Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »One preliminary test you might consider is whether or not the vast majority of sane people agree with your assessment.
Unfortunately this approach suffers from a number of problems.
The first concerns circles. I can hardly support my suspicion that this computer screen is real by assuming the reality of people I (about whom I have the same suspicion).
The second concerns bootstraps. Assuming the people exist, all that a number of people observing things in the same way says, in an absolute sense, is that a number of people observe something in the same way. It says nothing about whether their group assessment is a more accurate reflection of the reality than the single, divergent observation*
This second notion happens to coincide with the Christian claim that men are born 'spiritually blind' (you could insert colour blind in there instead by way of limited analogy). If the "vast majority of sane people" are in fact suffering from spiritual (or color) blindness then it can be expected their collective view on the existence of God (or a red rose) need not accurately reflect reality.
*a frequent response at this point is ask to I believe in paracetamol and other such products of science - which depend on the very common observance that I'm questioning here. In response I would say that I'm not throwing out the bathwater - I'm just pointing out that there could very well be a baby in it. That baby being spiritual blindness. Just as Christianity argues.
And so..Not conclusive to the point of theoretical certainty (as nothing is) but useful enough for you to reconsider obeying the voices in your head and instead consider asking a specialist to test your mental stability.
The degree of conclusivity is something which is determined by each individual individually. If God is as real to me as a computer screen or other people then I can't see any particular reason how the one can be used to usurp the other
Although it must be said that God appears to comment on people with a lot more sense and insight than do people on God. If it became either or in terms of what's real, I know which I'd plump for.
The fact you'd (likely) agree to the possibility of God's existence doesn't mean I'd take your stating that a possibility to be something you seriously entertain or consider managing your life around.Edit: that's not a flippant suggestion, by the way, as you have also written about the possibility of you believing that your god was telling you to kill a person:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
And as I said exagerating uncertainties in this fashion is not helpful. There is a common reality you accept, or act like you accept, when you use that screen to contact and engage in discourse with those other minds. If you want to take discourse seriously and accept that common reality then do so. If you want to play this "I doubt anything or anyone exists" style of play then do not expect anyone to take you seriously.... especially when you act like you do not take yourself seriously in that regard by continuing to use the things that might not exist in order to discourse with minds that also might not. In fact given we all just exist in your mind in that case.... it is clearly vast parts of yourself that can not even take yourself seriously!
I can certainly understand the position though. As soon as you accept the common reality we all share, and the minds in it, and the existence of things like computer screens... you are immediately accepting a reality in which you literally have no arguments, evidence, data, or reasons to substantiate your claim there is a god. Or if you do you at least have not yet presented them in your near 4000 posts on these forums.
So I can at least maintain some level of sympathy for your need to retreat into a reality where the existence of anything at all is in equal doubt and so god becomes just as plausible as any other neurotic fantasy that careens into your consciousness.
As for spiritual blindness, it is nothing about "turning it into a proof" and is everything to do with simply comparing the analogies. Again with color blindness you can still prove the existence of the color to the person who is unable to see it. With god.... as I said in near 4000 posts.... squat. Diddly. Zilch. Nadda. Nichts. Nothing. Feck all.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And as I said exagerating uncertainties in this fashion is not helpful. There is a common reality you accept, or act like you accept, when you use that screen to contact and engage in discourse with those other minds. If you want to take discourse seriously and accept that common reality then do so. If you want to play this "I doubt anything or anyone exists" style of play then do not expect anyone to take you seriously.... especially when you act like you do not take yourself seriously in that regard by continuing to use the things that might not exist in order to discourse with minds that also might not. In fact given we all just exist in your mind in that case.... it is clearly vast parts of yourself that can not even take yourself seriously!
That's a very long winded way of saying "stalemate".I can certainly understand the position though. As soon as you accept the common reality we all share, and the minds in it, and the existence of things like computer screens... you are immediately accepting a reality in which you literally have no arguments, evidence, data, or reasons to substantiate your claim there is a god. Or if you do you at least have not yet presented them in your near 4000 posts on these forums.
On the contrary.
The question isn't whether there is or isn't evidence (there clearly is). The question is whether that evidence adds up to the conviction that God exists. I find the combined evidence convincing and the attempts to explain it away unconvincing. Others see things the other way around.As for spiritual blindness, it is nothing about "turning it into a proof" and is everything to do with simply comparing the analogies. Again with color blindness you can still prove the existence of the color to the person who is unable to see it. With god.... as I said in near 4000 posts.... squat. Diddly. Zilch. Nadda. Nichts. Nothing. Feck all.
The analogy illustrates the potential for the problem as laying with the receiver and not the (lack of) transmitter. The color analogy being limited (in that even with faulty equipment, the receiver can 'detect' colour by inferrance) doesn't alter the main point of the analogy.
It can easily be so that faulty reception equipment results in no reception of any sort being possible for a receiver.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Hi antiskeptic, Can you explain this please as i have trawled books, the internet and had lengthy talks with my former local priest over the years but have never gotten to this conclusion. Not even remotely close.
OkayA few caveats though, i'll explain my reasons why.
Outside of;
The bible. Where to start. Written by men with a primitive understanding of the world, mostly several years after the person now named Jesus died and partly a thousand years before him based on hearsay, imagined scenes where god interacted with humans, previous pagan traditions and the zodiac. IMO, It is all riddled with inaccuracies, mistruths, fables, fantasy, lies and shows god in a very bad light.
I'm a mechanical engineer. When I look at a detailed technical drawing of a complex mechanism I comprehend, I understand, I see beauty and elegance and order and reason. When people who have no mechanical engineering understanding look at the same drawing they see something like you appear to see when you look at the bible. A mess.
The mechanical engineer (whether by training/gifting or just gifting) has a perception (or a sightedness) that others don't have. The bible itself refers to this when it says of the lost (or the blind)
Cor 2:14 "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.
