explained or thought through. Simply put, belief in god is simply no longer necessary, and has never been rational. Even Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter recently sold in a London auction.

There is, in fact, no god, nor even a hint of proof of god. It is all magical thinking. Ever wonder why god cures the lame so they can walk, and so people can get out of wheelchairs – but he never cures amputees? Because there is no god.

Part3.

The moment one seriously considers the fact that tomorrow, if not actually today, one will be made to stand before God Almighty on the Day of Reckoning, and that God, having kept a watch over everyone, will indeed sit in judgement on that day, one will be stiffened in one's resolve to perform only good and right actions and to eschew all that is base and evil. On this most important of religious beliefs, Mathew Hales, an eminent jurist of the late seventeenth century commented: "To say that religion is a cheat is to dissolve all those obligations whereby civil societies are preserved."
......
Immanuel Kant, the noted German philosopher, rejected the belief in God's existence on grounds of insufficient proof: "Since religion must be based not on the logic of theoretical reason but on the practical reason of the moral sense, it follows that any Bible or revelation must be judged by its value for morality and cannot itself be the judge of a moral code."

Voltaire likewise did not believe in any metaphysical reality, but in his view also:

"The concept of God and the life hereafter are very important in that they serve as postulates of the moral feeling. To him by means of them alone an atmosphere of good morals may be created. In the absence of such beliefs we have no incentive for good behaviour, making the maintenance of a social order well-nigh impossible."
Quran says:
And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live (i.e. some people die and others live, replacing them) and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, “Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful.” Say, “God causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt,” but most of the people do not know. (Quran, 45:24-26)

part2.

Voltaire:
History is nothing more than a picture of crimes and misfortunes.

Herbert Spencer:
History is simply useless gossip.

Napoleon:
History on the whole is another name for a meaningless story.

Edward Gibbon: History, which is, indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.

Haegel:
The only thing public and government have learnt from a study of history is only that they have learnt nothing from history.

G.B. Shaw:
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

We must ask ourselves if this grand show of humanity was staged only in order to present a series of horrors and then come to an end for ever. Our natures obviously rebel against this idea. A deeply rooted sense of justice and fair play in man demands that the fate of our world be different. There must come a time when truth and falsehood are known for what they are, when the oppressors must be called to account and the oppressed must be given due recompense for their sufferings. This desire for justice is so strongly ingrained in human nature that it is an inalienable part of the history of man. This contradiction between man's nature and the course of events shows that there is a vacuum which demands to be filled. The difference between what should happen and what actually does happen clearly indicates that there is some other stage of life which has yet to emerge. This gap cries out for the time when this world will be brought to completion.

"If there is no Day of Judgement, who will punish these tyrants?" Often, while reading the newspaper, this question, sadly, forms in my mind. Newspapers, mirrors of day-to-day happenings in this world, report cases of kidnappings and murders, assault and battery, thefts, burglaries, charges, countercharges, and perhaps worst of all, the propaganda of vested interests. They show how rulers oppress their own subjects, and how, in the name of so-called national interest, one nation encroaches upon the territory of another.

Does God allow Haiti to suffer?

An Earthquake is, in fact, but a small reminder of the day of resurrection. When the earth is split asunder with a terrible rumbling; when buildings come tumbling down like playing cards; when the upper layers of the earth are cracked open and the interior of the earth is spewed out, when cities bustling with life are reduced to ashes in a matter of minutes; when the earth is strewn with dead bodies, like shoals of fish washed up on the sea coast, man realises his utter helplessness in the face of nature. What is most tragic about earthquakes and volcanic eruptions is the fact that no one can predict when or where they will take place. And, when they do, everything happens in a flash, leaving little or no time for escape. The day of the resurrection will come upon us all of a sudden, just like an earthquake. Such natural catastrophes demonstrate, most awesomely, God's capacity to destroy the earth at any moment..............

Had there been no "tomorrow' for mankind, civilisation could never have developed in the way it has, for the concept of "tomorrow' is inextricably linked with the desire for an improved, future life. The absence of this concept would have been a contradiction in the face of nature. The desire for a better life is often equated with the desire to escape the unpleasant consequences of failure or from general conditions of adversity, and that once a society becomes stable and prosperous, this yearning simply disappears. Roman slaves, for instance, embraced Christianity on a large scale because it offered them a haven of bliss in the afterlife. Had they not been slaves, they might have remained polytheists and idolaters. It is felt then that with the progress made in science, man will certainly become happier and more prosperous and that ultimately the concept of a second, better life will die a natural death.

Part one.

Does God allow Haiti to suffer?

Haiti either suffers by God--which is to say God has his reasons for this suffering but ultimately promises redemption for the sinner--or Haiti just plain suffers.