Spiritually discerned = spiritual sightedness. Without it, the bible is meaningless. Once your eyes are opened spiritually however, you'd look at the bible (and the world around you and you yourself) in an utterly different way. Through completely different spectacles.The gospels. All of them. These texts contradict each other. Parts of the virgin birth and crucifixion are completely omitted by key followers and only show up in later gospels written over 100 years after Jesus died. They were strangely all written between 50-150 years after Jesus' died. The later ones, i'm not sure who by. It was not the original follower anyway. And they also tell us that Jesus was taken down from the cross, legs unbroken and had no nails in his hands so there is no evidence he died on the cross in some gospels. They tell us Jesus liked Mary M the most and kissed her all the time. So these are not good books to reference as they can bite back.
There are but 4 gospels - none of which mention Jesus kissing Mary all the time. The existence of other 'gospels' no more impinges on the veracity of the 4 gospels than does the existence of 10,000 other religions impinge on the veracity of Christianity. A smoke screen might mask an object but it doesn't alter the object itself.
The previous analogy of mechanical engineering comes back into play. When you are sighted and are examining the plan of a mechanism you will notice if someones drawn in a spanner in the works. A spanner in the biblical work is something that interferes with what is otherwise a beautifully crafted and operating mechanism. And is recognisable as such
I wouldn't be too worried about one gospel not mentioning something that another gospel majors on. At least, not without someone making a case as to why I should worry.Subjective brain functionality. Wants, wishes, personal experiences etc do not count. They can't be shown or proven to anyone just as much as a psychosis patient can't show someone his/her friend (No malice intended to anyone with this analogy) nor a person suffering from retinal disorder can explain an apparition properly without making it up.
Although God is an object in the sense that his is differentiated from what he has created it is not only him as an object I'm am referring to when I say I believe God exists. Everything ... and I mean everything .. requires an explanation. One the one had you have naturalistic explanations (which terminate in a certain amount of mystery) . And so we have biology and sociology and politics and law and chemistry and all the rest: which each examine a sliver of the total that needs explaining and each arrive at various conclusions about those slivers.
And you have God's explanation: which takes into account the above because they do explain a certain amount. But which adds aspects which the others don't include. And which strike me as a more elegant, more harmonious way of tying in the whole that do all the -ologies.To sum up, no books written by men many years before or after Jesus (God did not write these) or no personal opinion. I have many such pieces of evidence, i just can't use them outside of my own thinking.
The term used of God's authoring the bible is 'inspired'. He inspired those writers as to what it was they would include. But within that, a mans personality, passion and reasoning abilities were expressed.
When they written is irrelevant for a God who knows the beginning from the end. And so eg: Psalm 22 could be written before a time when crucifixion existed as a form of execution.
As I said before, you're own thinking won't get you far. You need you're eyes opened by God. Which he is all too willing to do as it happens. In a simple sense, you only need to want to ask.The reason for this long winded tirade is that I'm currently involved in a talk with my catholic/christian girlfriend and both of us are stuck and unable to come up with any conclusive proof of gods existence outside of a persons mind, or the bible, or what our priests told us. Which when contacted recently were not of great help. One did promise to get back to us with some observations.
As I have been pointing out to Nozz above, for all he knows, the whole of reality might not exist outside Nozz's mind ..but that doesn't cause Nozz (or anyone else) to lose sleep.
The question, I think, is whether you can be satisfied within yourself such that the various arguments posed (such as "what if it's only in your head") can be batted away to your personal satisfaction.
When my eyes were opened 10 or so years ago it was literally like the light went on. What had previously been an absolute dead dull book (on a par with any number of ancient dull books you could name) came alive in my hands. So to speak. And 10 years of exposure on places like this have done nothing at all to put a dent in the biblical mechanism which I have come more an more to understand.
Exposure on places like this have brought up the occasional dead-end mystery (such as "what happens to babies who die before they can "believe") but in the main, the examination has only strengthened my faith that the challenge to God's way (which I believe to have something of a handle on) is like throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner for all the sinking that will take place.
If you were in the same place as I, you would know God exists to levels that are utterly satisfying and beyond reach of arguments to the contrary. If I was in the same place as you and desiring in some way to be in the same place as I, then I would do the only thing you can do. Search, if searching is what you find you drawn to do.
At the moment I'm involved on an Alpha Course (which was instrumental in me coming to faith (in a last bit in the jigsaw kind of way)). What I notice is the people on it are like I was then. They are searching. Searching not absolutely specifically for God of the bible perhaps. But for something more than they have. For perhaps (as the advertising poster for Alpha puts it) the meaning of their lives. God, I have found, isn't concerned with the outward aspects of a persons search, he's interested in the heart behind it. And he will respond to a heart that is ultimately (even if that hearts consciousness doesn't know it yet) searching for him.
Guaranteed.After agreeing that god may or may not exist and that he may or may not have started life/evolution but definitely does not have any influence on it, we moved onto Jesus as god can't be directly proven to be real. Right now we are weeding through possible glimpses of Jesus' supernatural ability other than what has been accredited to many other men before, during and after Jesus' death i.e. healing the sick, dying and resurrecting, born on the 25th just before the three stars known as the three kings line up, died at Easter. We are looking for something like knowledge outside of his time e.g. dinosaurs, non flat earth, earth not being centre of the universe, Nazareth being covered in Ice at one point, multiple universes, cells, mentions of countries not known to people of Galile at the time, mentions of metals or materials not known to people at the time, evolution etc.
There is a bit of a fly in the ointment here.
Think about it, if God is to be found a particular way, if there is but one kind of key to the door then beating down any other path is a waste of energy. What you could be doing in the above is the equivilent of tramping through the woods shouting "HAS ANYONE SEEN A LESSER SPOTTED WIDGERYDOO NESTING IN THESE WOODS" when the lesser spotted widgerdoo is a notoriously shy bird and won't at all be found that way.
I mentioned above that eyes opened was the central to God being proven to me. First you need to be able to (spiritually) see the evidence in order that you can evaluate it. And the route to having eyes opened lies in a hearts desire for God. It's certainly not something that an intellectual curiousness will produce results for.
So I'd examine yourself first. Ask what you motivation is. Ask are you interested in finding God. Ask why you would be interested in finding God. What is it God supposedly says you need him for and do you believe that.
Ask him to help you in that process since - logically - you are reliant in him to reveal himself to you for want of a known way to be sure of finding him.
I remember this pray I prayed around the time I was (in retrospect) getting closer to the point of meeting God.
Lord, I don't love you (alternatively: want to find you)
I don't even want to love you (or: want to find you)
But I want to want to love you (or: want to want to find you)
Read the story of the Prodigal Son. The father is ever looking out and will spot a son who desires to return even from as long a way off as that prayer begins to indicate.Now I know you can't use the gospel, or bible as reference (To my knowledge Jesus never wrote a passage in these) but surely there are texts or scriptures or clues of some value outside the control of the catholic church. Christianity is bigger than the catholic church.
Even a steer in the right direction would be helpful.
There were all sorts of things I was reading in my search for God which were, I suppose side tracks on the way but in a way helped in their "throwing odd bones" in my direction. A search which produced nothing on the way might be broken off on the way afterall
But I couldn't recommend anything which doesn't ultimately reference God and the bible as it's ultimate source of truth (even if no biblical references are used) since I don't believe there is any other truth but God's
There are certainly great apologetics books out there which explain the Christian faith in a way that is not as easily discerned from the bible. Is that what you mean? The likes of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis is a classic on the subject, for example.
The church is most certainly bigger (and other) than the visible Roman Catholic church. If you're not finding answers whether there or anywhere else then consider broadening your search.0 -
I'm a statistical analyst with a computing background, my girlfriend is a doctor. Nice to meet you. Can we put our job titles away now, or shall we go onto height, weight, looks, education and pay-packet? And don’t make me take out the heavy artilleryantiskeptic wrote: »I'm a mechanical engineer.
Your insinuation that i can’t read, comprehend and logically unravel the mysteries of the world from the bible written in my mother tongue is quite disingenuous and a very poor argument that has been used by priests since the Churches inception.
"The christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of their little people against the power of intellectuals." - Bishop Ratzinger, 31 December 1979
Please don’t insult my intelligence in future by attempting to use this argument again. It’s pointless and futile. Especially as people who cover up rapes degraded its value on the not so simple of us.
Clearly you have a problem with comprehension of English, please read my post, i asked you to respond specifically outside the realms of the bible, the gospels and one imagination.antiskeptic wrote: »Cor 2:14 "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.
The bible itself.
There are but 4 gospels.
I'm biting and wildly guessing that you are talking about the Canonical Gospels though. I'm not. Christianity is bigger than the vatican. Just because they only like some of them does not mean there are not many more. The Gospel of Judas for one, Gospel of Mary for two. Being one of the few women followers of Jesus you’d have thought the catholic church would have valued her opinion and used it as their 5th gospel but i digress.
I didn't ask you to comment on my explanations for why i removed certain things from the equation. I've gone over these points with people with a far greater knowledge of religion than you, believe me. I was actually hoping you had something new on the last point but mostly what you did was trod over the same tired tracks many have before you, and i'm not being sarcastic or trying to feel smug. I’m genuinely let down that you have gone this route. I’ll know in future. I'm new to this forum and i'm finding my feet. You just stood on them a little i feel.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that as a mechanical engineer you may think that you are reading C, when in fact you are reading C#. Similar but outdated, perhaps. It still produces a similar output only every now and again your system crashes because it ran out of memory (Unknowns to you the intricate working of C#). You don’t realise this and until someone tells you otherwise, you will happily run the program to completion 95% of the time.antiskeptic wrote: »Spiritually discerned = spiritual sightedness. Without it, the bible is meaningless. Once your eyes are opened spiritually however, you'd look at the bible (and the world around you and you yourself) in an utterly different way. Through completely different spectacles.
The previous analogy of mechanical engineering comes back into play.
I wouldn't be too worried about one gospel not mentioning something that another gospel majors on. At least, not without someone making a case as to why I should worry.
See anyone can make up claptrap and fancy it up as intelligent discussion. Also, i don’t need a special free pass from an invisible imaginary thing to be able to think spiritually. I can do that myself. It’s not a gift reserved for religious people. People of faith and non faith can invoke spirituality.
“Think about it, if God is to be found a particular way, if there is but one kind of key to the door then beating down any other path is a waste of energy.”
Being an engineer you of all people should know there are far more ways to come to a conclusion than just one. And even IF you think there may only be one, there are always other ways to break the door down from within, thus allowing you access via the front to the pot of gold. For instance when indoors, we mere humans still know when it is windy although we see no evidence of the wind itself. Can you tell how?
Excellent, now onto the part i wanted answered.antiskeptic wrote: »So I'd examine yourself first. Ask what you motivation is. Ask are you interested in finding God. Ask why you would be interested in finding God. What is it God supposedly says you need him for and do you believe that.
Ask him to help you in that process since - logically - you are reliant in him to reveal himself to you for want of a known way to be sure of finding him.
The first five sentences i thank you for. They were thought provoking. I sat for hours thinking about this. I know what i want from him/her/it and i know the reverse. I do see god. Possibly not as you know god, and i don’t call it god but for me it carries the same weight. Everywhere is the answer. In the face of people, on the back of my chair, at the water in the sea, on the dust on the moon, on the rings of Saturn, on the unshaven construction worker on the luas this morning, in Intergalactic space, in the words you have wrote to me, at the beauty of lake como (and all nature) and Olmo were i spend a lot of time, technology, when i drive my car, when someone crashed into my car, when i make love to my girlfriend, when i cook a meal, when i fight with my brother, when i curse my rival, the hurricanes, the sunshine, the thousands of diseases, the hundreds of thousands of insects etc etc etc. That to me is god. It’s me. It’s you, it’s every single thing on this planet/solar system/universe. It’s the basic elements in everything. God is not looking for me to do anything. He/she/it can’t/doesn’t communicate with the earth nor does it meddle in its affairs. For me, there is a reason why visions and messages from god stopped pretty much around the same time that science was allowed by the religious community to flourish and it was not because science disproved them nor did god decide to hang up the gloves. For me, anyone who claims they hear god, or see his/her/its work in the world is quite entitled to that opinion but it comes with a sackful of rubbish which most people attribute to humans and a case of psychosis. It’s a defence mechanism. Fear to admit fault in something you are personally involved with. It happens me at times.