The former is the Christian view and the latter is the view of the atheist. So what can be done for Haiti according to the view of the atheist? We can see that the religious view at least promises a salvation after death provided one has turned to God. The atheist view on the other hand at best promises the progress of society which has replaced religion and goes by the name of secularism and/or humanism.

Part two.

But how much faith can we have in the "progress" of the atheist? First of all the world of the atheist has no ground for reason and morality. There is no ultimate truth, standard of such. Reason and morality are relative without God. Objectivity is impossible--and this includes scientific objectivity. All is subjective viewpoint overarched by a fundamental meaninglessness.

Worse for Haiti, the atheist's view plays up scientific notions such as Darwin's evolution, which means that Haiti lags behind the more prosperous societies and at best must bear the indignation of a handout--if a handout can help much of anything in the atheist's world. Even science in the atheist's world exists in finality to predict the ultimate futility of things (views such as entropy).

The atheist has decided there is no God so science at best is pattern on existence which ends in not God, nothing of salvation, but in....nothing. In fact in the atheist's world we cannot even be certain we are sane, for there is no truly rational element which supercedes irrationality. Once again, the relativeness of things...But I suppose Haiti can receive eventually what the humanistic society tries to promise everyone: A life of happiness (read no pain) even though painlessness is unachievable (no God, no end to pain).

Part three.

If God does not exist we are forced to suffer or we artificially (because contrary to nature) end pain. The world of the atheist: no foundation for rationality or morality; no possibility of salvation; no promise of anything really except it be artificial reality which takes the sting out of existence. Unless we have the strength to live as meaningless beings, that we entertain ourselves without ever fooling ourselves that ultimately there is nothing.

All views relative in the atheist's world. No conclusive argument for morality or reason. The best one can say is that we should be moral and reasonable even though all betterment of society will eventually come to nothing. So which view will Haiti choose? It seems an earthquake is not conducive to atheism. How sturdy really is atheism today and how sturdy can it be made? How much misfortune can an atheistic society stand before it crawls back to God?

Would it be too much to ask--too morally questionable--that atheists approach Haiti with precisely this question in mind? Yes, no doubt about that. The opposite course must be taken! Save Haiti! Save at all costs the more the atheistic view triumphs! Because of course atheists do not want to know just how much suffering they can stand without returning to God.

God forbid that the world should be Haiti. Or rather blind ourselves by pleasure to God and Haiti. Save Haiti by God. Or rather so we feel better. Pleasure for Haiti and pleasure for ourselves. An end to God but not earthquakes.

NAVIN1,

Part One

"a poly ideology is a faith system that says there are many ways to know the truth. Most of the world's religions are like this"

I disagree. Hinduism for example is a mono-ideology. Within it there may be poly-ideological notions, but it is as a whole, a mono-ideology. All religions are. I am the true believer in poly-ideology. That is why I am so dead set against the mono-ideology of religion. And no, that is not a mono-ideological statement. A single belief is not an ideology. An ideology is a complex set of beliefs. Like Hinduism for example.

"Your definition of god is a child's definition"

It's not my definition. It's the definition used by the vast majority of the people on our planet who use the word. And by that definition, God is a dangerous word. You can call your oneness anything. Why choose such a volatile word that means something completely different to most of the world? It confuses a very important issue. It can and does, by confusion, promote mono-idealism. But go right ahead. Keep using a confusing and highly volitile word. It's your right to do so.

"atheism is not agnosticism"

There is no such thing as atheism. There is such a thing as Agnosticism.

"Atheism posits the non-being of something an atheist believes is god"

Preposterous.

1. As I said, there is no such thing as atheism. Pay close attention here because this is important. The word "atheist" does not describe what you are, it describes what you are not. Therefore it comes with no "ism". People can not practice "not being something". People can not practice "not being a theist". Only "ists" that describe what you ARE come with an "ism".

2. I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as are most atheists. The two are entirely compatible. The word atheist applies to belief. It signifies the absence of belief in a certain posit. The word agnostic applies to knowledge. It means you don't pretend to have knowledge of the truth on the matter. As an atheist, I do not believe in God or gods. It is important to note the difference between the statements "I do not believe in God" and "I believe that God does not exist". The latter is a belief, the former is an absence of belief. I do not pretend to know that there is no God. Because that would be a belief without evidence.

NAVIN 1,

Part Two

"Agnostics say they can not know what is this thing called god"

More like: they can not know if this thing others call God exists or not. The way you worded it, it's like they assume there is a thing called God, they just can not know what it is. Preposterous.