Alas, they were not references or even possibly tangible angles to steer me but i did make me think and that helped. I will continue to think about Jesus and i will continue to think about his brothers and sisters and followers.
I will pass these questions onto my girlfriend, they may help her as her priest has not come back to her yet on some of these points and perhaps they will invoke something in her that she is looking for.
I have. These types of fables do nothing for me besides enjoyment. I understand the obvious meaning the story tries to hide but i respect a book that tells me black is black. It’s not that i want everything simple, i don’t like ambiguity in text especially in something as important as god. Can you image science working like that? We would get nowhere and have all the scientists in the world telling us that it is complicated, too complicated for our little minds to understand! IF, Jesus wanted us to read the bible, and understand all of it, 100% unequivocally. But again Jesus never left a single written word that i know of nor did he ask humans to create an amalgamated book based on a previous book in circulation, which he disagreed with and writings of his followers fluffed up with some extra tales of woe and honour.antiskeptic wrote: »Read the story of the Prodigal Son.
I won’t answer the last bit of your text because it’s pretty wishy washy for me and it doesn’t answer my question unfortunately.
“Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis”
On the other hand, I will however give this book a try but reading reviews of it i am not sure what light it can shed for me if an argument for morality is the core theme (Remember the rubbish i mentioned earlier, well that rubbish is the presence of evil). Ethica has been read several times and the zeitgeist is always a willing beacon of moral light for me.
Although i wish it turned out better, i appreciate the reply and steer.0 -
I'm a statistical analyst with a computing background, my girlfriend is a doctor. Nice to meet you. Can we put our job titles away now, or shall we go onto height, weight, looks, education and pay-packet? And don’t make me take out the heavy artillery
Your insinuation that i can’t read, comprehend and logically unravel the mysteries of the world from the bible written in my mother tongue is quite disingenuous and a very poor argument that has been used by priests since the Churches inception.
I wasn't suggesting that the analytical qualities a mechanical engineer has were the reason I could comprehend the bible where another wouldn't. I was using mechanical engineering as a metaphor: the sighted person (mechanically sighted in the metaphor) is able to understand a realm (the mechanical realm) which is impenetrable to the unsighted person (mechanically unsighted in the metaphor).
Similiarly, if spiritual blindness/sight exists and if I am sighted and you blind in that area then it could be expected that the bible would make sense to me whereas the bible appears like this...The bible. Where to start. Written by men with a primitive understanding of the world, mostly several years after the person now named Jesus died and partly a thousand years before him based on hearsay, imagined scenes where god interacted with humans, previous pagan traditions and the zodiac. IMO, It is all riddled with inaccuracies, mistruths, fables, fantasy, lies and shows god in a very bad light.
...to you. Our professions (and the analytical abilities associated with those professions) having nothing at all to do with it."The christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of their little people against the power of intellectuals." - Bishop Ratzinger, 31 December 1979
Please don’t insult my intelligence in future by attempting to use this argument again. It’s pointless and futile. Especially as people who cover up rapes degraded its value on the not so simple of us.
I'm not the greatest fan of the Roman Catholic church on any front so this is a little lost on me. Suffice to say, I'm quite happy to face the power of intellectuals on my own.
Hopefully you'll see my argument wasn't intended to insult your intelligence. It made a narrow point about spiritual blindness as an explanation for our differing takes on the bible. It's not a proof, it's just a suggestion.Clearly you have a problem with comprehension of English, please read my post, i asked you to respond specifically outside the realms of the bible, the gospels and one imagination.
You hadn't asked me at that point and it's not my practice to respond other than linearally to points made. The verse isn't intended as a proof or support of anything anyway. But I'll desist from 'arguing' from the bible in future.I'm biting and wildly guessing that you are talking about the Canonical Gospels though. I'm not. Christianity is bigger than the vatican. Just because they only like some of them does not mean there are not many more. The Gospel of Judas for one, Gospel of Mary for two. Being one of the few women followers of Jesus you’d have thought the catholic church would have valued her opinion and used it as their 5th gospel but i digress.
It's okay that you view Christianity as larger than the canon of scripture (which is shared by Christianity outside Rome). But there's not much I can do with it - you might as well throw the Koran into the mix for all the relevance it has to me.I didn't ask you to comment on my explanations for why i removed certain things from the equation. I've gone over these points with people with a far greater knowledge of religion than you, believe me. I was actually hoping you had something new on the last point but mostly what you did was trod over the same tired tracks many have before you, and i'm not being sarcastic or trying to feel smug. I’m genuinely let down that you have gone this route. I’ll know in future. I'm new to this forum and i'm finding my feet. You just stood on them a little i feel.
Hopefully you'll have moved back from your (mis, I think) understanding of the mech. eng. metaphor. That said, you may well be as insulted by the suggestion the metaphor was making: not that you are intellectually blind but that you might well be spiritually blind
No insult is intended
Whilst I think I have certain angles on aspects of Christianity I don't think I'm all that unorthodox (although there can be a fair amount of variation of view within the brotherhood Christianity without anyone accusing the other of being unorthodox).
Welcome to the forum btw...Has the thought ever occurred to you that as a mechanical engineer you may think that you are reading C, when in fact you are reading C#. Similar but outdated, perhaps. It still produces a similar output only every now and again your system crashes because it ran out of memory (Unknowns to you the intricate working of C#). You don’t realise this and until someone tells you otherwise, you will happily run the program to completion 95% of the time.
See anyone can make up claptrap and fancy it up as intelligent discussion. Also, i don’t need a special free pass from an invisible imaginary thing to be able to think spiritually. I can do that myself. It’s not a gift reserved for religious people. People of faith and non faith can invoke spirituality.
When you quoted me you omitted this element.
"When you are sighted and are examining the plan of a mechanism you will notice if someones drawn in a spanner in the works. A spanner in the biblical work is something that interferes with what is otherwise a beautifully crafted and operating mechanism."
If something is considered perfect (at least, the more I find out about it the more questions it answers) then I don't need to worry whether there is something even more perfect - I've already got my hands full digesting the perfection available to me.
And when it comes to a host of 'gospels' I've read a little of them and they seem to me spanners. And I'm trusting that if there was anything serious to be considered in them members of the family I belong to would have worked that out a long time ago. You don't have to reinvent the wheel (the canon of scripture)
“Think about it, if God is to be found a particular way, if there is but one kind of key to the door then beating down any other path is a waste of energy.”
Being an engineer you of all people should know there are far more ways to come to a conclusion than just one. And even IF you think there may only be one, there are always other ways to break the door down from within, thus allowing you access via the front to the pot of gold. For instance when indoors, we mere humans still know when it is windy although we see no evidence of the wind itself. Can you tell how?
I said 'if'. If that IF is true then it is so by divine fiat - there is but one way to God. If not true then not.
I'm suggesting there is but one way. Now that way will have all sorts of variations - some will come to God via the route of drug addiction, others through the despair of hanging on a cross. Some will be atheists, some Christians, some nothing at all.
But there is a common theme amongst those who come to Christ. It would appear. That theme is, I suggest, the single key.The first five sentences i thank you for. They were thought provoking. I sat for hours thinking about this. I know what i want from him/her/it and i know the reverse. I do see god. Possibly not as you know god, and i don’t call it god but for me it carries the same weight. Everywhere is the answer. In the face of people, on the back of my chair, at the water in the sea, on the dust on the moon, on the rings of Saturn, on the unshaven construction worker on the luas this morning, in Intergalactic space, in the words you have wrote to me, at the beauty of lake como (and all nature) and Olmo were i spend a lot of time, technology, when i drive my car, when someone crashed into my car, when i make love to my girlfriend, when i cook a meal, when i fight with my brother, when i curse my rival, the hurricanes, the sunshine, the thousands of diseases, the hundreds of thousands of insects etc etc etc. That to me is god. It’s me. It’s you, it’s every single thing on this planet/solar system/universe. It’s the basic elements in everything. God is not looking for me to do anything. He/she/it can’t/doesn’t communicate with the earth nor does it meddle in its affairs.
I see things in very much the same way you do. The only difference is that I see it held together, managed and purposed by a personhood and that for a reason. And in all it's wonder and in all it's horror, that personhood plans to bring all this to an end. At which point the beginning will have come to an end and the eternal realm, a realm of union between created persons and their God will be completed. Or not.
And the choice is yours.For me, there is a reason why visions and messages from god stopped pretty much around the same time that science was allowed by the religious community to flourish
They stopped? I wasn't aware of it.For me, anyone who claims they hear god, or see his/her/its work in the world is quite entitled to that opinion but it comes with a sackful of rubbish which most people attribute to humans and a case of psychosis. It’s a defence mechanism. Fear to admit fault in something you are personally involved with. It happens me at times.
You'd understand that I've heard that view a thousand times before. I mean, I used to evangelize on a bikers forum for crying out loudI have. These types of fables do nothing for me besides enjoyment. I understand the obvious meaning the story tries to hide but i respect a book that tells me black is black. It’s not that i want everything simple, i don’t like ambiguity in text especially in something as important as god. Can you image science working like that? We would get nowhere and have all the scientists in the world telling us that it is complicated, too complicated for our little minds to understand! IF, Jesus wanted us to read the bible, and understand all of it, 100% unequivocally. But again Jesus never left a single written word that i know of nor did he ask humans to create an amalgamated book based on a previous book in circulation, which he disagreed with and writings of his followers fluffed up with some extra tales of woe and honour.
The bible is out of bounds. Understood..“Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis”
On the other hand, I will however give this book a try but reading reviews of it i am not sure what light it can shed for me if an argument for morality is the core theme (Remember the rubbish i mentioned earlier, well that rubbish is the presence of evil).
He does a book called the Problem of Evil too. I suggested Mere C more for his style of writing than that it contains all the arguments (although he deals with more than morality). If you enjoy him then you've access to what are I think a good series of short reads dealing with things from a few different angles.Ethica has been read several times and the zeitgeist is always a willing beacon of moral light for me.
I'm not aware of the former (and being an appalling reader at the present time I'm likely to remain so. But isn't the z.g. a movable feast?Although i wish it turned out better, i appreciate the reply and steer.
My pleasure. Sorry to disappoint where I have and my apologies for offence unintended.0 -
Forgive me for interrupting. I'm enjoying the discussion so far and intend on continuing to read it (Unless it has been conlcuded of course) so think of this post as a small tangent. Just a few of my own thoughts, asked and answered, in and out again.antiskeptic wrote: »I wasn't suggesting that the analytical qualities a mechanical engineer has were the reason I could comprehend the bible where another wouldn't. I was using mechanical engineering as a metaphor: the sighted person (mechanically sighted in the metaphor) is able to understand a realm (the mechanical realm) which is impenetrable to the unsighted person (mechanically unsighted in the metaphor).
I won't comment much on this analogy, however I feel it is a little redundant. Anyone you refer to as 'spirtually blind' who attempts to comprehend the bible may first be skeptical because of the presence of contradictions, a lack of consistency between gospels and so on. On the other hand the 'spirtually sighted' see the bible without these contradictions and observe it as evidence of god's existence. From this angle it appears that for the blind to become sighted, they need only ignore all of these faults.
You might say that in doing so they won't actually be understanding and thus not feel the full effect of the scripture's spirtual power. However, up until I was about 13 I recall returning from mass feeling rejuvenated and spirtually cleansed. At the time I would appreciate the bible, not because I understood it, but because I did not recognise these faults. Now, five years later, I get that same prickly, rejuvenated, spirtually clean feeling from listening to good music, or just walking to the first class of the day while feeling the softness of the grass under foot and taking in the nature all around me. Now, the bible gives me very little. It seems to me that ignorance was the equivalent to understanding the book. (I'm not calling you ignorant. Although I do believe you are (unconsciously or otherwise) ignoring its faults)antiskeptic wrote: »It's okay that you view Christianity as larger than the canon of scripture (which is shared by Christianity outside Rome). But there's not much I can do with it - you might as well throw the Koran into the mix for all the relevance it has to me.