"The latter is a logical position for a skeptic"

Correct. Skeptics should be agnostic about things. But unless you have a specific belief in a specific version of God, you are also an atheist. I haven't been preaching atheism because, as I said, there is no such thing. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that I have been preaching militant agnosticism. The credo is: "I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!"

"The former is a posited statement that needs proof as much as the posited statement that there is a god"

Here you are referring to the position of atheism and I hope that you are straightened out on that now. Most atheists are atheists precisely because they are agnostic. Theists pretend to know. And agnostics do not pretend to know. So they are not theists, or A-theists. I hope you get it now. It's pretty hard to be an agnostic and not also be an atheist.

"I call the usual western construct of god an alien"

You should call it God, declare that there is no reason to believe in such a thing, and call your thing something else for hyper important clarity reasons mentioned above.

"It is just as important to be intellectually honest and say, I saw this."

What did you see that makes you believe that you know all of these incredible things that you have been claiming to know are the truth of relity?

"If I lose credibility with those that start by assuming they are always right, I have not lost much credibility."

No you lose credibility with those who follow a very wise statement. "He who claims to know, knows not". It is with these people you lose credibility. And you lose a lot.

"To make this last statement, though, I now need to postulate a should-ness, a limited mind, an I that exists in relationship to other I's, and a we. I have now created a delusionary world without substantial evidence that those properties of being are Real. (I can no longer take the naive objective world for granted as we are asking for certainty of knowledge - there is not certainty that anyone other than myself exists - not that I believe this but it is the skeptical end.)"

Impractical gobble dee gook.

"As the physical sciences and yogic sciences come together, I am exploring that further"

Me too. Exploring. But if I ever start taking like I know with conviction that there is no self and weird stuff like that, please send me to a therapist.

a poly ideology is a faith system that says there are many ways to know the truth. Most of the world's religions are like this if you get past the propaganda the chirsto-islamists put out. Science is also a poly-ideology. Humanism demands a respect for the individual human experience - it is a polyideology.

Mono-ideologies believe there is only one way to know the truth. Christianity and Islam are the major representatives now a days, communism, free market capitalism, and fascism are right up there.

But, within each tradition, there are pieces of poly and mono -ideological thinking. If I oppose mono-ideological thinking, then I make a mono-ideological statement. I do this with an intent. I want to promote polyideology because I think this will help the world get past the nearing nuclear conflict. I would be wrong, but I could be wrong to fail to act. I must choose an action. I must in good faith, choose a path, and seek the truth that declares itself in a mythical future.

Or, I could sit and say nothing is certain, do nothing.

hariaum

Your definition of god is a child's definition. Not that it is untrue or true, you yourself would say you don't know that for sure.

The Hindu scriptures discuss Brahman. Brahman is of two types: without qualities, with qualities. (Jewish and other mystical traditions get into this as well.) The undifferentiated Brahman is the being known as Tat Sat that is beyond human cognition in the Hindu scriptures. The differentiated is the phenomenal Brahman to which most attempt to see in exploring truth. this is considered the lesser.

Another is that of Shiva that is "asleep" and then "active" representing with anthropomorphism the being that is beyond being as phenomenon but on becoming phenomenal emanates our universe. The scientific equivalent would be what was before the big bang and what after.

So there are other names. I would be happy for these ideas to enter the English language. We're getting there.

atheism is not agnosticism. Atheism posits the non-being of something an atheist believes is god. Agnostics say they can not know what is this thing called god. The latter is a logical position for a skeptic. The former is a posited statement that needs proof as much as the posited statement that there is a god.

Again, we need to define what we mean. If you define a god an old man in the sky, then you have to stop all old people from flying in airplanes else you have a lot of gods.

But, I hope, you realize that that is not the god I am faithful to. I call the usual western construct of god an alien. The western construct can not be differentiated from an alien with more power or knowledge than us. (even if aliens don't exist). But the totality of reality is always greater than any finite representation (a book, a savior, a prophet, or me). Yet, as I do believe in the apparent existence of others like me, even in your existence, though I must do so on faith, I project my state onto you and then I remind myself that my projection is entirely wrong. Thus I obligate myself to listen to your experience with an open mind. I see that it challenges me to deeper into my relationship with Truth. If my relationship to Truth is useful to you, then the epistemology of utility means you can use it. If it is not useful to you, please don't waste your time. If you feel it might be useful, then we can go on probing deeper into our own constructs of reality utilizing each other (the mystical being in you that faithfully pushes my mystical being that you can not prove exists).

hariaum

The simplistic construct of otherness is not meaningful - "It has so much more credibility if we are intellectually honest and admit that it may be, rather than lose credibility by pretending to know." It is just as important to be intellectually honest and say, I saw this. This is how I solved this equation, or that. If I lose credibility with those that start by assuming they are always right, I have not lost much credibility. Credibility is an action on otherness. It is not a primary experience of Truth.