I think the primary concern here is in fact the reason why these gospels have such little relevance to you (And particular sections of Christianity). It would appear to me (And many others, I hope) that these gospels have been omitted not because they depict Jesus incorrectly, but because they depict the image of Jesus that the Vatican and the Catholic Church has developed over the years incorrectly and the Jesus that they do show is far too obvious of a contradiction to be ignored by the masses of christian followers.antiskeptic wrote: »When you quoted me you omitted this element.
"When you are sighted and are examining the plan of a mechanism you will notice if someones drawn in a spanner in the works. A spanner in the biblical work is something that interferes with what is otherwise a beautifully crafted and operating mechanism."
If something is considered perfect (at least, the more I find out about it the more questions it answers) then I don't need to worry whether there is something even more perfect - I've already got my hands full digesting the perfection available to me.
A suggestion: When you are done digesting the bible as is, maybe you should expand into other gospels and look out for potential flaws. And simply dismissing something because it doesn't fit your current view is a bit menial and defeats the purpose of exploring other works in my opinion, although I'm positive I do it all the time. For example, if I am researching a product and am inclined towards buying it I will search only for positive reviews and dismiss bad ones, unfortunately I can't remember the psychological name for it at this time.
In hindsight the initial statement "A suggestion: ... " seems snide... Please don't interpret it that way. Honestly, if at sometime in the future you feel fulfilled by the current bible and to have explored it all I encourage you to read into other sources and question why exactly they haven't been included, dismissing because they don't fit the jigsaw as an argument. The jigsaw isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal of the real events.antiskeptic wrote: »And when it comes to a host of 'gospels' I've read a little of them and they seem to me spanners.
See above pleaseantiskeptic wrote: »And I'm trusting that if there was anything serious to be considered in them members of the family I belong to would have worked that out a long time ago. You don't have to reinvent the wheel (the canon of scripture)
Perhaps they have thought likewise about the generation passed, feeling that the people before them have already performed the job of considering these texts and dismissed them?antiskeptic wrote: »They stopped? I wasn't aware of it.
Where exactly can I see it continued? Do you believe the pope is anymore in contact with God than others? If so, why is it that he was elected his position by mortal people with the potential to make mistakes, error of judgement?
Thank you for your time! Was running out of time myself so had to finish it quickly, apologies for any typos or anything not enough time to proof read, bye!0 -
-
-
Forgive me for interrupting. I'm enjoying the discussion so far and intend on continuing to read it (Unless it has been conlcuded of course) so think of this post as a small tangent. Just a few of my own thoughts, asked and answered, in and out again.
By all means..I won't comment much on this analogy, however I feel it is a little redundant. Anyone you refer to as 'spirtually blind' who attempts to comprehend the bible may first be skeptical because of the presence of contradictions, a lack of consistency between gospels and so on. On the other hand the 'spirtually sighted' see the bible without these contradictions and observe it as evidence of god's existence. From this angle it appears that for the blind to become sighted, they need only ignore all of these faults.
The sighted would say that they don't see the contradictions because they can resolve them. Resolution is not the same as ignore. But I would grant that if unable to resolve then ignoring is the remaining option.You might say that in doing so they won't actually be understanding and thus not feel the full effect of the scripture's spirtual power. However, up until I was about 13 I recall returning from mass feeling rejuvenated and spirtually cleansed. At the time I would appreciate the bible, not because I understood it, but because I did not recognise these faults. Now, five years later, I get that same prickly, rejuvenated, spirtually clean feeling from listening to good music, or just walking to the first class of the day while feeling the softness of the grass under foot and taking in the nature all around me. Now, the bible gives me very little. It seems to me that ignorance was the equivalent to understanding the book. (I'm not calling you ignorant. Although I do believe you are (unconsciously or otherwise) ignoring its faults)
I don't know if you went to sunday school but the kids who do at the church I attend do. And no doubt they hear kid-sized versions of biblical stories which are, in all likelyhood not dealing with the gospel (because the kids are perhaps too young to appreciate it's message) but are in fact being spoon fed biblical stories as one could spoon feed them any happy-ending story.
Suitably primed, I could well imagine a psychological comfort effect from thinking of "a nice God who loved me no matter what and who forgived all my sins if just asked (that's all she wrote)". And that such a comfort blanket would be outgrown and that the kids go their own way as the kids up at my chuch do as soon as they hit mid teens.
The born-insighted sinner is emerging from his cocoon. And given that "going to church" isn't the means whereby an unsighted person becomes sighted, no one is too surprised about it. At least not up my way
-
I wouldn't say the bible is without flaw or fault. It's a translation afterall and much can be lost in that process. But you're dealing with a monument of a mechanism, the workings and intricacy of which stagger the minds of those who say they are sighted. It would take more, much more than an apparently irreconcilable element here or there (I'm sure there must be a few - though most claims turn out to be spuriously feeble on examination) to begin to unravel it.
When I say the attempts to dismantle the bible are as ball bearings flung at the side of an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it I am giving you my perspective.
But let's have a look. Here's a "contradiction" which was presented as a true contradiction by what would appear to be an (unbelieving) theology student. This guy knew the bible inside out OT and NT - heck, he was getting on to being proficient in Hebrew and Greek to boot. It took me about 10 seconds to figure out what the common or garden wisdom contained within the verses was. He just couldn't see it - not even when it was explained to him. He's probably still propagating it as an example of a biblical contradiction. See what you think of the proverb (24:4 & 5). Contradiction or resolvable?
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
-I think the primary concern here is in fact the reason why these gospels have such little relevance to you (And particular sections of Christianity). It would appear to me (And many others, I hope) that these gospels have been omitted not because they depict Jesus incorrectly, but because they depict the image of Jesus that the Vatican and the Catholic Church has developed over the years incorrectly and the Jesus that they do show is far too obvious of a contradiction to be ignored by the masses of christian followers.
And if you're a Christian who thinks Roman Catholicism has more in common with Islam than it does Christianity?A suggestion: When you are done digesting the bible as is,
We were doing a study in the book of Romans a number of years ago. We went at a reasonable clip, one night a week. It took about 4 years. In the process, I bought a 14 or so volume of commentaries on that book: a sober, densely written and argued - yet thrilling exposition of what the argument(s) of Romans were about (although it must be said the authors perspective is but one perspective). 14 books of 250-400 pages each. On a single book in the bible.
And that's but one perspective.
One of the many things I learned was that each word Paul wrote had a significance in the argument. Not a one was used with a deliberate eye on how best to propagate and tie together the position. The finest of mechanisms within the overarching mechanism.
Done? Are you mad!maybe you should expand into other gospels and look out for potential flaws. And simply dismissing something because it doesn't fit your current view is a bit menial and defeats the purpose of exploring other works in my opinion, although I'm positive I do it all the time. For example, if I am researching a product and am inclined towards buying it I will search only for positive reviews and dismiss bad ones, unfortunately I can't remember the psychological name for it at this time.
That's one view and it is sourced on the philosophical position that you can only ever journey but never arrive. There is no truth. In other words.
I would contest that on arrival at a destination one can step out and examine the lay of the land. If that destination is truth and you find yourelf attracted to it, there is no need to step back on the train. Your journey has ended.In hindsight the initial statement "A suggestion: ... " seems snide... Please don't interpret it that way. Honestly, if at sometime in the future you feel fulfilled by the current bible and to have explored it all I encourage you to read into other sources and question why exactly they haven't been included, dismissing because they don't fit the jigsaw as an argument. The jigsaw isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal of the real events.
I find it astonishingly accurate in explaining that which is most vital and important in the world around me: People and their hearts. It is fitting that that is the only thing that is to continue as it left off when this world is wrapped up.
If have come to find that truth is always neat (in both senses: tidy and cool!). I don't need to be able to prove it to you in order to be convinced myself.See above please
DittoPerhaps they have thought likewise about the generation passed, feeling that the people before them have already performed the job of considering these texts and dismissed them?
That's the argument. All the way back to the embryonic church and what they considered scripture.Where exactly can I see it continued?
In the place where God takes up residence. Your heart. Of course, he has to be invited in first.
As for supposed visions of Mary and the like? Let's say that the bible takes a dim view of it in predicting such events will occur.Do you believe the pope is anymore in contact with God than others? If so, why is it that he was elected his position by mortal people with the potential to make mistakes, error of judgement?
Is the pope a Catholic? Sure. Is he a Christian? Who knows. Perhaps. If so, he has as much access to God as any other Christian - which is: as much as he is able for. God isn't for the faint-hearted (which stands to reason if you stand back for a moment and imagine how "big" he would have to be to do what it is he would be doing in the case he exists.Thank you for your time! Was running out of time myself so had to finish it quickly, apologies for any typos or anything not enough time to proof read, bye!
Not a bother. Night.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I wasn't suggesting that the analytical qualities a mechanical engineer has were the reason I could comprehend the bible where another wouldn't.
I understand that you were using a metaphor, that was not my issue. I made an attempt at sarcasm about the context of the metaphor to defuse any hostility there might have been about the statement. I did this before i made my true feelings on the matter clear. The crux of your argument was that i was blind to the true workings or flow of the bible because i could not see it for what it really was, due to my lack of faith. Three things, i didn't want to get dragged into this debate, two i have now, and three this assumption is wildly incorrect. As i do see the bible for what it is. In its entirety. I didn't need faith to do so but at one time I had faith. Even that was not enough for me to dispel all i felt wrong with the bible.
From the beginning of Genesis in the old testament, i understand that the way the world came into being as according to the bible was incorrect and was purely only a fictitious fantasy of how the world might come into existence via mans imagination. Which was bound to his habitat and surroundings at the time, hence all the local references, limited knowledge of the world and universe right through to the very end of the bible. It continues apace with Adam and Eve, the origin of man including the magic of making a women with breasts out of a mans rib and the beginning of original sin. All humans spawned from two humans which amazingly didn't kill out our species within years of incest. They had two sons. One which killed the other, leaving the remaining brother and his mother to create a mutated race. Jesus would later save us from original sin. Now Evolution blows all of that out of the water. It completely negates a main reason for Jesus to ever even come to the earth which was his main goal via being crucified and curing man of original sin and thus allowing mankind entrance into heaven. Now the bibles events are hard to swallow logically and they are ridiculously within the bounds of mans limited thinking that it is almost moronic in comparisons to todays fantasy marvels such as star trek and star wars. Richard Dawkins put the god of the old testament so eloquently when he said this;
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-of-old-testament-richard-dawkins.html
I understand that the new testament is an attempt by the church to show man gods better side. His forgiving and all loving side. It also in part sends us through a quagmire of stories that are indeed fictitious but are there to make us think about personal situations relative to us and our lives today. The bible is merely a guide, somewhat useful at times .
The problem is, we are basing our everyday decisions and actions based on teachings that are over 1,500 years old. They frankly don't fit today's thinking, they are regressive as time moves on, a repetitive, reactive and an anti-progressive way to live your life. We can learn only so much from fixating on the past. We can mutate this information, add to it, modify it, multiply it, advance it and sometimes slightly evolve it but what we need in this world today is men that can dream of things, things that never were. That is natural progression. That is forward thinking. That is true evolution.
I might not know why we are here fully but i do know some things for absolute certain. The reasons i know i am on this earth is to one, procreate and two evolve in what ever way possible i can to further myself in this life and in turn pass onto my kids and people close to me.These two things are intrinsically linked. It's only logical for me to fully believe that my reason for being here is completely explainable in a small quantity for me not to necessarily need a god for an understand of this. A theist god at that. I have to be sure though. I find looking at religion and getting different angles on it like a study to make sure that the decisions i make in life are the best ones and are based on logic, reason, good teaching and progressive where possible. If a justification of god came about, then i would like any rational scientist realign my thoughts to that which matched that of the factual data. Right now they are on a different vector.