Even logically, this primary experience of Truth is as close as you can get to Truth. If you realize that undifferentiated universe (that quantal physics and yogic studies converge on) then constructs (differentiations) become significantly less meaningful (indeed in the logic, meaningless). That is a logical tautology. If there is evidence or logical mis-step, then that objection should be demonstrable.

You can know things, but I agree, we should be open minded. To make this last statement, though, I now need to postulate a should-ness, a limited mind, an I that exists in relationship to other I's, and a we. I have now created a delusionary world without substantial evidence that those properties of being are Real. (I can no longer take the naive objective world for granted as we are asking for certainty of knowledge - there is not certainty that anyone other than myself exists - not that I believe this but it is the skeptical end.)

There are certain logical possibilities. Though we may not know the specific answer, we can define, with quite a bit of certainty wherein lies the truth. Either the Truth is or it is not. There are only these binary solutions to this solution space. The negation of truth is a statement of truth and the logical possibility falls away in the meaning of the words. We can know this.

What are the properties of Being is more difficult.

I can know that I am in relationship to the Being. I can not know that of you because I can not know you actually exist. Here I must assume that you are a being somewhat like me. If the truth is Being, then all apparent beings exist in relationship to that being. (even if as a delusion of the being.)

I can know that I experience being or the apparent nature of being. I can try to understand that experience. I remind myself that I am experiencing something that may or may not be true. But I try to understand it - as I explore more I gain insight. I do not know if it is Real, but the experience of insight is real.

If multiple lines of insight start converging on a conclusion I am reassured that my insight is "true." More so, if I operate on the basis of my insight (say hypothesis) and my expectation is met, I am reassured that my insight is "true." When my expectation is not met, my insight needs to be modified (if I am pursuing Being - I could ignore data).

As the physical sciences and yogic sciences come together, I am exploring that further.

hariaum

NAVIN 1: Continued

"Naturally, if you even come close to agreeing with the above, we understand that the Pat Robertson's, etc are one with us"

That is how I look at it. But not because I understand it to be true as you like to do, but because it's possible that it's true, and it's a cool way to look at it even it's not true. I can see peace in that ideal. But the minute I believe that I know that it is true is the minute I've started deluding myself and it is now corrupted. The most important note here is, I don't need to believe that it's true, to be inspired to live like it is.

"Thus I attack the mono-ideologies"

As do I, they're called religions. For the record, atheism is not an ideology. It's not even a thing.

"I support the poly-ideologies"

Such as?

"We humans are not able with our minds to grasp the totality of the I nor the Brahman"

Maybe, but know one knows that.

"We each have idols. I can hate the idolator, or recognize it in myself and move closer to the truth that has utility for the world that is me"

Recognizing it in yourself isn't going to stop Pat Robertson from continuing to poison minds. And you will have a easier time talking people into contemplating this stuff and being inspired by it, if you stop pretending to know it's all true. Like I said, one doesn't need to pretend to know that it's true to live like it is. It has so much more credibility if we are intellectually honest and admit that it may be, rather than lose credibility by pretending to know. For he who says he knows, knows not.

NAVIN1

"Another way to live: celebrate the diversity of world as an intimate and transcendent expression of yourself"

That's exactly what I do.

"If we can learn to do this better, I believe that we can alleviate some of that suffering this post was supposed to be about"

Agreed

"if one realizes that the I self is the undifferentiated universe that appears differentiated due to the play of evolution (selecting the perspective of otherness when there is only a poorly understood physical reality underlying that) then the other construct ends"

One can not realize something that no one knows is true. And there is no evidence that this is true. But it is possible. Quantum theory has opened the door to this possibility and I find it to be deeply intriguing. I like the sound of it. It makes me feel good to think that way. But if I pretend to know that it is true, now I am doing something that we can not condone as a society. We have major problems and issues to solve, and that requires intellectually honest public discourse, and it really screws that up when people pretend to know things they do not know. Because there's no way to verify. So we can not have a proper dialogue. That it why this quote you provided is so wise: "he who says he knows, knows not"

So when you tell people that they "need to realize" something that you don't know is true, you're that guy who knows not.

"so I have said many times first we have to know what we mean by god"

It means the man in the sky who created the universe and takes an interest in our affairs. If you use the word "God" and you don't mean that, you should find another word. Because it means you think you know something about God, and you don't.

"But stop in the differentiation, note that the human defines god (on talking about that primary experience). Is this bad?"

Yes, for the reason above.

"Now that we can argue about the nature of Truth, and we see in a quantal physical sense, that we are more than and not defined by our spatio-temporal body"

Correction. We can see that we MAY BE more than and not defined by our spatio-temporal body. Never have you read more important caps.

Also, "more than" is the key word here. Meaning that we may be that, but we are also still this. Individual people. And we are confined in our bodies as individual people.

Part one.

Religion will always exist, meaning people will always at the least wonder, have the suspicion, of something grand and intelligent behind the universe. In fact it seems quite a stretch to feel oneself certain nothing is behind existence, that one is just caught up in a quite cruel process with no exit unless we speak of moments of life just "being better than at other times". Or that we can exercise "free will" and arrive at the "good" (which is to say we apparently feel at times we can have a positive effect on things).

What would it really mean to have conclusive proof no God exists? It is all fine and well to speak of not believing in God, and saying one can be good without God, and that the intellect can be improved without God, but proof of no God? What does that mean? Can any atheist tell us what effect that would have on the human race? Hell, can any atheist tell us what effect it will have on the human race to keep trying to convince people there is no God as atheists do (without yet having proof there is no God)? Oh, wait, I apologize: Atheists are not out to convince people of anything.

It seems if atheists want to tell us there is no God they should also be telling us that really there is nothing to be arrived at in the ultimate sense, that everything is ultimately futile. Can the human race act in any rational and spirited sense over the next milleniums if it becomes totally atheistic? What exactly would the human race be trying to achieve when really all is fundamentally futile? Or is it the human race can transform itself indefinitely without God--or at least as much as it already has been transformed from lower primate to primate man (by evolution of course)?

Part two.

No God we are told by atheists. Believe in the scientific facts. A dichotomy: apparently to the atheists religion is weakness of mind and scientific facts are the strength of mind. So we are supposed to accept the facts. Not believe in anything for which there is no proof. Fine. Now if there is no God what exactly does it mean to have the creature called man capable of actually being happy at times when fundamentally caught up in a cruel process, one with no exit and incapable of really (in the fundamental sense) being affected for the better? Man a creature designed to be comfortable with fundamental senselessness? Certainly we cannot say any creature other than man can exist without a belief in God, for creatures other than man have no consciousness to believe or disbelieve in God. We cannot tell about them.

It seems man is the creature which either must have God or learn to live with fundamental senselessness. But even atheists it seems do not believe in fundamental senselessness. They certainly speak of society, man in general, being improved without religion. Atheists believe in the betterment of man without God. But is that really being atheistic? Atheists are supposed to be the strong and courageous thinkers, so it seems they should be telling us the truth about atheism, that man without God is a creature which must learn to live with its fundamental senselessness, meaninglessness, or turn back to God--or become as unconscious as an animal.

Part three.

Atheism is quite a project--to get man to live without the need for fundamental meaning. And perhaps it is expected to do even more. We all are familiar with religion supposedly being weakness of mind. That facing reality (scientific facts) is the true courage of mind. One or the other. But is it not true that we can imagine things which are proof of a strength of mind beyond even the facts, reality? In other words, we are familiar with calling unsubstantiated beliefs weakness, but is it not true such beliefs, particular ones, can also be stronger than fact? Some feats of imagination are done out of weakness. Others are done out of a strength of mind beyond facts.

To give just one example of a piece of imagination stronger than fact: We can tell people there is no God and that man can evolve not only as far beyond what he once was six million years ago but that he can evolve no matter the pain involved, that he can stand such pain, that he can stand physical and mental suffering beyond anything he thinks he can now. In fact we can tell people that man can learn to enjoy suffering no matter how deep it becomes. Certainly we should want such a thing to be true of man as long as we are dispensing with God and throwing man upon only his wits in a fundamentally senseless universe...Dispensing with God does not just mean arriving at the facts, proceeding by only fact: It means a whole new set of lies, a new mythology--the mythology of man equal to existence no matter what existence throws at him.

Are atheists prepared to tell us that? If not, they should not boast of not believing in God as if they are the strong ones and the religious ones the weak.

Persiflage,

As I noted below, we are all idolators as our evolutionarily created brains are to limited to grasp Truth as it is.

Despite liars, etc, I believe we are all trying to see. What an amazing species we are. The draw to truth is so overwhelming, it rips a child from its parents (everything it s/he has known). The draw to love is so overwhelming that we are driven to love those we never even met (Haiti). A moments repose in this being that is, the suffering that is, the love that is.... a moments repose. The spiritual path is realization - there is not a becoming but a being aware - a moment's repose.

But we all fail when we talk about it. Isn't it lovely that we still talk about it so much. (I just hope we don't wipe out our Mother Devi earth's creative genius with a conversation in nukes.)

The circle is a boundary, though infinite. Sometimes we need to let that go as well.

hariaum

Timmy

Another way to live: celebrate the diversity of world as an intimate and transcendent expression of yourself. As Ramakrishna used to say (I substitute I for his word god here): This is the I in the form of a truth seeker, this in the form of a beggar, this in the form of a killer, this in the form of a lover... If we can learn to do this better, I believe that we can alleviate some of that suffering this post was supposed to be about. If we celebrate the diversity (in western terms - love the other as ourself) then we can alleviate suffering in this world. Naturally, if one realizes that the I self is the undifferentiated universe that appears differentiated due to the play of evolution (selecting the perspective of otherness when there is only a poorly understood physical reality underlying that) then the other construct ends.

God - so I have said many times first we have to know what we mean by god. We put projections onto IT many times. Again, the Upanishads say, he who says he knows, knows not.

Timmy

For me that projection is the simple and complex thing we call Truth, the reality that is. In sanskrit this is Tat Sat. Another sanskrit word is satcitananda. This is Truth, Consciousness, Bliss. But even this is understood to have human projection / a claim on Brahman. Once our mind starts differentiating the primary experience of Truth as it is (once we start talking about the color blue in words) we defile the thing we are talking about. But we do talk about it never the less.

But stop in the differentiation, note that the human defines god (on talking about that primary experience). Is this bad? As a skeptic, it is. We are not talking properly about reality. But as a realist, we need to talk about truth. If then we focus on the fallacy of talking, we will not be able to move forward. Thus the next step is to recognize that we speak of that Reality differently. Some see it as particles, some as waves, some as consciousness. What does that mean? In the deluded attempt to talk about this thing, recognizing that it is the infinite eternal I that you are, that delusion is the best we can do. That represents this relationship to the truth, that represents that relationship to the truth, that other represents that other relationship to the truth.

So we can argue about the nature of Truth (and we should) but to argue that Truth does not exist is a truth statement itself - proving the existence of truth even in denial. Now that we can argue about the nature of Truth, and we see in a quantal physical sense, that we are more than and not defined by our spatio-temporal body, we join each other on this journey. Argument and skepticism are the tools of language and thought that propels us forward (but not ends in themselves).

Naturally, if you even come close to agreeing with the above, we understand that the Pat Robertson's, etc are one with us, but not in the relationship to Truth that you and I can agree with. We see it as an intellectual idol, one that promotes hatred and thus is a disutility to humanity in this (nuclear) juncture. Thus I attack the mono-ideologies. I support the poly-ideologies. We humans are not able with our minds to grasp the totality of the I nor the Brahman. We each have idols. I can hate the idolator, or recognize it in myself and move closer to the truth that has utility for the world that is me.

hariaum

Navin 1

"As to cliques, I think this page seems like a good example"

People gathering on a blog to express their opinions does not a clique make. People on a blog with similar beliefs does not a clique make. Especially when the blog equally welcomes opinions from all.

"I do not decry skepticism, but I do point out that skeptics, as yourself, that want an obvious empirical mathematical construct of god..."

I want no such thing.

..."are unwilling to confront that their very concept of self is just as false"

I have confronted that concept. But that's all it is is a concept. Living any other way but as a "self" is impossible regardless of how you feel about "the self" philosophically. We're not deluding ourselves, there's just no other way to live. Is there? When a waiter appraoches you in a restaurant, do you say "the universe would like to see a menu please" or do you say "I'd like to see a menu please.

"I do not deny the value of evidence, but I do not discard the evidence of something more - invisible dimensions, god, self, reincaenations..."

Neither do I.
But evidence of God? Explain.

TTWYSted:

So, it always boils down to the same answer: you can prove nothing you assert.

"Angels and Demons are of the Spiritual World and not of the material Universe; they are spirits."

You answered exactly as I expected: more assertions, no proof. Prove the existence of angels, demons, or a spiritual world.
Posted by: Schaum | January 23, 2010 3

ANS:
You don't prove the obvious. Angels don't live in the Universe they live in Paradise or Hell, and when the world ends that's where they will be.

I don't expect you to understand that because you haven't understood anything yet. But, that's the way it goes in the big City. When you pass over suprise, suprise awaits you.

Navin, what do you make of this? I'm wondering if the concept of divinity is really necessary in the process of acquiring real knowledge - in the form of spiritual truth.

Whenever people speak of God, they always give the wrong impression, do they not?

http://www.ashokaedu.net/coursesM/26/chan9.htm

As to "better" epistemology:

1) to study associations in cause and effect: science. Need to be careful in attributing conclusions with Truth.

2) to study connections: art. Need to be careful of bull.

3) to study logic: math. Need to be careful in recognizing things as there is no empirical triangle, just things that are sort of triangular.

4) to study Truth as it is: mysticism. Need to be careful of projected reality. Since I know this will be more controversial: mysticism, as I see it, is to experience reality as a primary entity. (not sitting with a spirit and discussing philosophy - the spirit, the discussion, and philosophy represent otherness and structure - not primary).

5) to study our own biases: skepticism

But then what is the point of these studies: always: what do we do with that knowledge. Thus, as far as I know, though I have not created this, I believe I made up the phrase: epistemology of utility. Defined as such, fluidity of epistemology is needed as utility is fluid. Beyond utility, there is only being, and that is mystical.

I am probably incomplete but then such conversations (not sitting for months and years in a rigorous fashion) are by their nature incomplete.

hariaum
4)

Persiflage:

Thank you for that link. It is certainly thought-provoking.

Timmy

As Mr. Burns says, excellent.

I do not deny the role of skepticism. It is a highly useful tool. (as along the lines of science which I appreciate greatly)

In Hindu scriptures we are advised to use our intelligence to clarify what is really true and what we think is true. Not that we will by intelligence alone get there, but that without it we certain to be misleading ourselves, and then perhaps others. How successful you are depends on a lot of variables.

As to scientists, you do perhaps need to meet several more. They tend to have very firm conclusions that when forced to confront it, they recognize as hypotheses. But, in large, they are far better thinkers than most people.

As to cliques, I think this page seems like a good example.

I do not decry skepticism, but I do point out that skeptics, as yourself, that want an obvious empirical mathematical construct of god are unwilling to confront that their very concept of self is just as false. I can take out pieces of people's brain and they claim an I - see any story of lobotomies, etc.

I do not deny the value of evidence, but I do not discard the evidence of something more - invisible dimensions, god, self, reincaenations...

hariaum

Navin got my attention here:

"How does a skeptic explain children who have been studied by serious scientists (UVa) that seem to have been born with a knowledge of a previous life with details of places they have never been?"

Below is the premiere field researcher in this area - Dr. Ian Stevenson, formerly of the U. of South Carolina, ended his career at the U. of Virginia where much of this research took place .....

PS. for some unknown reason my posts are being doubled, so my apologies for this.

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

TTWYSTED

"Well if you can’t believe the rational proofs of God’s existence"

There are no such things.

"and the stark difference between atheistic nations and Christian ones"

Nations with the largest populations of atheist/agnostics are among the most peaceful nations in the world with the lowest crime rates and the happiest people. Scandinavia, Australia, Canada. You have this one backwards my friend.

"Atheism is the bane of humanity, and those who practice it commit social and political suicide"

There is no such thing as "atheism". It's a word invented by the religious. Yes there are "atheists", but not every "ist" comes with an "ism". Only "ists" that describe what you are come with an "ism". The word "atheist" describes what you are not, not what you are. There is no content to this thing you call atheism. Beliefs are practiced. Non-beliefs are not.

"a.k.a. N. Korea, Middle East, India, USSR, China etc."

This one is pathetic and will never fly. These are not societies with high populations of atheists, these are dictatorships with god replacements. They did not replace religion with atheism they replaced religion with another kind of dictator. An earthly one instead of a celestial one. Are you really so stupid and irresponsible as to not see the parallels between God and Stalin or any other dictator? To be worshiped, unquestioningly, with complete faith, bow down or be punished in the most harshest of ways? You've really lost your mind if you think that these things you list are not more like religions than anything.

"Moreover, you have no basis for civil rights."

Flat wrong. I'm living proof. I have no belief in any God and I have full respect for all life. It is natural. No divine command necessary. I have no desire to kill, steal or rape, or cheat, or harm my environment, and yet I believe in no God. There are more believers in prison than atheists.

TTWYSted:

"What I prove repeatedly are things that you can’t understand and you’re only response is “I don’t believe it.“ Here is my proof disprove it. And check “Credibility”"

Oh, I have no difficulty understanding your simple-minded explanations of everything. I just refuse to be suckered into them in the absence of proof. Prove it, and I'll believe it.

If you understood logic, you would realize that positives -- assertions made -- are the only thing that can be proved. In the absence of proof, the negative can be assumed. Negatives are not proven.

Sorry, dud....thats the way it is.

Prove your assertions. If you can't, expect the ridicule which you deserve.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN | JANUARY 23,

IRT:,
BUT IF YOU EXIST OUTSIDE OF AND APART FROM YOUR INNER WILL, THEN FROM WHERE DO YOU EXCERCISE THAT CONTROLfrom outside of yourself, but how that can be? It cannot be.

ANS:
It’s a false assumption, you don’t exist apart from your will, it is one of the powers of the soul.

IRT:
To freely choose the thoughts of your mind, you must excercise control from outside of your mind,

ANS:
Why do you have to exercise control outside your mind. Your intellect does all the thinking. All the sense do is relay what sensitizes them. If you tell a funny joke to a friend in front of a mule, the friend laughs but the mule doesn’t and never will because he cannot understand ideas only sensation. Consequently Ideas are not controlled from outside he mine.

IRT:

TTWYSted:
"Absurdity begets absurdity and guessing gets you nowhere."
You prove this repeatedly.

ANS:
What I prove repeatedly are things that you can’t understand and you’re only response is “I don’t believe it.“ Here is my proof disprove it. And check “Credibility”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

IRT:
"Unbeknown to you facts do matter."
Indeed. Facts, however, require proof, not guesswork and suppositiion.

ANS:
Here’s my proof, can’t understand it or are you relying on what you think you know and don’t.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

NAVIN 1:

You ask many questions about how a skeptic explains certain mysterious phenomenon. So let me ask you now:

How does a non-skeptic explain elvis sightings?

How does a non-skeptic deny the revelation of Joseph Smith?

How does a non-skeptic deny that Charlie Manson is Jesus?

How does a non-skeptic explain Fortune tellers, and leprechaun sightings, alien abductions....

How does a non-skeptic not lose all of his or her money to people who send you an e-mail saying that they have access to $200,000 000 and they just need your $500 to get ahold of it?

How does a non-skeptic not own 50 acres of swampland in florida?

How does a non-skeptic Christian not get converted to Islam?

How does a non-skeptic survive life?

understand=understanding

DanielITLD:

"TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Insult me all you want; it bothered me at first, but it doesn't any more; so insult me or not, if that is what you feel called upon to do, and if that is how you move your argument forward."

Daniel, how is it possible to be insulted by someone whose intellect, intelligence and understand you do not respect? Its impossible for me.

TTWYSted:

"Angels and Demons are of the Spiritual World and not of the material Universe; they are spirits."

You answered exactly as I expected: more assertions, no proof. Prove the existence of angels, demons, or a spiritual world.

Navin 1: Part 2

"How does a skeptic explain a scientist that finds a solution to a mathematical problem while sleeping and then later finds the "proof.""

There's no current method we have of knowing for sure. But it would seem as though the mind can process knowledge differently in dreams and so while the solution may not present itself in a waking state, it may do so in dreams. But we can not know for sure. Scientists continue to look into this phenomenon. Skeptics do not feel the need to explain what is currently unexplainable. We leave it an open question. Theists are the ones who answer questions without evidence. This makes skeptics the more open minded of the two.

"How does a skeptic explain children who have been studied by serious scientists (UVa) that seem to have been born with a knowledge of a previous life with details of places they have never been?"

You'd have to give me more details on this one. I can not make a judgement on this short little quip about it. But again, Skeptics do not need to answer all questions. We accept that some things are currently unanswerable.

"But skeptics form cliques of their own, denying god etc while claiming to know enough to say so"

I don't know any of these people. I don't know any atheists who form cliques and "deny God". Just those who see that there is no evidence for God, and who see the many many reasons to believe that no such creature exists. But I don't "deny" God any more than I deny unicorns. I just know that there is no evidence for unicorns, and that people definitely made up the stories that we know about the unicorns, so there is no reason to believe that unicorns exist, and much reason to believe with a reasonable degree of certainty that unicorns do not exists. The same applies to God.

"But then, if you embrace the truth enough, being a mystic myself, I can say you will find that your I is the same as the Being that is Truth (and, damn it, science agrees - your orbitals are infinite as is that of the infinite space and time around you, you are thus the center of infinite centers, your existence is in the moment and the universe is continuously quantally destroyed and recreated, so is your consciuosness, space and time with which you are united and one are but a few of the dimensions of your being - you are greater than what you see...)"

Maybe. But know one really knows for sure.

TTWYSted:

"You see why it is useless to give you any links, though there are hundreds verfying all that has been said"

In the absence of hard facts, links prove nothing but make many assertions.

Oh, yeah, I forgot...you can't think for yourself.

Navin 1: Part 1

"I can take out people's brain parts and they remain an I"

It doesn't seem so.

"I can replace a heart and they remain an I"

Yes.

"There is no more I than there is God"

Philosophically I can see how you can get there, but there is no practical way to get through life without living as an "I".

"We have a belief in the continuity of the I because we have a belief in the continuity of time "

Who's we? This does not describe any belief of mine.

"We have a belief in the I as different than the not I"