I understand but have i explained myself on the bible and how we both can see it? I didn't want to get into a detailed conversation over this but there you have it. It's out there now.antiskeptic wrote: »Similiarly, if spiritual blindness/sight exists and if I am sighted and you blind in that area then it could be expected that the bible would make sense to me whereas the bible appears like this...
I know, it's cool. As previously stated. It was my medium to defuse the situation of a heated debate. I understood your metaphor and felt it was a back handed attempt to negate my position on the bible whilst also referring to my view of the bible as "A mess". Different people can have different opinions on different matters. That's fine. You'll just have to accept my position on the bible be it right or wrong in your mind. Just the same as i have to except your view of the bible no matter how utterly narrowly viewed i see it to be. We all create bubbles around our lives just big enough for us to cope with the realities of life. Some of us extend that bubble too much and suffer but i see believing in god as a way of filling in the gaps and deflating that bubble enough to feel safe.antiskeptic wrote: »...to you. Our professions (and the analytical abilities associated with those professions) having nothing at all to do with it.
The gaps are the unknowns, the hurtful truths and the things you don't want to deal with, like death. He/She/It is going to provide a 5 star luxury resort eternal retreat with all the previously deceased loved ones on some instance of a reality unknown to our spectrum of vision. While i believe that my life will end definitively at some point in time and so too will my thoughts, dreams, hopes, aspirations, memories and cherished feelings. You might think that is a sad outlook on life and death but i put it to you that it only makes life all that much better. It only makes living life with the knowledge of no second chance all that more special.
That's my take on the bible and such.
And so endeth the sermon
See above.antiskeptic wrote: »Hopefully you'll see my argument wasn't intended to insult your intelligence. It made a narrow point about spiritual blindness as an explanation for our differing takes on the bible. It's not a proof, it's just a suggestion.
So you make decisions on bodies of text based on a line by line basis. That's pretty linear and strange. Are you and old computer in disguise?;)antiskeptic wrote: »You hadn't asked me at that point and it's not my practice to respond other than linearally to points made. The verse isn't intended as a proof or support of anything anyway. But I'll desist from 'arguing' from the bible in future.
Sure, ok, i'm not sure of your exact standing in relation to religion, dogma or tradition that you follow but how do you select your information base if it not by the catholic church teachings of 4 gospels?antiskeptic wrote: »It's okay that you view Christianity as larger than the canon of scripture (which is shared by Christianity outside Rome). But there's not much I can do with it - you might as well throw the Koran into the mix for all the relevance it has to me.
None taken, not now anywayantiskeptic wrote: »No insult is intended
Thanks.antiskeptic wrote: »Welcome to the forum btw...
Ok, so you have some sort of divine gift for sorting the truths from the untruths based on the bible as you know it. The new information schema does not fit the pattern. I get it. What i don't get is how you use the pattern of the bible as the base template for all other material to fit. Of course nothing is going to fit the pattern of the bible. Nearly everything in modern life is incompatible with the bible, highlighting evolution. But you believe in evolution don't you? Please say you do, please say you do **crosses fingers** If so you believe in the bible and you believe in evolution at the same time while both being incompatible. How is that? You must not have used the bible as a base pattern for your brain (possibly) to decide the correct decision. Should you not do the same for other gospels outside of the bible and see if you still think they are incorrect? Just a half hearted suggestion mind.antiskeptic wrote: »And when it comes to a host of 'gospels' I've read a little of them and they seem to me spanners. And I'm trusting that if there was anything serious to be considered in them members of the family I belong to would have worked that out a long time ago. You don't have to reinvent the wheel (the canon of scripture)
Moot point so, try to avoid these, moving along swiftly.antiskeptic wrote: »I said 'if'.
Well the catholics have invested heavily in Cern for some strange reason and there also was that billion pound disaster private hospital that the catholic church had money in, in Italy. The top dog of the operation, a close friend of a high up priestfella shot himself after discovering the loses the company had made. Hundreds of millions were squandered in what looks like a very costly adventure into science for the holy see. 50% hit rate with Cern so far though. The Muslim community meanwhile extend their run of consecutive run of years as the religions least contributors to modern science of all the major religions so you are right. The muslims haven't stopped. Pardon me for that erroneous statment.antiskeptic wrote: »They stopped? I wasn't aware of it.
You swing in dark places my friend.antiskeptic wrote: »You'd understand that I've heard that view a thousand times before. I mean, I used to evangelize on a bikers forum for crying out loud Your pretty committed to the cause i see. No offence but if there is a recruitment drive any time soon, i'm hoping you got more than a flyer to convince me to join up 
Well, i read every thing line by li...oops. Yeah, i did see this but Jesus was part of my large brain burp. The bible is out of bounds now:D I think i pretty much wrecked it up earlier in the post.antiskeptic wrote: »The bible is out of bounds. Understood..
Ethica is by Baruch Spinoza, he's quite the big thing in the world of Philosophy. He might not be your cup of tea though. Zeitgeist is the general consensus or feeling of the people at a period of time. Take Rome in roman times for instance. The coliseum was a blood pit which today they try to paint as a stadium for the Olympics. It was the worst €20 i ever spent on a tour. So humiliatingly ignoring it's birth right. No matter how cruel and inhuman the truth, i'd still rather know tbh. In that time is was quite reasonable for a human to bay for the blood of another man. This was the way, the consensus. As we humans evolved, so did the consensus from brutal death being a thing of joy and reverence, to a thing of bad and shame. The zeitgeist moves with the times, and is the times. It is considered a god like idea or alternative in many circles.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not aware of the former (and being an appalling reader at the present time I'm likely to remain so. But isn't the z.g. a movable feast?
Cool with me.antiskeptic wrote: »My pleasure. Sorry to disappoint where I have and my apologies for offence unintended.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement