christianity anti-intellectual?

[SevenStar]

"So, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these
fairy tales, that "evil" woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the
apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then
handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy's got to go to work, is the
result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a
good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property
and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an
anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you're a
woman, it's going to be running down your leg, and if you're a guy, you're
going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb
**** and you'll all go to heaven. That's the subtext of Christianity."
-- Frank Zappa



Who here agrees that christianity is an anti-intellectual religion and why?

also, let's consider what the tree was - it wasn't stated that's it's the tree of knowledge, as in knowing all things - it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

discuss.

[fa_jing]

somebody should lock this thread before things get too far out of hand...

[cerebus]

LOL! Ban Sevenstar! (Kidding :D ). :p

[SevenStar]

:D

unlike others, I won't gripe if this gets deleted by gene or anyone else. That quote got me thinking, so I want to get some quick opinions before it gets baleted.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by fa_jing
somebody should lock this thread before things get too far out of hand...

deja vu...there must be a glitch in the matrix...

[cerebus]

Basically, yes, Christianity is anti-intellectual. People supend their commonsense and capacity fo reason so as to allow themselves to believe in things which defy the laws of nature (virgin births, water into wine, feeding a multitude with 4 fish, parting, the Red Sea, etc, etc) because it gives them a sense of self in the universe and the feeling of an omnipotent God looking over them which makes them feel better and less insecure than they otherwise would in a confusing and often hostile world.

To confront the universe as it is before us is more daunting. Many people are unable to accept the possibility that humankind might not have any greater spiritual purpose in the world than any other living creature. The thought that we really aren't all that significant on a universal level is something that many people can't take. Realization of the facts of the matter may not bring happiness, but I'd rather know the bleak truth than live a pleasant lie. Peace all. :)

[xingyiman]

I guess to me it is not knowledge itself that the Genesis story is opposing but rather the desire to be like gods, as the serpent says. The Devil's sin was desiring to be a god, or rather wanting to achieve is ultimate happiness without and apart from God. This is what the devil is attempting to goad Adam and Eve towards. Catholicism has always had a strong intellectual tradition in its theology (Aquinas, Anselm). There is a classic saying of Catholic theology which goes: Credo ut Intellagam, Intellego ut Credam----I believe so that I may understand, and I understand so that I may believe. The idea is that the intellect is one of the many gifts God gave so therefore it is to be used. Here is a link to a Papal encyclical on the relationship between faith and reason:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2FIDES.HTM


Hope this helps!

[cerebus]

"The Devil's sin was desiring to be a god..."

Whereas in some other religions (such as Tibetan Buddhism) there are meditational exercises where the goal IS to become the god. But then, they're heathens who are going to hell and burn for all eternity, right? :p

[rogue]

7*, You do know you're asking this on a board where 3/4 of the people believe in chi blasts, that the founder of their style learned it from a talking bug, and that Karl Rove changed paper ballots for John Kerry by tapping into the time/space continuum? Not to mention that they also believe black feiyue makes them look cool.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by xingyiman
I guess to me it is not knowledge itself that the Genesis story is opposing but rather the desire to be like gods, as the serpent says.
You're right. I do say that a lot.

[SPJ]

Personally;

The desire to know or acquire wisdom is not wrong.

The basic question is to have faith and to follow His words.

God said to both that do not eat fruits out of the wisdom tree.

Of all the creatures on the earth, God takes care of them all let alone human.

All the good things are for people to enjoy.

We only have to have faith in Him and follow His words as the guide in life.

Satan will use all the good things in life as temptations to lure people away from God by not following His words.

God said do not eat the fruits.

Satan said why not and so and so.

Eve agreed. Even then tempted Adam to agree to eat the fruits.

The original sin is not about eating the forbidden fruits of wisdom or not.

It is about not following His words. Which is that you may enjoy everything else in the Garden of Eden except this tree.

So the temptation is that while you have 99.99% everything else, you only want this 0.01% thing GOD SPECIFICALLY SAID NOT TO.

So we lost the Garden of Eden.

We are in where we are now.


:D

[AndyM]

Originally posted by SPJ
So we lost the Garden of Eden.

We are in where we are now.


:D

Thank heavens for something so relatively simple. :D

[rogue]

Meanwhile as the discussion goes on, 7* sneaks into the distracted posters homes and short sheets their beds.

[CaptinPickAxe]

I don't think its anti-intellectual, its a crutch. Just as any religion. People are scared ****less of death and spend their whole life trying to justify thier existance. It goes against human nature (striving to be something, to have meaning) to be nothing more than a random equation...i.e. we have no meaning.

I think it's anti-intellectual in the sense that we refuse to come to the reality that death may be just that...death...the end of exsistance.

It's man's interpretation of the word of god that is anti-intellectual, in the sense that religion is used to insight fear and control. We are taught that if we rebel, we go against the word of god...and they have a place for people like us.

[David Jamieson]

Being a secular humanist and always willing to point a finger at the somethings amiss factor, I don't think it's much of a stretch to see this story as containing archetypal imagery that in turn symbolically represented an understanding of the way things are or were regarding the transistion of man from unthinking servile being to sentient being.

The adam and eve story creation myth is just that and like any other myth is considered by some to be a reasonable explanation of things that are otherwise not clearly understood.

Don't forget that in that same passage, the "gods" worry that we may become "like them". Does this mean that the gods themselves are genderfied? Do male gods hold power over female gods? How come there is a plural form of god in this section.

Also, this is concerning Judaeism and Islam as well because they all contain the same creation myth.

And, finally, although Jesus was a rabbi, he was not a Pharisee and in fact got into a bit of trouble with them as we can recall from our last episode. The new testament, or the gospels do not deal with history so much as they deal with moving forward and evolving into higher beings not only through faith but through our regular daily dealings with one another. So, in that respect, I would think intellect is most certainly required.

Do people practice religiosity more than the tenets of their faith?
In my opinion, yes they do and in the doing, they actually develop schism at the core.

But then, whoever said there was great reason in the practice of organized religion? Most people discover their own siprituality by themselves and go to church to gain community and validation of their newound belief. Others are raised in it and don't know any better.

Anyway, Lock her up! THis thread is an outrage! lol :p

[diego]

one thing i noticed about the story is that it's interesting that god even put the tree in the garden to tempt us...it's like the tree is the knowledge of yin yang so it's like we were furry bunnys dancing on clouds in the garden all happy but then we created society which turns us into starving savage beasts...then you got the kundalini energy which is the serpent and the kundalini woken enlights man so it's like eatint the fruit of yinyang handed to the brain by the serpent...we have to balance out the knowledge of life and death or the changes with our original eden fuzzy bunny consciousness...or like in bhuddism we have to go back into our mind as a child while grown up so we don't get cynical and all caught up in lifes changes be they for better or for worse...word rip ol dirty

[FuXnDajenariht]

huh?

[cerebus]

Yo Diego buddy, whatever you're smokin' pass some of it this way! :D :D :D

[diego]

Originally posted by cerebus
Yo Diego buddy, whatever you're smokin' pass some of it this way! :D :D :D No! God forbidded use from those trees:)

[diego]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
huh? so why do you think god put the tree there then, huh???

[mantis108]

GOD said, " Abe, kill me a son" and Abe said " Yes, Sire, right away."

The rest is history on (what's the no. of the highway?) :D

Mantis108

[diego]

Originally posted by mantis108
GOD said, " Abe, kill me a son" and Abe said " Yes, Sire, right away."

The rest is history on (what's the no. of the highway?) :D

Mantis108

so I see you've been dipping into my stash again;)

:mad:

:D

[FuXnDajenariht]

i just think no one should ever ever close their minds to the possiblity of anything existing. scientists haven't explored 1/10th of 1 percent of reality as one physicist pointed out, and the deeper they go the stranger the world seems to get. the string theory for instance.... skeptics are usually just as blind and dogmatic as believers. what scientist is gonna take time to investigate something he believes is total nonsense in the first place?

its important to use common sense. to use objective judgement to gain knowledge about life. but no one should ever shut their minds off to the possibility that their are things which your five senses will never be aware of. like most good things in life they have to be experienced first hand. most of the same common themes appear in remote places around the world independent of each other. it can't all be dismissed as ignorant. religion seems like common sense to alot of people even though alot of things 'in' religion defy common sense. the assumption that all the energy and effort needed to create and sustain life actually has a purpose. but the case is the underlying message which is the most important is usually lost in the ceremony and blind belief. religions place is definitely not to replace science. but under the circumstances of their past history together, people ran from one extreme to the other. one day it'll be reconciled though.

even most atheists dont believe that life has no point, even if they haven't found answers about it that make sense, or that they are in agreement of. religion doesn't have a monopoly on "crutches" for dealing with life either. if you really look, you can notice almost anything being used as a crutch.....money...drugs....sex....food....anythin g... fear of death is neither here nor there. when it comes down to it very few people actually have no fear of dying.... religious or not. its irrelevant. everyone seeks a purpose in life though....

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by diego
so why do you think god put the tree there then, huh???

lol im thinking cuz the guy who made that story up had no imagination?

would ya slap ur 3 year old around for eternity for behavin like a 3 year old?


aaaah the tree of knowledge.... you would think it was a good thing... no?

[mantis108]

so I see you've been dipping into my stash again

Ummm.... Isn't it a free Canadian commodity by now? I thought it's our MPs are the one who's been dipping into your stash. lol... Those d@mn cheap blood suckers. ;) :D They can rob you blind and that doesn't make them criminals. oh well, la vita loca.

Mantis108

[David Jamieson]

And Abe said , Lord where do you want this killing done

And God said down on Highway 61

:p

[mantis108]

Thanks, Kung Lek.

I just love those lines! Such poetry. ;)

Mantis108

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by SevenStar
Who here agrees that christianity is an anti-intellectual religion and why?

Christianity is demonstratably not anti-intellectual -- this is an objective point of history. It was through Christianity that our culture received its tradition of education, and in particular the classical tradition emphasizing philosophy.

Catholicism, almost uniquely among major religions, claimed that faith should not be antithetical to reason -- moreover, that the coherency of faith was completely provable by reason.

The idea that religion is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it is based upon providing an unfalsifiable position on problems in nature results from people's own ignorance of the topic matter -- it is not at all based on this. Both secular and theological philosophy typically begins with Plato, whose thought itself begins with distinguishing metaphysical from naturalist statements. Since this insight, religious thought in this tradition has been concerned with the former, not the latter.

As for the story in question, it is, of course, as some here have already pointed out, symbolic. It describes how the evolution of symbolic thought is both liberating, insofar as it permits a new kind of knowledge, yet alienating, as it makes mental association no longer relate to things-in-themselves, but only to symbols thereof. This is an idea which should be familiar to people aware of, for instance, Taoist thought.

[Serpent]

The apple that can be eaten is not the true apple.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by diego
so why do you think god put the tree there then, huh???

I don't think it was put there as a temptation - it was put there to give them a choice - they could choose to follow his rules, or they could choose not to... and they chose to, until outside influence came in. Thing is, He's all knowing, so He knew already that they would eat the fruit...

But it would seem that the way of God is not to intervene. if you are going to come to Him, you will - He will not force you. Satan on the other hand, will do anything in his power to draw you away.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Christianity is demonstratably not anti-intellectual -- this is an objective point of history. It was through Christianity that our culture received its tradition of education, and in particular the classical tradition emphasizing philosophy.

true. I was going to say something along those lines.

Both secular and theological philosophy typically begins with Plato, whose thought itself begins with distinguishing metaphysical from naturalist statements. Since this insight, religious thought in this tradition has been concerned with the former, not the latter.

why do you think this is?

[FuXnDajenariht]

what tradition of education did we get from christianity? i've never heard this before....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
The apple that can be eaten is not the true apple.

Exactly. ;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
what tradition of education did we get from christianity? i've never heard this before....

The tradition in general -- the idea that we should run off to a campus and get educated. And in specific, the classical tradition -- the idea of studying the great thinkers to become a 'renaissance man.'

[diego]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
lol im thinking cuz the guy who made that story up had no imagination?

would ya slap ur 3 year old around for eternity for behavin like a 3 year old?


DEPENDS ON IF THE LIL BUGGER BE UP IN ME STASH:)

HE CAN GET HIS OWN...thinking of Pharcyde- pass the pipe....THANK YOU HOMAYYYYYYYY

[cerebus]

No, actually our tradition of education, and especially of philosophy, came from Greece FAR prior to Christianity. In fact, Christianity in the form of those pious Dominicans of the European inquisition had a habit of discouraging intellectualism (at least among anyone not of "noble" lineage or a member of a monastery) because it kept the peasants superstitious and easier to control.

[diego]

Originally posted by SevenStar
I don't think it was put there as a temptation - it was put there to give them a choice - they could choose to follow his rules, or they could choose not to... and they chose to, until outside influence came in. Thing is, He's all knowing, so He knew already that they would eat the fruit...

But it would seem that the way of God is not to intervene. if you are going to come to Him, you will - He will not force you. Satan on the other hand, will do anything in his power to draw you away. AH BUT THEN Drops into the equation the 3 year old dipping into the stash...personnally i think the jewish god of genisis is a heroin addict onsome odb shiat talking about i love doug e fresh interrupting his show and shiat like way to show ya love mcgirt:)

the story is weak because the evil that is the devil is just one point in the infinite god so i like my version of the yin/yang tree... the bible takes from older religions/faiths suppossedly like old african traditions etc so i'm prolly correct about the kundalini and the garden serpent...the concept of it all is prolly from an older faith!?

[mantis108]

... A choice really?


I don't think it was put there as a temptation - it was put there to give them a choice - they could choose to follow his rules, or they could choose not to... and they chose to, until outside influence came in. Thing is, He's all knowing, so He knew already that they would eat the fruit...

But it would seem that the way of God is not to intervene. if you are going to come to Him, you will - He will not force you. Satan on the other hand, will do anything in his power to draw you away.

And in this sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Mantis108

PS sorry Sevenstar can't help messing with that. No offense.

[FuXnDajenariht]

yea but what good is that if you try to suppress someone trying to use that knowledge?

i was always told that the renaissance was a result of people actually trying to distance themselves from the church. becoming dissatisfied with what was being taught. the secular humanist movement i think its called. i know for sure that some members of the church started some of the first universities to teach reading and writing but on the whole they weren't very nice to people who didn't agree with them.

you can make anything anti intellectual if you turn it into dogma. it may not have started that way but what would u say about the majority of practitioners today? most people take the bible completely literally.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by diego
AH BUT THEN Drops into the equation the 3 year old dipping into the stash...personnally i think the jewish god of genisis is a heroin addict onsome odb shiat talking about i love doug e fresh interrupting his show and shiat like way to show ya love mcgirt:)

the story is weak because the evil that is the devil is just one point in the infinite god so i like my version of the yin/yang tree... the bible takes from older religions/faiths suppossedly like old african traditions etc so i'm prolly correct about the kundalini and the garden serpent...the concept of it all is prolly from an older faith!?

yea...what you said.

you can find the origins of christianity in alot of ancient religions that existed long before it. people think the belief in one god and in angels and satan started with the bible....the flood myth etc existed in many cultures....

lol i got an alternative view of satan...it was on the history channel most likely. the idea that satan wasn't ultimate evil or anything but that he loved god so much that he wouldn't serve any other when commanded to.....i gotta look it up now....

"even the devil is an angel"

[cerebus]

The Christian church has had a long history of encouraging indoctrination as opposed to education (or "education", but ONLY in what they want you to know or believe). Christianity does not benefit by encouraging people to think for themselves and question what they are told. That tends to lead to rational humanism, which they consider to be heresy (they used to burn folks for that, ya know ;) ).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
No, actually our tradition of education, and especially of philosophy, came from Greece

And what culture do you imagine our Christianity has come from?

[cerebus]

Last time I checked, Israel was still considered "Middle Eastern".

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
i was always told that the renaissance was a result of people actually trying to distance themselves from the church. becoming dissatisfied with what was being taught. the secular humanist movement i think its called.

Originally posted by cerebus
Christianity does not benefit by encouraging people to think for themselves and question what they are told. That tends to lead to rational humanism, which they consider to be heresy
Humanism was an inherently Christian tradition. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism) is an introduction to the movement to verify this.


you can make anything anti intellectual if you turn it into dogma. it may not have started that way but what would u say about the majority of practitioners today? most people take the bible completely literally.

You're making the typical mistake of imagining up a fictional "Christianity" based upon a hodgepodge of beliefs from various very different Christian religions. The Protestants who "take the bible completely literally" are a completely different tradition than the Catholics involved in humanism.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
Last time I checked, Israel was still considered "Middle Eastern".

The church was neither based in Israel (but rather Constantiniple, Rome, Alexandria) nor peopled by Jews (but rather Helenes); nor did we obtain Christianity by virtue of being a post-Judaic culture (which we are not), but rather by being a post-Hellenic one (which we are).

[diego]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
yea...what you said.

you can find the origins of christianity in alot of ancient religions that existed long before it. people think the belief in one god and in angels and satan started with the bible....the flood myth etc existed in many cultures....

lol i got an alternative view of satan...it was on the history channel most likely. the idea that satan wasn't ultimate evil or anything but that he loved god so much that he wouldn't serve any other when commanded to.....i gotta look it up now....

"even the devil is an angel" heard a cute idea about the devil is really gods little buddy...the devil scares peeps to become righteous...so really the devil is doing gods work orsomething:)

post that look up when you find it, one is curious.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Various Christian religions is right.

So the Catholic church has the final say in what is right and wrong?

You can say the Catholic church was humanist but the fact is they were too busy torturing heretics to actually bother putting it into practice.

[FuXnDajenariht]

heres sumthin interesting about it.... http://spiritualist.alternatehistory.com/gabrielites.html

ill find that page for ya diego

[cerebus]

No, humanism is not inherently Christian. It is not religious at all (which is why it's referred to as "humanism", not "christianity"), but you can believe whatever you wish.

I've also known many Catholics who were as fundamentalist in their belief of the bible as any Protestant ( and more than a few priests who teach the whole Catholic dogma as the real, literal truth).

Christopher asked what culture I imagined Christianity to come from. When I mentioned Israel & the Middle East (where Jesus Christ himself supposedly came from), he decided to change direction and start talking about where the "Church" came from (two different things there, Chris. Make up your mind what you're asking about).

And in case you hadn't realized, just because the early established churches were in Greece, that doesn't mean that our tradition of education and philosophy comes from Christianity (which had little to do with earlier "heathen" philosophical beliefs). When I point out to you that our (European-based) tradition of education and philosophy comes from Greece, I'm referring to the pre-Christian traditions.

[Royal Dragon]

My answer to the original question is WHO CARES!!!

I make my religion up as I go along, like alot of other things I do in life. Some stuff it is best to over anylise, others it's best not to think too much about. Only you can decide which is right........................(Moody Blues music continues on in the background)

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
I make my religion up as I go along, like alot of other things I do in life
Martial arts, spelling, etc....

;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
So the Catholic church has the final say in what is right and wrong?
Why would you say that?

You can say the Catholic church was humanist but the fact is they were too busy torturing heretics to actually bother putting it into practice.
The two have nothing to do with one another.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
No, humanism is not inherently Christian. It is not religious at all, but you can believe whatever you wish.

Ok. And I'll believe what the academic study of history suggests, rather than what cerebus declares -- and encourage everyone else to do the same; particularly if the idea of being 'anti-intellectual' turns them off.


I've also known many Catholics who were as fundamentalist in their belief of the bible as any Protestant

I've known lots of every kind of people who exhibit fundamentalist traits. What's your point?


and more than a few priests who teach the whole Catholic dogma as the real, literal truth.

Fundamentalism doesn't mean 'believing your religion to be really true.'


Christopher asked what culture I imagined Christianity to come from. When I mentioned Israel & the Middle East, he decided to change direction and start talking about where the "Church" came from (two different things there, Chris. Make up your mind what you're asking about).

What could you possibly take 'Christianity' to refer to, if not the intellectual and institutional tradition that goes by that name?


When I point out to you that our (European-based) tradition of education and philosophy comes from Greece, I'm referring to the pre-Christian traditions.

Are you suggesting that the Greeks had already established the classical education system across Europe before Christianity arose, or are you suggesting that pre-Christian Greeks time-travelled to establish the classical education system in Christian Europe? Neither one of these seem very likely.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i read ur link to wikipedia. its stated what i already knew..... christian humanism had an influence on humanism but they didn't create it. it has nothing to do with the catholic church.

"You're making the typical mistake of imagining up a fictional "Christianity" based upon a hodgepodge of beliefs from various very different Christian religions. The Protestants who "take the bible completely literally" are a completely different tradition than the Catholics involved in humanism."

Christianity as we know it today is largely based on Roman Catholic teachings.... but their were many different Christian sects. The Catholic church had the huge advantage of possessing the huge wealth and influence of the Roman empire, even after it fell. It was all politics. If you can't beat them join them basically. Between all the sects their had to be a couple hundred books which the Catholic church quickly removed from the "official" version of the bible.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
i read ur link to wikipedia. its stated what i already knew..... christian humanism had an influence on humanism but they didn't create it. it has nothing to do with the catholic church.

Have you drawn this conclusion based on the article's association of Catholicism with intellectual but not civic humanism? That would be a misunderstanding, as the previous remarks in this thread concerned the intellectual humanism, that is -- the one for which Catholicism was associated.


Christianity as we know it today is largely based on Roman Catholic teachings...

No. Christianity had five capitals, of which Rome was one. The other four split from the Roman tradition but remain in communion and are called "Orthodox Christians."


Between all the sects their had to be a couple hundred books which the Catholic church quickly removed from the "official" version of the bible.

No. There's no such thing as this "official version of the Bible." The Bible wasn't established until some centuries of Christian history had passed. And when it was established, of course it excluded some books and included others -- what alternative is there? In any case, it's a moot point, since Christians, other than Protestants who did not exist at that point, don't hold the Bible to be the ultimate source of their belifs.

But why did you raise the above two points? I'm not sure what relation they have to the previous conversation.

[Vash]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
Between all the sects their had to be a couple hundred books which the Catholic church quickly removed from the "official" version of the bible.

You have any sources for this? I have to say that's the first time I've heard that idea.

[cerebus]

Okay, well CHRISTOPHER says that the study of academic history suggests that humanaism is INHERENTLY christian, so it MUST be so :rolleyes: .

Actually, if you would study history with a secular (as opposed to religious) institution, you'd get a wider view of the subject and see that, if anything, it's inherently SECULAR. But of course you'll never do that, it just might prove you wrong, eh Chris?

"I've known lots of every kind of people who exhibit fundamentalist traits. What's your point?"

What's my point? I guess you weren't even following your own discussion. You were suggeting that Catholics don't believe the bible in a literal sense. I was responding to your comments. I didn't realize that would go over your head.

"Fundamentalism doesn't mean believing your religion to be really true"

Fundamentalism involves believing the bible to be literally true. And that's all I was saying.

"What could you possibly take 'Christianity' to refer to"

The religion founded by the Middle Eastern man known as Jesus of Nazareth. As opposed to the formal institution of the Christian church (which did not come into existence until some time after Jesus' death). Do you expect me to give you a complete course on history or what? Take some history classes outside of Sunday school, you'll learn alot.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Vash
You have any sources for this? I have to say that's the first time I've heard that idea.
Well, as a starter to what he's getting at, you could google up the Gospel Of Thomas.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by cerebus
"What could you possibly take 'Christianity' to refer to"

The religion founded by the Middle Eastern man known as Jesus of Nazareth.
Small point, but the Cult Of Christianity was actually started by Paul, some decades after Jesus was executed. The man himself (Jesus) was little more than a political activist at best.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by cerebus
Okay, well CHRISTOPHER says that the study of academic history suggests...

No, I provide citations.


Actually, if you would study history with a secular institution... it just might prove you wrong, eh Chris?

Ad hominem.


You were suggeting that Catholics don't believe the bible in a literal sense.

And I'm standing by that suggestion.


The religion founded by the Middle Eastern man known as Jesus of Nazareth.

The only evidence we have for an institution founded by Jesus refers to the institution of the Christian church, which, as I noted, was predominantly Hellenic.

[David Jamieson]

omg rd is todd weeks! :eek:

:p

[cerebus]

LOL! You must be a Bagua master Chris, 'cause everytime we get into a discussion, you slip, slide, evade, and walk in circles. :p Well, I don't have anymore time to donate to your education bud, so I'll be going to bed now. Please feel free to continue walking in circles without me. Bye. ;)

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Vash
You have any sources for this? I have to say that's the first time I've heard that idea.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm

[FuXnDajenariht]

its called the apochrypha..... by the way

lol i didn't know how to spell it

...and in what country do christians not hold the bible as their ultimate source of their beliefs?? i always thot the ones who dont are in the minority...

[FuXnDajenariht]

oh yea....now i know how the hell we got here...


you brought of the point of me imagining a fictional christianity...... but many people.....historian, archaeologist...etc etc whoever makes things "official"...........are under the belief that christianity got completely *******ized from its original intentions.

i just wanted to make that point before i get lost again.... :p

boy is this thread skipping around..... im more lost than usual....

[SanSoo Student]

In response claiming that religion leads to humanism, I believe that is incorrect. Humanism, or acting properly towards one another comes from society. Society views and standards change with time, place, and people. It is people that can make up what is correct and the incorrect. Morals and ethics continue to evolve as more and more societies fuse together. An example of how this happens can be seen in the Japanese culture, Tsujirii (sp?), the testing of one's blade, where a samurai goes and chops down an innocent bystander to "break in" his blade was consider socially acceptable. Some might say that because it was socially accepted that it was moral, and others argue the other way claiming it as murder.

Humanism, proper codes of conducts are relative to society, and religion has no affect on it. I believe that all religion is generally anti-intellectual, because history has seen many people that have abused power in the name of God. Christianity has seen the Medici's as the ruled all of over at one time by fusing their wealthy and connection with God. It takes an intelligent human being to commiserate with their fellow man, and religion tries to teach this to you but in most cases fails. Buddhism even states that one should no blindly follow a teacher, but to analyze every word of advice and think for yourself. The sad thing is that the way you act towards others is not really taught by religion or in school, but rather educated through social interactions. That is why some people are @sses and others are incredibly nice. The only way to mature is to be able to think about others before you commit an act. That is ultimately what I think religion tries to teach, good will. Most of the time its too ambiguous, and misinterpretted making it useless.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
many people.....historian, archaeologist...etc etc whoever makes things "official"...........are under the belief that christianity got completely *******ized from its original intentions.

No they're not. I think you're misunderstanding what you are reading. The article you linked up talks about Protestants removing books from the Catholic Bible, not Catholics removing books from some kind of "original" Bible -- which isn't something that exists in the first place.

In any case, this doesn't change my observation that you were mixing up ideas from completely different religions to create an ideology which doesn't exist in real life.

[SPJ]

Vanity was said to be Satan's favorite SIN.

Satan was the most beautiful and most capable angel of all.

He started to have pride or vanity so he started to think he is even better than God. more beautiful and more capable so to speak.

Satan has to pay a price for this.

If we know we are just people and being created, we will not try to be or think that we will be better than the Creator in any way.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by SanSoo Student
In response claiming that religion leads to humanism, I believe that is incorrect. Humanism, or acting properly towards one another comes from society...

You've misunderstood. Humanism is the name of a specific ideological tradition which, as a matter of history, arose from and within a certain religious tradition (Catholicism). What you're calling "humanism" here is probably better called "ethics" -- and you're right that there are both secular and religious theories in that field.


I believe that all religion is generally anti-intellectual, because history has seen many people that have abused power in the name of God.

People abusing power makes the name or context of that power "generally anti-intellectual"? That doesn't seem to make any sense. People have certainly abused the power derived from and in the name of science and philosophy -- do we conclude they too are anti-intellectual?

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by diego
heard a cute idea about the devil is really gods little buddy...the devil scares peeps to become righteous...so really the devil is doing gods work orsomething:)

post that look up when you find it, one is curious.

piers anthony is a fantasy/sci fi novelist. In his series "incarnations of immortality", he's got a book that focuses on the incarnation of death. In that book, it talks about God and Satan, and a deal they made. They were to leave the people be - they would not intervene in their lives DIRECTLY. Satan used that as an out to manipulate people in indirect ways. But basically, it was just a bet to see who could get the most souls. I know that's not what you were referring to, but your post reminded me of it.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

There is a fundamental error in the discussion, the sources of "christianity" as we know it today.. the primary source is a book known as the "Bible".. yet, there are many other texts (ie: the Gnostic Gospels) describing Jesus and his ministry as much more of an individual spiritual relationship with "God".. today's beliefs are largely based on selective editing of manuscripts, omission of texts contrary to the power structure necessary to support a self-serving class of shamans.. religious heirarchy, a class of interpreters and recruiters that tell people how to understand what they read and entice others to reap the promised rewards as structured by the edited texts..

Religions are merely various cultural interpretations of simple spiritual awareness.. interpreted according to the customs and ancient beliefs of the cultures in which they emerge.. a ritualization of folklore, loosely constructed with social order and profit as its motivation..

The universe may be the product of intelligent design, but the likelihood that the Hebrew Bible represents the intelligence of that design is prohibitively miniscule.. it is much more likely that we sense our inherent connection with that "source" and express it through familiar cultural customs.. The plausibility factor associated with eternal reward/punishment on planetary spiritual scale based on one small (hebrew/chosen people) group is inconsistent with an all-powerful omnipotent being who, as asserted in the "bible", created ALL things and is "all-knowing".. in creating all things, the evil so abhored by followers of certain religions is also a product of this creator.. reducing the "plan" or story to a game also created by the "creator".. There are much more plausible concepts that link philosophy, spiritual awareness and science into a quantum field of consciousness and self-determination..

I simply have trouble wrapping my mind around a 2000 year old book that claims to contain universal truth and personal salvation.. when such book is, at best, a dubious selective collection of edited manuscripts based on a single culture's perspectives..

Be well..

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
the sources of "christianity" as we know it today.. the primary source is a book known as the "Bible"

It is Protestants who believe the source of Christianity is the Bible, not Christians generally. In assessing the situation of the early Church according to the Protestant context, you have projected a millenium and a half back in time values which don't belong there, and your conclusions are, thus, understandably false.


there are many other texts (ie: the Gnostic Gospels) describing Jesus and his ministry as much more of an individual spiritual relationship with "God"

There are other texts describing Jesus and his ministry, and the Gnostic Gospels are among them, however the differences between them and the orthodox Gospels do not include that the former advocates "much more of an individual spiritual relationship with 'God.'" The primacy of this concept of relationship is central to all Christian religions, from Protestant to Orthodox to Gnostic. If anything, the Gnostic approach is somewhat inferior on this account, as it held this personal relationship to be limited to the elect; although this is also true of some Protestant sects.


today's beliefs are largely based on selective editing of manuscripts, omission of texts contrary to the power structure

This error has already been addressed here. No Bible existed for the first three centuries of Christian history, and the one which came into existence at that point is the same one the Catholics and Orthodox still use today.

As mentioned above, the whole way of looking at things that drives you to this conclusion is inherently flawed. The Bible wasn't considered the source of belief to begin with -- so, firstly, it did not exist in primal form in order to be changed as you suggest; and, secondly, changing it wouldn't have any effect on 'the masses' in any case.

I'm having trouble determining how your remarks here relate to the previous discussion. My hope is that there is more going on than the chance taken to express spite at a religion.

[David Jamieson]

It is Protestants who believe the source of Christianity is the Bible, not Christians generally.

dude?

wtf are you talking about. The bible is and always has been recognized as the primary book of faith and knowledge concerning Christianity. If you want to go off on a tangent about some obscure idea you read or heard somewhere that's fine but in real life, for real christians, when they look for answers they pray, go to church to be with the community or read the bible, the document that is fundamentally and inextricably linked with their belief.

Protestants? pshaw, where are you going with this? You need a coffee or something. lol :p

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
wtf are you talking about.

WTF I'm talking about is that the Orthodox and Catholics (and Monophysites -- there, now you actually have a reason to claim I'm being obscure) all believe that Tradition is the source of faith, and that the Bible is but one product of Tradition. This is exactly reversed for Protestants, who believe that the Bible is the source of all faith, and Tradition is but one product of it. Indeed, this was among the two primary points of division during the Reformation (the other being that Protestant position that salvation did not require good works). Keep in mind that lay Catholics were not encouraged to read the Bible, and generally couldn't anyway because they didn't own one, it was printed in a language they didn't speak, and they couldn't even read the language they did speak. It's difficult to imagine how changing some arcane passage in it is going to be an efficient tool at controlling them, given this.

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

what you are talking about is different. I would liken it to the difference between the talmud and the Torah in the Jewish Faith.

The torah is the source, the word.
The talmud is the law or more precisely the laws of the community and the traditions held to that solidify the foundations laid by the Torah.

all things aside, when a christian thinks of where to get the info, they go to the bible, their source and the gospel, the rules for living.

I think the gospel and new testamnet pretty much fits the bill as #1 document of Christianity for all sects.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
I think the [..] new testamnet pretty much fits the bill as #1 document of Christianity for all sects.

And I would agree. But this doesn't change my previous points.

[red5angel]

LOL! You must be a Bagua master Chris, 'cause everytime we get into a discussion, you slip, slide, evade, and walk in circles


dear cerberus - stop making an ass of yourself. Chris M has managed to make himself very clear on every discussion hes bothered with on this forum. Because he's backing you into a corner with logic and clarity of thought, claiming he's not being specific or sidestepping the issue is just a lame tactic.

I love when the small minds on this board attack the big ones....

[David Jamieson]

all that aside, you are correct that Christianity as we know it has major ties with Greece in the early years a.d

But this precludes other forms of Christianity that were also growing as well in that era. The coptics, the essenes etc.

In the largest form, Christianity has appeal and a message for any and all people regardless of socio economic background or philosophical background. It is not definitively bound to the philosophies of the ancient greeks. But in the west it gives this favour because the fathers of western civilization thought happened to be Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their ilk :p and so our western world view meshes easiest with this.

[David Jamieson]

I love when the small minds on this board attack the big ones....

yes i get a chuckle when you do that too red 5 :p

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
all that aside, you are correct that Christianity

I think we just agreed with one another twice in a row. We should stop here, man.


this precludes other forms of Christianity that were also growing as well in that era. The coptics, the essenes etc.

The Coptic church was/is Hellenic as well -- it's root was Alexandria. I'm not sure if the Essenes ought to be considered a sect of Christianity (as opposed to being a sect of Judaism).

[red5angel]

yes i get a chuckle when you do that too red 5


thanks for highlighting my point KL......:cool:

[FuXnDajenariht]

i agree its not nice to be rude....chris has always answered my questions the best he could...

but i seriously never heard humanism coming from catholicism or that the bible wasn't their primary source for information. even though a person may not have been able to read they most likely still were read passages directly from the bible on a sunday morning.... priest and monks were always the intermediary for people and god. i also never heard a christian, protestant or catholic or anything in between using the bible symbolically either. maybe ideally what you say is true but the reality is the majority of practicing christians aren't doing this. its evolves after all. good or bad....

[David Jamieson]

heated debate is only a good thing. it stimulates the mind and inspires one to action.

insolence does not contribute but rather it detracts from the goal of setting forth ideas.

[Christopher M]

FuXnDajenariht -- one of the problems is (I assume you're American) that you live in a culture that has a very idiosyncratic religious tradition. That is, the religion you get exposed to in America isn't representative of the religion in the rest of the world, or even of the Christian religion in the rest of the world.

Mistakes arise from this naturally enough -- after all, people only know what they experience.

[red5angel]

insolence does not contribute but rather it detracts from the goal of setting forth ideas.

what I said

[David Jamieson]

That is, the religion you get exposed to in America isn't representative of the religion in the rest of the world, or even of the Christian religion in the rest of the world.

While I would agree in terms of the evangelical movement in the states and perhaps mormonism, I wouldn't say they are that much of a moose on the table really.

American Episcopalians are essentially practicing the same as Candian or British Anglicans. RC is RC wherever you go, etc etc and ultimately, the root of Christianity is once again the new testament and the gospels.

I think the Christian ideal of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is universal to all Christian thinkers although it may not manifest that way in the actions of a sects respective church.

[FuXnDajenariht]

something for all of us to remember....

"Many people think that refutation is done by pointing out formal contradictions. Usually,
however, these are due to unsuitable formulations, carelessness in the linguistic expression,
insufficient elaboration of the material. They need not at all imply any error as to facts or
erroneous reasoning. Opposite statements sometimes acquire validity through the limitation they
confer on one another. It is this relativization that often makes paradoxes justified.
The most common “refutation” is done by starting from other premisses and other
assumptions, by criticizing from other points of departure. Using that “method” you can “refute”
anything." - Laurency

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
While I would agree in terms of the evangelical movement in the states and perhaps mormonism, I wouldn't say they are that much of a moose on the table really.

The important distinctions aren't between Mormonism and Episcopalianism -- they're between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

The US is overwhelmingly Protestant. There are much fewer Catholics and Orthodox there than in comparable countries, but most importantly -- there exists a very strong culture of antagonism against them, so they have a relatively small cultural impact for their size.

But also, the US Protestant tradition is unique unto itself for some complicated reasons -- it's not the same culture as the Protestant European countries either.

[David Jamieson]

The US is overwhelmingly Protestant

North america is overwhelmingly protestant. lol

we can thank our british forefathers for that. In Canada, it's teh French who are the keepers of Catholicism and in the US it is teh Large Irish and Italian Communities.

the orthodoxy has always been small in both countries really with a few exceptions in some communities, IE: Greek communities, Coptic communities et al.

overall, there is much secularism at play in the Christianity of North America and I would say that Protestantism lends itself to this idea moreso than Fundamentalist groups that are the modern evangelical movement and hard line non-descript christian evangelicals (7th day, some baptists, etc etc)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
North america is overwhelmingly protestant.

Well, Canada certainly has it's share of Protestants. But we also have the French, as you noted; and we also have more than our share of Irish. Notably though, the Protestants which are here don't have the same antagonism towards Catholicism which those in the US do -- we have more Catholics and they have more effect in our culture.


I would say that Protestantism lends itself to this idea moreso than Fundamentalist groups

Well, the fundamentalist groups are a subset of Protestantism.

[David Jamieson]

Well, the fundamentalist groups are a subset of Protestantism.

Well, i think of them more as schism offshoot than subset per se.

But as I stated in my first post, I think this thread is an outrage and it should be deleted immediately.

And 7* should be spanked with noodles by sumo wrestlers.

[The Willow Sword]

given that i think that the bible is a miswritten tool to subjugate the uneducated masses in to following an ideal of the rich and elite,,i DO think that there are some hidden lessons of our evolution as human beings contained within this text. and i use genesis as the prime example of our rather quick leap from being the termite eating primate to the nuclear bomb making species we are now.

The story of Adam and Eve is that prime example of human's evolution. we have two humans one meale and one female living and existing in thei idealix garden of eden period in our ancient history,,and living according to the "natural laws" then at some point we have this leap in to a higher form of consiousness and though process and then as a result we expell ourselves from that idealic garden of eden and out in to the world to hold our own. i mean think about it,,the story is such that we were created and placed here on the planet(rings like cloning and colonization to me;) ) and then we have our lesser more primal selves living in harmony with the land and the animal kingdoms(hench adam and eve existing in the garden. then you have, what i believe to be the re-written part of the story that goes back to my first paragraph, where Eve(the woman) is tempted by the serpent(which is represenative in some pagan cultures as the seeker of knowledge andone who can "break on through to the other side";) and then She tempts adam in to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge,,,,here is where i get confused as to Gods rule about not EVER eating the fruit,,seems to me that in that mythical realm that if GOD did not want his creations to go beyond that of simpletons that the tree of knowledge would have NEVER been placed in the garden for the two to be tempted.
so basically what i believe to be is practical and makes sense is that at some point in our evolution as a species ,,for whatever reasons and however it happened,,humans decided to make that leap and become the species we are today,,and as a result seperating ourselves above(or so we think above) everything else. Now We think like "God thinks" and we create like "God creates" and we also destroy as well.
the rest of the babble in the bible are just the re-written rantings of Men who fear the natural creative process of the woman's body and seek to control THAT as well as the multitudes of people who live simply(who greatly outnumbered the papacy and the nobility back in the medeval times).

i am so glad that i was not indoctrinated in to the religious rite and that i have a simple belief and spiritual foundation,,it really suprises me the glaring contradictions that i see with so called "christians" when they judge and hate others different from themselves and who are so arrogantly presumptious to think that thier "way" is the only way and that all others are false.
it just goes to show you that no matter who far we evolve as a species we all still pretty much remain the same with that tyoe of mentality.

Peace/ All my best/ TWS

[Christopher M]

You know, you shouldn't judge people based on what country they're from. Russians do that all the time, and just look at the state they're in.

[fa_jing]

one point: somewhere in the New Testament Jesus says something about being thankful that the truth was not given to the philosophers, intellectuals, and religious leaders, but rather was revealed to the common people.

Of course, nowadays common people can consider themselves intellectuals.

But I have heard the above passage quoted in response to what we might call "scientific" challenges to the credibility of the Bible.

(ducks, waits for thread to be locked)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by fa_jing
somewhere in the New Testament Jesus says something about...

Do you remember where?


But I have heard the above passage quoted in response to what we might call "scientific" challenges to the credibility of the Bible.

What do you mean?

[fa_jing]

Found it:

Luke chapter 10

21: In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.


And the response was against some challenge to the Bible that is typically made, perhaps referring to the order of creation in Genesis or the lack of physical evidence to support the theory of the Great Flood, or something like that (don't remember). This being the response, rather than a scientifically-based response or a response that the passage was allegorical in nature. I think this person did believe that parts of the Bible are allegorical in nature, but would not question the above two events for example.

[MoreMisfortune]

christianiyt is illogical
and therefore, non-scientifical or intellectual (given the context) if you will
it is
sorry

or you can disagree with me
and really really believe
some sucka made the world in 7 days

but im just gonna laugh at you then
and im not gonna feel sorry about that
give me babes, then ill stop being mean
when did religion ever give me babes?
never
thats right

[Serpent]

Hey dude, religious chicks are some of the dirtiest ho's out there! Get yourself to a religious studies group and start praying for the next Bible Camp. ;)

[diego]

Originally posted by MoreMisfortune
christianiyt is illogical
and therefore, non-scientifical or intellectual (given the context) if you will
it is
sorry

or you can disagree with me
and really really believe
some sucka made the world in 7 days

but im just gonna laugh at you then
and im not gonna feel sorry about that
give me babes, then ill stop being mean
when did religion ever give me babes?
never
thats right a day to god is a thousand years orsomething...

anyone know how long the earth took to form scientifically?

[SevenStar]

Xeb, nothing can give you babes... not even religion can help you there. If there's one thing that even God is incapable of, it's getting xebby laid...

[SevenStar]

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

1 Cor 1:20-21



For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom

1 Cor 1:21


what we know is that we'll never know it all - maybe some have trouble accepting that? that's not anti-intellectual at all, IMO. we freely admit that we will never know all there is to know about MA, but we think we can explain away the intricacies of life?

[Ray Pina]

Jesus said it right -- "The Kingdom of God is at hand" -- and folks went and misinterpreted his words, killed him and made a religion out of it expressing the exact opposite .... that the kingdom of God is beyond.

That is religion. Making it all clowdy and unsure and guilting you into obediance.

[SPJ]

7 days could mean 7 eons.

:D

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by EvolutionFist
Jesus said it right -- "The Kingdom of God is at hand" -- and folks went and misinterpreted his words, killed him and made a religion out of it expressing the exact opposite .... that the kingdom of God is beyond.

That is religion. Making it all clowdy and unsure and guilting you into obediance. You have to consider the context. Jesus thought the fall of the Roman Empire was going to be the end of the world, you know.

[Ray Pina]

What makes you think that's what Jesus believed? Why put words into a dead man's mouth or interpret them. There they are.

It is also said in the bible that "man shall reign in the kingdom of God."

Where does man reign? Right here and now.

I think Jesus was a high level man, but no more the son of God than you or I. But he knew that he IS God, just as much as you or I are except he fully realised it.

How familiar are you with Taiji theory?

Before creation God can not realize Godness (no relativity). But now you can experience the greatness of Master Killer because you are seperate and not Evolution Fist, and I can experience being me. And everything is everything but it is from the one source which we are EQUAL parts of.

So the Kingdom of God is at hand!

But instead go to Church on Sun. and put your money in the basket and don't eat fish on Fri. and don't do this or that and if you do feel badly about it and pray that it will be better tomorrow.

Cause and effect! To me, that is the only commandment.

[David Jamieson]

don't be hating on the baby jesus now peeps. lol

In my opinion, the problems with the church and its faithful have little or nothing to do with the messge of Jesus.

To be a practicing Christian isn't really necessarily connected to the forms of religiosity that some people are criticizing here.

I agree, religiosity does create intolerance and false judgement of others (your russian crack was pretty funny Chris).

But if one were to simply adhere to the tenets and teachings of Jesus, then I think it would be much simpler and more effective as a method and process for bringing peace and well being to ones self.

But to get caught up in the fervors directed at you by your priest, rev, minister, pastor whatever, is to be led astray.

I don't think the message was to not think for yourself. And I don't remember there being specifications for a church such as there is now in all it's forms. But this is what happens when a good idea falls into the hands of people who use good ideas as tools and methods of control.

It's a sad state fo affairs, but definitely not irreparible.

[Ray Pina]

Well, let's take Jesus' Golden Rule, "Do unto to others as you'd have done unto yourself."

Well, there are people who like to cut themselves .... should I allow them to do that unto me? Some freak just lit himself on fire in front of the WHite House., etc. etc.

Life is not that simple. We are each individuals living in our own individual reality (experience, upbringing, mindset, etc.).

Jesus was great, but he was a man, like Lau Tzu or anyone else. Take what is good and beneficial, discard the rest.

[David Jamieson]

Originally posted by EvolutionFist
Well, let's take Jesus' Golden Rule, "Do unto to others as you'd have done unto yourself."

Well, there are people who like to cut themselves .... should I allow them to do that unto me? Some freak just lit himself on fire in front of the WHite House., etc. etc.

Life is not that simple. We are each individuals living in our own individual reality (experience, upbringing, mindset, etc.).

Jesus was great, but he was a man, like Lau Tzu or anyone else. Take what is good and beneficial, discard the rest.

It's not about what others do to themselves, it's about how you treat others. Your logic is slightly flawed in your comparison.

No one said life was simple, but it is not such a big stretch to attempt to simplify some things in our lives. Treating each other with respect and common courtesy isn't really that difficult is it?

Jesus was indeed a man, but was he just any man? Or was he an exemplary man? The same can be said for the great sage or the buddha guatama, or any buddha or any great mind that helps us to see the foibles of our ways in our everyday living and who actually take the time to present us with a solution.

as opposed to the billions of others who walk the planet and merely consume resources and produce waste.

I think that great people rise when the times require it. I also think that people will all to often look to something outside themselves when they are seeking answers they should be looking within for.

[The Willow Sword]

bblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahlblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.




ssomething about locking this thread? is it going to happen? will my vote count this time? ;)



Peace/all my best/ TWS

[David Jamieson]

votes don't count where you come from apparently. :p

[Ray Pina]

Agreed:)

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by EvolutionFist

That is religion. Making it all clowdy and unsure

sounds like cma...






































Sorry, couldn't resist :D

[Ray Pina]

You're certainly not wrong.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by EvolutionFist
What makes you think that's what Jesus believed? Why put words into a dead man's mouth or interpret them. There they are. How can you properly interpret the words outside of the historical context in which they were said?

I liked this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345384563/qid=1100637350/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-9604939-6521605?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[Ray Pina]

Good point. That looks like a good book, too. But it's up there with DeVinci Code on "good books" I won't get a chance to read.... I'm a fan of the classics. Re-reading BUkowski now. Then I'm going to hit Camus, and then read some Henry Miller and finish up Hemmingay ... but first I have to finish the Patagonia by Arrenas.

[Ben Gash]

Honestly guys, I go away for a few days and you start a great big theology discussion :rolleyes:
Is Christianity anti intillectual? No. "Who hates wisdom?" Proverbs 1. However, there is a significant element within the church with a strong tendency in this direction. Sadly this leads to abuse and false teaching :( Contrary to common secular belief, the new testament actively encourages questioning of teaching.
The tree incident isn't about knowledge, it's about knowledge of good and evil. The episode demonstrates disobedience and the loss of innocence. This is actually a fairly common agnostic/atheist question, "why did God give us the capacity to do X,Y and Z". The biblical answer is that He didn't, and knew that we'd be better off without.
"the lack of physical evidence to support the theory" Never bothers string theorists ;)
"or you can disagree with me
and really really believe
some sucka made the world in 7 days"
The thing with the whole creation argument is if you believe in an all knowing, all powerful God, it's not that big a stretch.
"anyone know how long the earth took to form scientifically?" No-one, essentially it's an unprovable, and therefore all theories have equal validity. (as long as they're valid (consistent) theories).
Masterkiller, good point about historical context, however as a point of information the Roman epoch ended nearly 500 years after the crucifixion.

[Vash]

Ben Gash just pimped all over this thread.

In all honesty, I'd love to add something of value, being that I do love Christ. But, let's face it: I'm a porn addict. Even though I am earnest in my love of God, it's rather hard to get someone to listen to you when you admit you have the same short comings as them . . . whataminute . . . what'd I say?

[rogue]

Read some CS Lewis. A Grief Observed, Mere Chrisitanity the Problem with Pain will put away the notion that Christianity is anti-intellectual.

[red5angel]

Christianity is just a popular target. All Religions have a large population who is unthinking about their beliefs. You kow, the "faith" part of it all.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Entering into the dimension of "Beliefs".. it is no more nor less than personal preference.. science vs religion, make the most of both worlds.. choose a belief that feels right to you and let science enhance you quality of life (although science can occasionally degrade that quality, so can religion...)..

Is "religion "anti-intellectual"?.. sure, so what.. some of the happiest people i know are dumb as stumps.. but, they enjoy a happier existence than most.. so who's to say?

Ancient stories, campfire tales, musings of spiritual awareness, cultural folktales.. things that comfort people when they ponder the unknown.. guilt absolved by ritual..

And....... great topics for using up bandwidth..

In the end, to each his own as long as no harm is done..

Be well..

[woliveri]

Bob,

I'm quite suprised at this response knowing you.

From religion sprouts superstition and from superstition comes problems.

Everybody believes their book or their interpetation of their book is correct and are willing to kill others to protect it.

[norther practitioner]

Everybody believes their book or their interpetation of their book is correct and are willing to kill others to protect it.

Wow, this is twice today that I haven't been include in everybody...

[woliveri]

Nice NP,

It was a generalization. Everybody meaning groups who protect their book.

[red5angel]

I absolutely believe that if you do not believe in My Book (TM) then you should be shot and killed where you stand. So I am included in that sweeping generalization.

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
In the end, to each his own as long as no harm is done..


Humans aren't good at this....

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings:

Bill: LOL, yes.. but, in the end we will debate and let emotions and beliefs upset the balance.. people are just people, they choose their paths/beliefs.. i think it is wise to respect their choices as much as i hope they will respect mine..

I, personally, don't favor ritualized worship of a "supreme being".. in fact, my mantra is: Worship nothing, yet maintain a sacred reverence for ALL things..

I could offfer arguements pro and con/back and forth.. but, live and let live.. do no harm.. and practice, pratice, practice......

Is religion anti-intellectual... sure, but.. so are most things.. the serious student of life will ponder quantum theories, energies, forces of nature and, finally.. return to "chop wood, carry water".. it is in that simplicity that life unfolds miraculously, spontaneously, and with nothing hidden but the next moment, thus the adventure..

Be well...

[woliveri]

I don't know Bob,

I think for a spiritual practice to be valid it must be centered in truth which produces results. For example, "Life and teaching of the Masters of the Far East" demonstates that the things that Jesus could do could also be done by others. A Qi Gong teacher told me her master could do such things such as walk on water, materialize objects, etc. Same as Sai Baba from what I understand. So religion is so-called spiritual practice void of truth. Such as Taiji without internal practice is just "dance".

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by FngSaiYuk
Humans aren't good at this....

lmao..exactly. i think we could of saved ourselves 2 weeks and simply said....people are stupid and selfish and religion can only be as good as the people who practice it. once an ideal is fed to the masses its quality drops straight down the toilet.

[woliveri]

FuXnDajenariht,

Nicely put.

[FuXnDajenariht]

"[Sri Ramakrishna] used to say, "Religion is not talk, or doctrine, or theories; nor is it sectarianism. Religion cannot live in sects and societies. It is the relation between the soul and God; how can it be made into a society? It would then degenerate into business, and wherever there are business and business principles in religion, spirituality dies. "

.....better words...

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by EvolutionFist
[B]Well, let's take Jesus' Golden Rule, "Do unto to others as you'd have done unto yourself."


Got a chapter and verse on that?

"I'm pretty sure that the quote comes from Rabbi Hillel who said, "Do not do unto others that which is hatefull to yourself."

I think it may be the most common misquote in history.

Edit: found it. Not Jesus, Matthew:

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

[omarthefish]

Aw, what the heck:

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

[lightsout]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
"[Sri Ramakrishna] used to say, "Religion is not talk, or doctrine, or theories; nor is it sectarianism. Religion cannot live in sects and societies. It is the relation between the soul and God; how can it be made into a society? It would then degenerate into business, and wherever there are business and business principles in religion, spirituality dies. "

.....better words...

I forget who it was, perhaps Joseph Campbell, attended an international conference of representatives of all the spiritual traditions of the world. He said the priests (or equivalent--those who tend to the lay followers) all ended up bickering, but the monks all spoke in peace, on the same wavelength.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Ben Gash
"the lack of physical evidence to support the theory" Never bothers string theorists ;)

Mmm...but scientists actively search for refutation of their (sometimes wild and unsubstantiated) conjectures and regard it as a contribution to their knowledge when they do manage to falsify/disprove a hypothesis. Einsteins 'gravity affects light' hypothesis and eddingtons subsequent solar eclipse observations are a paradigm example of this at work.

Religious dogma OTOH starts with a sacred text or belief and then will look for evidence to support it and will ignore or finesse or fudge any evidence to the contrary.


Originally posted by Ben Gash
"or you can disagree with me and really really believe some sucka made the world in 7 days"
The thing with the whole creation argument is if you believe in an all knowing, all powerful God, it's not that big a stretch.

a) the notion of an all powerful being has logical difficulties. Could God make a knot he cant untie? If yes he isnt all powerful, if no he isnt all powerful either. Either way he isnt all powerful.

b) To explain why is not to explain how. Thus a belief in evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God.

c) I understand that our weeks are seven days long because of the roman calender and the roman calender week is as it is because Roman astronomers were only aware of seven planets (and hence Gods and hence days of the week named after them). I might be wrong about that though so corrections are welcome. Either way though it seems an abritrary creation myth. If God is all powerful why take seven days to do what you could do in a milisecond- why take a rest on the seventh day?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Bill: There you have it, "Truth".. what is it ? "A Qi Gong teacher told me her master could do such things such as walk on water, materialize objects, etc.".. is that "truth"? or, is it a story that we simply favor in support of our beliefs/wishes? each of us hold differing "truths" to support our beliefs and wishes.. to the religious they have their truths, to the spiritual, they have their truths, and so on.. again, "Life and teaching of the Masters of the Far East", not of our experience but a story(s) of accomplishments we find attractive and thus willing to accept more easily than a book of rules promising eternal rewards, both of which are not verifiable.. if either were, in fact, verifiable, it would shake the foundation of society.. all any of us can "know" is a product of direct experience, thus the drive for a diversity of experiences so we can add to the "truths" we hold as our realities..

Humanity is so desperate to see beyond its current existence, desperate to know that there is more than this temporary manifestation as a physical being that it will pay religions to tell it what it wants to hear.. that it will follow rituals and beliefs that defy reason.. yet, it routinely ignors the evidence each of us possesses, that inherent knowing that we are a "part" ("part"icle) of the "whole".. that we are not just this lump of compounds and flesh and bones, we are the eternal energy that animates it.. we are energy responding to a self-aware consciousness that manifests a physical presence purely for the tactile experience of knowing.. Now, religions, and in fact all beliefs capitalize on this inherent "knowing".. some more closely resemble the simplicity of its function, others have ritualized and codified it into the "business of spirituality", a sad but valid commentary on human nature..

I find my comfort is the "knowing" (and, i don't "understand" everything i "know"..) that i am both the individual perspective of the "whole" and, by definition, also the whole itself.. the divine dichotomy.. The issue, for me, is most people are too willing to follow in the the footsteps of others and accept the beliefs of others rather than make their own footsteps, rather than define themselves they prefer to let others do it for them.. to few people take personal responsibility for their own existence, they assign that core aspect of being to some deity or to some other "faith".. the "truth" is within each of us and the only "illusion" is to search elsewhere for it...

"The eyes through which i see "God", are the same eyes through which "God" sees me"..

Many "religions" remove the direct personal relationship with the "whole" (name it what you choose, "God", Tao, Allah, Buddha, Ra, volcanos, etc..) in favor of their ritualized and confined "system" that is self-serving and self-nourishing through the resources of its believers.. so, yes, i feel that religion, in general, desires to eliminate the intellectual exercise of each individual evaluating their inherent "knowledge" through direct experience and finding their own personal relationship with the "whole"..

Bill: As you well know, i too have had direct experiences with situations/people that defy reason and logic by scientific standards, and find those experiences shape my "truths".. but, since i believe that each person creates their own reality, i let others create as they choose (within reason).. when we depart this physical existence it is my belief that we will transcend to a "dimension" (if there is such a thing) that is consistent with the reality we chose here.. many people, many realities, many dimensions..

Yet, for all the crap i just spewed, i still find it my obligation to respect the choices of others (choices without harmful intent, that is..).. it is the the "golden rule", just as i hope people will respect my choices, so too must i respect theirs..

Be well...

[red5angel]

A Qi Gong teacher told me her master could do such things such as walk on water, materialize objects, etc."


Humanity is so desperate to see beyond its current existence,

[BlueTravesty]

what I think is most interesting about this thread is the notion of faith ("blind" or otherwise) being both detrimental to humanity and being exclusive to fundamental religion.

Tell me, when you walk out that door in the morning and make your merry way to work how do you know that the time you choose to venture into the traffic won't put you on a collision course with a drunk driver? If not by faith, surely by intense scientific investigation! You must have woken up 6 hours earlier in the morning to check traffic patterns for the last few days, called your buddies at the police station to inquire about any repeat offenders for driving under the influence, made your rounds to be sure that no one who will be out at that time on your morning commute has any licquor. Perhaps you can swipe the keys of those who do have licquor in their homes, just to be safe. This after you made your hourly engine inspection of your car's motor.

And that flight you took recently? Surely you must have familiarized yourself with the model of aircraft you're flying with, talked extensively with the airline mechanics to make sure they are keeping them well maintained (and of course checking the aircraft yourself, despite their protests- you can't just take these things at face value, after all.) Then, after making sure to do a thorough background check on ALL the passengers on the plane to make sure no one is likely to attempt a hijack, you're on your way to the airport!

Right?

Or maybe you just said "I'm sure everything will be fine, not a problem." And went to work, or took that flight, knowing full well the hazards and dangers thereof, but over it all, a sense of "I will go on, I must go on, no matter what. Everything will be alright." dominates (for most persons, at least.)

The Buddhist may draw on this same faith when faced with the death of a loved one. "I will see them again; in this life, the next, or not at all. It matters not- it will all turn out." The atheist who believes in nothing but what can be proven or disproven might draw upon this same faith when the vast nature of the cosmos makes itself known to them. and they suddenly wonder how all of this came to be. "The universe is a product of a self-contained perpetual cycle, even if science can't fully explain it now, it will someday. The Big Bang and stuff... yeah. Oh well, no time for that- Chapelle's Show is on."

And the Christian may draw upon that same faith when faced with the hard, cold, mechanical world we live in. When faced with the possibility of a universe devoid of intelligent design, they seek out God. "God is real, God is the absolute, He put me here for a reason." Now I lay me down to sleep, etc. etc.

So go ahead and eat that steak- surely you checked the cow it came from for mad cow disease right? And go ahead and drink that beer- there's no need to worry about a disgruntled factory employee putting any strange chemicals in the entire shipment, is there?

It's all good :cool: Now if only I can figure out what the heck I just posted...

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

http://www.wtfpeople.com/openlink.php?LID=7342&SID=645e4711e35bfd4100826784b3586d69

[Ford Prefect]

All religion is anti-knowledge for the most part. Religion is based on faith. Faith is believing in something in the absence of proof. Proof is what drives the scientific method and logical thinking. They kind of butt heads.

[lightsout]

GunnedDownAtrocity, where do you find these things? lol

[Archangel]

FordPerfect,


All religion is anti-knowledge for the most part. Religion is based on faith. Faith is believing in something in the absence of proof. Proof is what drives the scientific method and logical thinking. They kind of butt heads.

There is no such thing as "proof" in science; proofs are found in mathematics and logic. Science is based on observations, theories and EVIDENCE.

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by Archangel
FordPerfect,



There is no such thing as "proof" in science; proofs are found in mathematics and logic. Science is based on observations, theories and EVIDENCE.

Archangel, don't fall into the trap of focusing on specific meanings of words in a language that supports multiple valid meanings for the word. English really is the wrong language for technical debate. Proof and evidence are synonymous in the context of FP's post.

[Archangel]

Archangel, don't fall into the trap of focusing on specific meanings of words in a language that supports multiple valid meanings for the word. English really is the wrong language for technical debate. Proof and evidence are synonymous in the context of FP's post.

Have you debated many Christian apologists before? Proof and evidence are NOT the same thing.

Proof: 1+1=2

IRREFUTABLE as long as the definitions of '1' '2' and '=' hold up


Evidence: Finding a fossil and inferring that it is a hominid.


VERY VERY different things in the field of apologetics.

[FngSaiYuk]

OK, one last time-

Stop trying to debate technical details in a language that is just too flexible. You won't get anywhere due to all the assumptions, generalizations, mixing of terms, etc. My point is that english is just not an ideal language, as you will not get a consensus on your use of terminology. You are NOT in an academic environment where there will be an agreed upon set of specific definitions for terminology that happen to also be typical english words.

Case in point- proof:

- from dictionary.com -
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
Printing.
A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.
A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.

A trial photographic print.
Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
Archaic. Proven impenetrability: “I was clothed in Armor of proof” (John Bunyan).


- from m-w.com -
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE
3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6 a plural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b : a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c : a coin that is struck from a highly-polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d : a test photographic print made from a negative
7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8 a : the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b : strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45% alcohol>

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Religious dogma OTOH starts with a sacred text or belief and then will look for evidence to support it and will ignore or finesse or fudge any evidence to the contrary.

No. This describes fundamentalist religion, which is a minority perspective. There is a rich tradition in western society of critical religious thought, both Christian (eg. the scholastics) and otherwise (eg. the Neoplatonists).


the notion of an all powerful being has logical difficulties. Could God make a knot he cant untie? If yes he isnt all powerful, if no he isnt all powerful either. Either way he isnt all powerful.

The notion of an all powerful being is not logically inconsistent -- omnipotence is limited to logical omnipotence. God's inability to create a four-sided triangle does not count against His potence. "A knot which he cant untie" is an ambiguous phrasing which has the meaning in this context of "a knot which cannot be untied by someone who can untie every knot." But this is the same kind of logical impossibility as four-sided triangles, and similarly does not count against potence. All of the examples of alleged logical inconsistency regarding an omnipotent agent result similarly from indeterminate phrasing mistaken as determinate.

[Merryprankster]

The notion of an all powerful being is not logically inconsistent -- omnipotence is limited to logical omnipotence. God's inability to create a four-sided triangle does not count against His potence. "A knot which he cant untie" is an ambiguous phrasing which has the meaning in this context of "a knot which cannot be untied by someone who can untie every knot." But this is the same kind of logical impossibility as four-sided triangles, and similarly does not count against potence. All of the examples of alleged logical inconsistency regarding an omnipotent agent result similarly from indeterminate phrasing mistaken as determinate.

Yup. I use the example "Can God make a Red that is Blue?" all the time.

No, he can't, by definition. Whatever it is, ceases to be red.

[Archangel]

FngSaiYuk


You are NOT in an academic environment where there will be an agreed upon set of specific definitions for terminology that happen to also be typical english words.

Point taken, you're right we're in a Martial Arts forum after all with no predefined debate structure; I'll lighten up when speaking to various posters. However because English (as you pointed out) has such a vast vocabulary it is in the interest of a coherant discussion that we do define our terms and definitions.


Christopher M,

You last post hinges on your proposition:


omnipotence is limited to logical omnipotence

Definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotence)

Why are you redefining the term?

[Christopher M]

I'm not redefining it, I'm using it as it is used in the discourse in question. If someone wants to argue that 'religion claims the existence of an omnipotent agent, an omnipotent agent is logically inconsistent, therefore religion is logically inconsistent' they are obliged to use the definition of 'omnipotence' which relates to religion's claim. If some other definition is used, the argument simply doesn't follow.

(I'm not sure that the definition you supply is any different than that which I used, because 'the ability to do anything' necessarily means 'the ability to do anything which can be done.' However, the above response is more straight-forward, and sufficient to defend my position.)

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by Christopher M
I'm not redefining it, I'm using it as it is used in the discourse in question. If someone wants to argue that 'religion claims the existence of an omnipotent agent, an omnipotent agent is logically inconsistent, therefore religion is logically inconsistent' they are obliged to use the definition of 'omnipotence' which relates to religion's claim. If some other definition is used, the argument simply doesn't follow.

Heheh, I love the flow of logic in these discussions... it's like getting stoned and coming up with all the answers to everything in the universe...

::grin::

[Archangel]

Christopher M,


they are obliged to use the definition of 'omnipotence' which relates to religion's claim.

To my knowledge, this new definition of omniopotence is not a doctrine in any Christian denomionation. I have found that it is an apologetic used to counter logical inconsistencies as it pertains to God. Apologists have redifined the word instead of redefined God, for what reason... I'm not sure.

The God of today is impotent in relation to the God of old. If God indeed bows to logic as you claim, he (using the masculine form) could not have created time or logic itself.

[Christopher M]

If money can't buy me love, and I claim to have unlimited money, you can observe that I can't buy me love without challenging my claim.

If power cannot accomplish X, and I claim God has unlimited power, you can observe that God cannot accomplish X without challenging my claim.

What you are calling the apologist definition is the only definition possible, and thus cannot possibly differ from a previous definition.

[TAO YIN]

Off topic but close,

I think, "in this day and age," for most of the people but of course not all, it is practically impossible to not have any spirtual belief whatsoever.

Tao

[FuXnDajenariht]

its not off topic....even with all the "advances" in the world. which are mostly technological, people are more than ever running in droves back to ancient beliefs since i guess there are sum voids a new I-pod and a shiiny new truck can't fill. is it ignorance? not everyone can be. i certainly dont think its a god gene. it certainly isn't a fear of death. people face that every day just walking out their doors. its a fact of life. the sad thing is most people seem to think spirituality has to be or is devoid of logic and common sense and they believe anything with the word science attached to it. you can't have proof of god. you have to experience it. you either choose that path or you dont. you can't look down at others who do though.

[Archangel]

"If money can't buy me love, and I claim to have unlimited money, you can observe that I can't buy me love without challenging my claim."

Missing a proposition. In order for this example to be a valid analogy I must add one point

* P1 Money can buy anything
P2 Money can't buy love


=

P1 Power can do anything
P2 Power can't do the logically impossible


(Power in the case is defined as ability)
P1 and P2 break the law of non-contradiction and are thus invalid.

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
the sad thing is most people seem to think spirituality has to be or is devoid of logic and common sense and they believe anything with the word science attached to it. you can't have proof of god. you have to experience it. you either choose that path or you dont. you can't look down at others who do though.

vice versa - whatever path you walk, if no one else is being hurt by it, don't look down on others that aren't on the same path or as far along the same path as you...

Then again, it's the nature of people to compare themselves and others...

[Christopher M]

Why would we accept P1?

[TAO YIN]

Fu Xn,

Cool post. I am not so religious; perhaps I am spiritual at times. I try my best to not look down on others unless they personally hurt me, and even then it's only for a short while usually. Sometimes I think of the Dao for answers. Most times I think it is best to just not concentrate on nothing or everything and then concentrate on it, and then forget it, and then remember it, and so on. The more I try to conclude things, I always seem to conclude there aren't too many conclusions. I stopped asking why and how about most things some time ago. Is this idiocy? Perhaps it is. Reason gave us religions quite some time ago. Is reason anti-intellectual?

To a degree, I disagree with your statement of death. Yes, people walk out of their doors and "face" death every day. However, I know this sounds bad but, have you ever seen an athiest with a gun stuck in his mouth? Do they pray to God/Jesus like a Christian and beg the person with the gun "NO" too, or do they just pray to the person with the gun?

[The Willow Sword]

Religion was developed to try to answer the questions that humanity has asked since the dawn of time " Who am i? why am i here?"

In that time Spirituality has evolved and become a set of values and rules to dictate to us how to truly live ones life. we have morals and values and what we think is right and what we think is wrong,,we base these things on our reactions to certain actions we have taken over the years. religion has attempted to justify violence and killing and acts of kindness and decency.

as we continue to evolve our thought process,,religion now has become a tool for many to justify what they do and how they do it(whatever that may be ie: beheadding someone: helping the less fortunate: sacrificing ones life for whatever reasons).

throughout history we have had our human prophets write and create what THEY think is right and true and just and what they think is evil unjust and cruel "history" "HIS"story.

however we run in to the clash of ideals based on location and how the different tribes of humanity have interacted and lived in those different environments on the earth. those different ideals meet and sometimes they mesh and can co-exist with minimal conflict,,and then there are times when it clashes to the point of millions dying for the sake of one way or one train of thought.

humans evolve to the point of going beyond what they deem to be the spiritual and then look at what is right in front of them and deciphering with much detail the workings of the planet,the human body and the universe ie: SCIENCE. The "New thought process".

now is christianity anti-intellectual? well i can say that i think that christianity has done its very best to quell and suppress intellectual thought,,,but i can also say that science has done its best to destroy the thought process of believing in the meta-physical and the spirit(destroying of faith).

My problem with religion has not been about how one believes they came to be in this universe or how one expresses their faith in those beliefs(non-violently of course) my problem has been those who continue to try and force thier ways and beliefs on to others and totally condemn the other belief system as false or pagan or whatever the derrogatory terms are. My problem with science is not that it dissects everything and tries to forumulate existance and how existence operates,,my problem has been with those who strictly adhere to Science and discount Faith and the Mystery(as i call it,,as the native american peoples call spirituality(god,,whatever).

ALL OF YOU need to REALIZE some things about how we think and how we operate as human beings. we are not a singular mindset that conforms to one thought process,,we have many and ALL those processes have some form of validity to them, no matter how ridiculous they may be. we can act biased all we want but in the end we will formulate and question and reason and rationalize our way down existances endless path until it all ends.
my simple solution is that we REALLY AND TRUELY GET ALONG WITH ONE ANOTHER AND STRIVE TO DO THAT IN A GOOD WAY. try to blend the science and the mystery of things and do not discount one thing because something says it isnt supposed to be that way,,or in the case of science(cannot be proven) what's to prove?

okay im done,,had to get all this out.

1st Amendmant/PEACE/ All my best:TWS

[FuXnDajenariht]

Very long very good article.....

History of Conflict between Religion and Science:

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Articles/history_of_the_conflict.htm

"CHAPTER I.
THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE.
Religious condition of the Greeks in the fourth century before Christ. -- Their invasion of the Persian Empire brings them in contact with new aspects of Nature, and familiarizes them with new religious systems. -- The military, engineering, and scientific activity, stimulated by the Macedonian campaigns, leads to the establishment in Alexandria of an institute, the Museum, for the cultivation of knowledge by experiment, observation, and mathematical discussion. -- It is the origin of Science.

No spectacle can be presented to the thoughtful mind more solemn, more mournful, than that of the dying of an ancient religion, which in its day has given consolation to many generations of men.

Four centuries before the birth of Christ, Greece was fast outgrowing her ancient faith. Her philosophers, in their studies of the world, had been profoundly impressed with the contrast between the majesty of the operations of Nature and the worthlessness of the divinities of Olympus. Her historians, considering the orderly course of political affairs, the manifest uniformity in the acts of men, and that there was no event occurring before their eyes for which they could not find an obvious cause in some preceding event, began to suspect that the miracles and celestial interventions, with which the old annals were filled, were only fictions. They demanded, when the age of the supernatural had ceased, why oracles had become mute, and why there were now no more prodigies in the world.

Traditions, descending from immemorial antiquity, and formerly accepted by pious men as unquestionable truths, had filled the islands of the Mediterranean and the conterminous countries with supernatural wonders -- enchantresses, sorcerers, giants, ogres, harpies, gorgons, centaurs, cyclops. The azure vault was the floor of heaven; there Zeus, surrounded by the gods with their wives and mistresses, held his court, engaged in pursuits like those of men, and not refraining from acts of human passion and crime.

A sea-coast broken by numerous indentations, an archipelago with some of the most lovely islands in the world, inspired the Greeks with a taste for maritime life, for geographical discovery, and colonization. Their ships wandered all over the Black and Mediterranean Seas. The time-honored wonders that had been glorified in the "Odyssey," and sacred in public faith, were found to have no existence. As a better knowledge of Nature was obtained, the sky was shown to be an illusion; it was discovered that there is no Olympus, nothing above but space and stars. With the vanishing of their habitation, the gods disappeared, both those of the Ionian type of Homer and those of the Doric of Hesiod.

But this did not take place without resistance. At first, the public, and particularly its religious portion, denounced the rising doubts as atheism............."

Part 2: http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Articles/history_of_the_conflict_ii.htm

Part 3: http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Articles/history_of_the_conflict_iii.htm

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by TAO YIN
Fu Xn,

To a degree, I disagree with your statement of death. Yes, people walk out of their doors and "face" death every day. However, I know this sounds bad but, have you ever seen an athiest with a gun stuck in his mouth? Do they pray to God/Jesus like a Christian and beg the person with the gun "NO" too, or do they just pray to the person with the gun?

lol no ive never seen anyone with a gun in their mouth fortunately.... it all depends on what beliefs they've cultivated i suppose. if they haven't really though about it i suppose they might fall back on christianity but thats just fear speaking. im sure even some buddhists who believe in reincarnation fear death when it finally comes since you never really know. what i meant by that statement is everyone has a basic acceptance of death just living their lives or everyone would be walled up in bomb shelters out of paranoia. i think its irrelevant when people bring up religion as being a crutch for fear of death. no one knows how they will react when it happens. think about it.... would martial arts exist if people didn't have even a small concern about their safety?

[Archangel]

Chris M,



Why would we accept P1?


Well from dictionary.com

"Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."

I do not see an asterix where it says

*except for the illogical

you know what unlimited means, you know what all-powerful means right?

[FuXnDajenariht]

Mysticism transcends religious definitions,
Islamic, Christian and Jewish faiths each have their own mystic elements.

By Sumayya Ahmad

Published: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

From: http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/04/21/News/Mysticism.Transcends.Religious.Definitions-666465.shtml

Mysticism, which is defined as an immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God, is a religious phenomenon that has occurred across many faiths, including Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

On Monday, the Office of Religious Life put on the program "Mysticism across the Religious Spectrum," featuring three speakers for the three Abrahamic faiths who illuminated the topic in an academic light.

The event highlighted the practices of Sufism, or Islamic mysticism, Christian mysticism in Catholic faiths, as well as Kabbalah, or Jewish mysticism. The speakers discussed how these traditions are practiced, their similarities and the experiences that mystics have encountered.

Megan Reid, assistant professor of religion, spoke about Sufism. Sufism has been part of mainstream Islam for centuries, and began as a formal tradition in the 13th and 14th centuries, she said. "Sufism is a belief in the return to a God who we were at one point were very close to, but are now separated from," she said.

"Sufism has been an interpretive tradition, as response to a scripture. Muslim mystics tend to respond to the Quran (Muslim holy book) predominantly."

Sufis would often take phrases from the Quran and interpret them in a variety of ways, Reid said. For example, the line "Everywhere you turn, there is the face of God" has been explained in many ways by Sufi poets and mystics.

Sufis believe that spiritual enlightenment is always a product of hard work, she said. Some of the ways in which they practice is contemplation of particular words of phrases of the Quran, fasting and bodily exercises such as spending all night in prayer.

"There is a belief of a possibility of extinguishing yourself, and all there is is the consciousness of God," she said.

Reid also said that Sufism currently has a massive worldwide following, both abroad and within the United States. In fact, Reid said that the best-selling poet in America is Rumi, one of the most famous Sufi poets who lived in the 13th century.

Kabbalah is another mystic tradition that has received a lot of attention in mainstream America. Professor Eitan Fishbane of Hebrew Union College spoke about Kabbalah.

"Mysticism in Judiasm is a particular way of looking at the world," he said. "It sees the world as reverberations of the divine presence."

Kabbalists believe there is more to what is real than what meets the eye, Fishbane said. The Jewish scripture, the Torah, is at the very core of Jewish mystical tradition.

"The Torah and the Hebrew Bible as a whole is a text that was subjected to detailed and unending scrutiny to illuminate various meanings," he said. "To Kabbalists, to encounter the text was to encounter the state of God."

Kabbalists practice mysticism in various ways, including meditating on specific letters, closing their eyes and seeing the letter dancing and saying various prayers in order to enter into a divine consciousness, Fishbane said.

Many Kabalistic traditions were influenced by Sufism, since many "like-minded" people lived in the same Middle Eastern region during the time Kabbalah was being established, Fishbane said.

USC religion professor Sheila Briggs, whose emphasis is history and theology in the West, spoke about Christian mysticism. She said that not all branches of Christianity talk about mystical traditions and it is mostly found within older branches of Christianity, such as Catholicism and Episcopalism.

"Mystics in the Christian traditions have two important experiences," she said. "One is the visionary experiences, which can be related to sight or hearing, which is often seen as an awakening and the use of an inward sight.

"The other is the contemplative union with God, where the destiny of the soul is to return to its source."

Briggs said that Christ tends to be central in the visionary experiences of mystics and is often seen as the link between ordinary human beings and God.

Unlike Islamic and Judaic mysticism, Briggs said that Christian mysticism does not respond to a literary interpretation of scriptures. Mystics were always under question for being heretics, she said.

"There was a potential conflict between what is the mystics vision of God and what the Church teaches God to be," she said.

Briggs said mystics often joined monasteries and also underwent disciplines of the body. Like Sufis, Christian mystics also fasted and performed breathing exercises.

It is very noticeable that in Christian traditions, mystics were women who were often of low standing in society, Briggs said.

"These were women who had very little access to the positions of authority in the Church," she said. "Some say that someone very unworthy can have this experiences and there is a great emphasis on humiliation. They recognize how lowly they are, but they were still recognized by God."

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
No. This describes fundamentalist religion, which is a minority perspective. There is a rich tradition in western society of critical religious thought, both Christian (eg. the scholastics) and otherwise (eg. the Neoplatonists).


I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with here. How is what I said regarding religious dogma equivalent to the claim ‘Christianity has no tradition of critical thought.’ The key word there (in case you missed it) is ‘dogma’. According to the dictionary ‘a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof’ alternativey ‘a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts’
.

Originally posted by Christopher M
The notion of an all powerful being is not logically inconsistent -- omnipotence is limited to logical omnipotence.

Since Archangel has already made the response I would have to this argument I wont bother repeating it except to say this: To me (and I believe any unbiased reader) the phrase *omnipotence* means *all powerful* which in turn means *capable of anything*. This is manifestly not the same as *capable of anything which can be done* The phrase *omnipotent but for that which cannot be done* is equivalent to this, the phrase *omnipotent* in and of itself is not. Now if Christians mean the former and not the latter by *omnipotent* than it falls on them to be more precise with their terminology – not on us to accept their redefinition of a word whose meaning is already perfectly clear.

And Archangel is right. Your Beatles analogy is missing a proposition.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
you know what unlimited means, you know what all-powerful means right?

Yes, I do -- but I think it's a point you're confused about, which is why I brought up the money/love example.

When X is unlimited, there is nonetheless the implied limits internal to X. If my ability to jump is unlimited, there is still the implied limits based upon what "jump" means. I'd be able to jump over a car or a house, but I wouldn't be able to jump over "justice", "ampersand", or "gh^s(" -- none of which is a critique against the unlimitedness of my jumping ability.

If an agent's ability to "do" is unlimited, it is still constrained by the internal limits of "do." In other words, just like "my ability to jump is unlimited" means "I can jump over anything which can be jumped over", "an agent's ability to do is unlimited" means "the agent can do anything which can be done."

God's inability to create a four-sided triangle is no more a critique of omnipotence than my inability to jump over gh^s( is a critique of my jumping ability -- both "four-sided triangle" and "gh^s(" are meaningless constructions. The fact that our language allows us to present meaningless constructions is certainly confusing, but it ought not to be taken as meaningful, since that is precisely what it isn't.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with here. How is what I said regarding religious dogma equivalent to the claim ‘Christianity has no tradition of critical thought.’

You offered a juxtaposition between science and religion wherein the latter, you suggest, can only reaffirm a given idea. If this is the case, critical thought is clearly excluded, since it requires the exact opposite. Thus, if critical thought is not excluded in religion, your position must be false. Critical thought is not excluded in religion, therefore your position must be false.

Certainly, if this is not what you intended and you completely agree with me, that would be great.


Since Archangel has already made the response...

Archangel's response is invalid for the reasons given. If you have anything to add, I'd appreciate it. I'll address below what I think is the only new argument you've raised. Let me know if there is anything else in your post which is new and thus unaddressed.


Now if Christians mean the former and not the latter by *omnipotent* than it falls on them to be more precise with their terminology – not on us to accept their redefinition of a word whose meaning is already perfectly clear.

If there is a belief system X which maintains Y and you want to critique X based on Y, it falls on your critique to address Y and not something else, Z. If your critique addresses Z, it is invalid for the reason that it's not critiquing anything pertinent (ie. it's a straw man fallacy).

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Archangel's response is invalid for the reasons given.

I dont agree that a four sided triangle in this context is logically equivalent to a Knot that cant be untied. A four sided triangle is, I agree, a nonsensical construction...a knot that cant be untied is not (there are many everyday sentences in which 'the knot which cant be untied' could meaningfully appear as the subject term, for eg 'the knot which cant be untied was made by Fred, the best knoter in the world' - this contrasts with 'the four sided triangle is in the garage' which has no clear truth conditions and hence no clear meaning (or is meaningul but false if you subscribe to Russells theory)).


Originally posted by Christopher M
If there is a belief system X which maintains Y and you want to critique X based on Y, it falls on your critique to address Y and not something else, Z. If your critique addresses Z, it is invalid for the reason that it's not critiquing anything pertinent (ie. it's a straw man fallacy).

Yes but if there is a belief system X that maintains 'P', where in common and dictionary usage 'P' entails A, but X really means Q when they maintain P, since Q doesnt entail A, then it falls on X to maintain Q and not P rather than to rely on the semantic charity of those who criticise their advocacy of the doctrine P (which may not be forthcoming).

[David Jamieson]

ok, so judging from all the posts and their content, I think it is clear that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. Although, perhaps we can agree that many forms of religiosity are.

btw, from the sermon on the mount we have (matthew):

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I would also say this isn't exactly what could be deemed an original thought and was rather an reiteration of a simple principle in context to the rest of the sermon.

Hillel did indeed make this staement more or less a half century befor jesus, and before him (300 years before Hillel) it was uttered by Isocrates “Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you.”

but even before the greeks, the Buddha Guatama came acroos a group of boys who were teasing a dog near a pond. they were poking at the animal with a stick and generally harrasing it. The Buddha approached the boys and took the stick from them. He then queried the boys "How would you like it if someone were to do to you what you are doing to this creature?" (essentially the message is the same).

In the end, the golden rule is simply an obvious and sound sensible axiom to live by regardless of who said it. Splitting hairs over the original utterance will never bear fruit because it is entirely possible that these thinkers have only been published, the idea of treatment being fair and expecting to be treated as you treat others goes back further than any of them I would suppose.

[FuXnDajenariht]

hmmm...when did i step into algebra class? math was never really my thing....

everyones being.....so, uh....logical.... ;)

[Archangel]

Chris M,

First of all since the Socratic world view is being demolished as we speak by neuroscience , yes you can jump over "justice" or "ampersand". This is another topic however.

I am beginning to see that the original poster who commented on the fallibility of the English language was correct. Lets try this with a more universal language - Mathematics.


Example:

SA = set of actions
A = actions
G = omnipotent being

SA will be infinite, of course

For every subset S of SA, let C(S) be the action by G "G considers the consequences of performing all actions A in S. This is an action that G can perform (it is not logically impossible, and G is allegedly omnipotent), and to each S, there is a unique C(S).

Thus C is a 1-1 mapping from the power set of SA (the set of all subsets of SA) into SA, which is impossible by Cantor's Power Set Theorem (power sets are strictly larger). Contradiction.

[FuXnDajenariht]

lmao...god got turned into a math equation... what are you college graduates debating again? :p

anyway...even if "god" is subject to universal laws it still wouldn't stop him being "god". every religion has a different definition and millions of variations, one for every interpretation... maybe thats the question no?

[Archangel]

LOL, you're absolutely right Fu; sometimes I get carried away. This dilema can really be sorted out if we look at the past.

If we look at God/s from a historical view it started with polytheism and very powerful "Gods". The abrahamic God was conceived and thus had to be more powerful than the competing Gods. The reasoning was, if God was not omnipotent then someone else could imagine a being more powerful than my God and thus my God cannot be the real God, so monotheism implied in some way that God "had to be" omnipotent.

Then with the rise of intellectualism people started asking "can god create dry water" or a "4 sided triangle", some real nasty questions for Theists. Apologists quickly added the caveat "within the bounds of logic".

Now as for the original writers of the bible, I really think that they believed that God could do anything - unbounded - not even by logic. The point is that people should just say that God isn't omnipotent since that is logically impossible and leave it at that without insisting that God must be omnipotent so let us redefine "omnipotent" until it fits with whatever God is.

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol good point. i think its all perspective. maybe "god" is "god" because he is aware of all universal laws as yet unknown to us and therefore their applications. think about the "power" that the laws of electromagnetism has given us now. imagine 1000 years ago the "power" modern technology would have over people. its not hard to imagine that we dont know even a % about reality.

"Of this Law, science has not yet explored more than an infinitesimal fraction.
There are laws in everything and everything is expressive of law. The gods themselves are
subject to the Law. Omnipotence is possible only through absolutely faultless application of these
laws in their entirety" - Henry Laurency

a quote from one of my favorite books...

[matt]

Isaiah 40:verse 7-8


7" The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: when the breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people are grass
8" The grass withers, the flower fades, the word of our god stands forever.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
I dont agree that a four sided triangle in this context is logically equivalent to a Knot that cant be untied.

It's not; but you have misrepresented the issue. "A shape with three sides with four sides" is equivalent to "a knot that cant be untied by someone who can untie every knot" -- both are of the form 'an X with propery A and with property B' where A and B contradict.


Yes but if there is a belief system X that maintains 'P', where in common and dictionary usage 'P' entails A, but X really means Q when they maintain P, since Q doesnt entail A, then it falls on X to maintain Q and not P

Even if this is true, it would only supplement and not in any sense counter my previous argument. All you'd be saying here is, "Yes, what you describe is a straw man fallacy, but it would be nice if X is easier to understand." And that would be nice. But the point about the straw man still stands.

In example, the way a reasonable discussion would go is: you're wrong because you believe A and A is wrong, actually, I don't believe A, I believe B, oh that's cool. Instead what we see is the nonsensical response in that last place of: no you believe A even if you say you don't and hence you're still wrong.

However, I do not agree that "in common usage P entails A [and not Q]" as I have been demonstrating. So in this sense, your argument does not even follow.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
First of all since the Socratic world view is being demolished as we speak by neuroscience , yes you can jump over "justice" or "ampersand".

I would debate this point as well, but I'd agree that it's a different discussion.

Regarding your math, in what way is C a mapping from pSA (powerset of SA) to SA? It seems to me like pSA is larger than SA regardless of C, which seems to me like an additional function applied to S that changes neither SA nor pSA. Can you clarify?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
The abrahamic God was conceived and thus had to be more powerful than the competing Gods. The reasoning was, if God was not omnipotent then someone else could imagine a being more powerful than my God and thus my God cannot be the real God

This is a faulty history of theism, if only for being incomplete. Monotheism is not limited to the Abrahamic God. Regarding Christianity, insofar as it seems to be the main object in our discussion, monotheism is at least as indebted to Hellenic philosophy as to Judaism. In this case, we see a tradition of monotheism evolving from Parmenides' ****genous monism to Plato's Formal causation to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover to Plotinus' One and ultimately to the Christian God.

In this case, the ideological motivation behind omnipotence is not at all as you describe, but rather because omnipotence arises as a natural property of the agent being conceived. For instance, there is no action, nor even one possible, to whose causation cannot be traced ultimately to the Unmoved Mover, by very definition.

If we are to give your argument some weight (that is -- to imagine that it, while being incomplete, nonetheless holds for the set of situations it refers to), we might imagine that the motivations you describe may be accurate to those whose monotheism draws more from Judaism, whereas what I describe would be more accurate to those drawing from Hellenism (certainly, this is not exhaustive of monotheistic traditions, but should be sufficient for sake of discussion).

If we continue giving your argument some weight, agreeing that, in the cases where it holds, the certain definition of 'omnipotence' which you maintain will arise; then we can conclude that the differences in opinion on this point, between for example you and I, would arise naturally enough based on differences in background. That is -- the position I am holding reflects my exposure to Hellenic thought, whereas yours reflects your exposure, in this field, primarily to Judaic.

While I am not sure if, ultimately, I would be willing to give your argument so much weight, this approach certainly has some utility in understanding our present discussion. I would certainly admit that a Christianity divorced of its Hellenism would be intellectually unstable, thus accepting the legitimacy of your formulations insofar as they are understood as dealing with that peculiar context. On the other hand, I would expect you not to extend, then, these formulations beyond that context where they do not belong.

To this I would add only, that you may be enticed to argue that I am able to defend the logical consistency of the monotheistic God on my own terms, but that this is a hollow, or perhaps only narcissistic, victory insofar as it has no implications beyond my personal terms and into the tradition of monotheism as such. To this I would object most strongly, noting that the terms I describe are not at all personal to me, but rather derived from the tradition of philosophical thought which I described at the beginning of this post, and which is most central to monotheistic concepts in the Western tradition.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
It's not; but you have misrepresented the issue.

I feel the misrepresentation lies on your part........


Originally posted by Christopher M
"A shape with three sides with four sides" is equivalent to "a knot that cant be untied by someone who can untie every knot" -- both are of the form 'an X with propery A and with property B' where A and B contradict.

Which is exactly where the logical difficulties with God qua 'omnipotent being' arise - unless of course you mean something else by omnipotent.



Originally posted by Christopher M
Even if this is true, it would only supplement and not in any sense counter my previous argument. All you'd be saying here is, "Yes, what you describe is a straw man fallacy, but it would be nice if X is easier to understand." And that would be nice. But the point about the straw man still stands.

I see. So when Vash originally made the claim that Gods omnipotence could account for the creation of the world in 7 days I should have in fact said:

– If omnipotence in this context is intended to have its standard dictionary meaning i.e. to mean *capable of anything* which entails as a corollary that he is not subject to the laws of logic then that would lead to logical difficulties/contradictions. If this is not the case and you mean something else by omnipotence (something other than the dictionary and common usage – i.e. something other than *capable of anything* which is a subtley but importantly different claim from *capable of anything which can be done*) then the same logical difficulties no longer arise and you are free to go about your business.

That way there would be no straw man fallacy and everyone would be happy:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
I feel the misrepresentation lies on your part.

Ok. But if you only allude to it in this fashion, you have not made a constructive remark.


Which is exactly where the logical difficulties with God qua 'omnipotent being' arise

No, because God can't do either of those things, because neither one of them can be done. Recall that you had objected to the equivalency of those two things, and it was that which my response concerned. You seem to be changing the issue now.


So when Vash originally made the claim that Gods omnipotence could account for...

You'd be free to criticize Vash's position whoever you like. However, if Vash responds by clarifying how you have misrepresented his position, it falls upon your criticism to account for his clarification rather than holding him to your misrepresentation which existed before it.


something other than the dictionary and common usage

I have demonstrated how the dictionary definition is equivalent to how I have been using it (see below), so until or if you can respond to that demonstration, your references of this nature are specious.

As for the 'common usage,' I'm sure that people make all sorts of fallacious conclusions about concepts as a result of not thinking clearly about them and/or being unaware of their theoretical contexts. This doesn't mean we should maintain those fallacies in light of clarifications of such thinking and contexts.

[Christopher M]

Since there seems to be some confusion on this point, I'll rephrase a central argument of mine in a relatively clear fashion. I would like those who disagree with it to specify their point of disagreement.

Consider the formation 'an agent can V (some verb) X (some object).'

(1) The possible Xs are implicitly constrained by the meaning of V. In other words, there are only certain Xs to which V may possibly apply, according to what V is.

(2) It necessarily follows from (1) that when a given X is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to V, that we can conclude nothing about the potency of the agent to accomplish V.

(3) It necessarily follows from (2) that any critique of any agent to accomplish any V is defeated by demonstrating that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to V.

(4) In the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question, I have demonstrated that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to the V in question.

(5) It necessarily follows from (3) and (4) that the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question has been defeated.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Ok. But if you only allude to it in this fashion, you have not made a constructive remark.

Consider it within the context of the rest of my post.


Originally posted by Christopher M
You'd be free to criticize Vash's position however you like.

Thanks.:rolleyes:


Originally posted by Christopher M
However, if Vash responds by clarifying how you have misrepresented his position, it falls upon your criticism to account for his clarification rather than holding him to your misrepresentation which existed before it.

True.....but he didnt....... hence my response.


Originally posted by Christopher M
I have demonstrated how the dictionary definition is equivalent to how I have been using it (see below)

Its certainly true that you *think* you have demonstrated how they are equivalent.


Originally posted by Christopher M
so until or if you can respond to that demonstration, your references of this nature are specious.

See below


Originally posted by Christopher M
As for the 'common usage,' I'm sure that people make all sorts of fallacious conclusions about concepts as a result of not thinking clearly about them and/or being unaware of their theoretical contexts. This doesn't mean we should maintain those fallacies in light of clarifications of such thinking and contexts.

Agreed. Fair point.

[David Jamieson]

The grass withers, the flower fades, the word of our god stands forever.

This concept interests me. Always has. For the simple fact that although religious text may be divinely inspired in some way, that inspiration is the authors, and teh authors are human, not god.

So any words, religious, textual, canonic or otherwise are merely the words of men.

God hasn't penned anything to the best of my knowledge.

Is there a pen? and if so why? :p

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Since there seems to be some confusion on this point, I'll rephrase a central argument of mine in a relatively clear fashion. I would like those who disagree with it to specify their point of disagreement.

Consider the formation 'an agent can V (some verb) X (some object).'

(1) The possible Xs are implicitly constrained by the meaning of V. In other words, there are only certain Xs to which V may possibly apply, according to what V is.

Agreed

Originally posted by Christopher M
(2) It necessarily follows from (1) that when a given X is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to V, that we can conclude nothing about the potency of the agent to accomplish V.

Agreed


Originally posted by Christopher M
(3) It necessarily follows from (2) that any critique of any agent to accomplish any V is defeated by demonstrating that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to V.

Agreed


Originally posted by Christopher M
(4) In the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question, I have demonstrated that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to the V in question.

No you haven't. You have confused a category mistake with a logical impossibility.

To illustrate:

'God cannot jump over beauty' involves a category mistake

'God cannot make a four sided triangle' does not.

You may say for the purposes of your argument it does not matter. However God being unable to create logically impossible objects means that he is subject to the laws of logic, specifically to the law of contradiction. Thus it follows that God is not omnipotent to the extent that he is subject to the laws of logic and thus it follows that anyone claiming that God is omnipotent needs to suffix it with *the laws of logic notwithstanding*.


Originally posted by Christopher M
(5) It necessarily follows from (3) and (4) that the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question has been defeated.

There's still life in the old girl yet. See J L Mackies 'the miracle of theism'.

Anyway thats all folks. Anymore and the semantic circles will make me dizzy.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Consider it within the context of the rest of my post.

Ok. I still don't see any misrepresentation. If you're simply referring to our debate concerning what constitutes omnipotence, that seems like the point of contention rather than a misrepresentation.


Thanks.:rolleyes:

:confused: Is this indignancy? If so, it seems odd to ask me what I'm proposing, then act offended when I reply. But FWIW, I'm sorry I made you feel indignant.


True.....but he didnt....... hence my response.

I had assumed you were using that as an analogy for our discussion. If you're just making a point about your discussion with Vash, that's between you and him.


Its certainly true that you *think* you have demonstrated how they are equivalent.

Well, yes. But since I *think* that because I've demonstrated it with reason, there doesn't seem to be much to begrudge me on.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
No you haven't. You have confused a category mistake with a logical impossibility.

Well, no. I never called 'four sided triangles' a category error. However, I did offer an example of a category error as a thing prohibited by the internal constraints I am talking about. If you examine that post, I gave three examples of such constraints, each of which was a different kind of error.


You may say for the purposes of your argument it does not matter.

That's exactly what I'll say. Both category errors and the kind of logical errors as 'four sided triangles' are among the internal constraints I am speaking of. This is an elaboration of my position, not a critique of it!


However God being unable to create logically impossible objects means that he is subject to the laws of logic, specifically to the law of contradiction. Thus it follows that God is not omnipotent to the extent that he is subject to the laws of logic and thus it follows that anyone claiming that God is omnipotent needs to suffix it with *the laws of logic notwithstanding*.

Your conclusion here hangs upon a contradiction between "omnipotent" and "omnipotent with the laws of logic notwithstanding" -- which is precisely the thing I have refuted. Thus, far from refuting my position, this argument is refuted by it.

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
This concept interests me. Always has. For the simple fact that although religious text may be divinely inspired in some way, that inspiration is the authors, and teh authors are human, not god.

So any words, religious, textual, canonic or otherwise are merely the words of men.

God hasn't penned anything to the best of my knowledge.

Is there a pen? and if so why? :p

With the exception of the Baghavad Gita, as it is the word of God, direct and unaltered through one of God's avatars.

[FuXnDajenariht]

well...i can make a 4 sided triangle....no one will believe me, but its true. :p

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
well...i can make a 4 sided triangle....no one will believe me, but its true. :p

d00d, let's keep it x + yi where y=0...

Translation for those not so math inclined- Keep it real, yo

[FuXnDajenariht]

are u denying my 4 sided 3 sided shape? yo that sounds like a challenge... i hafta defend my honor now. defend yourself foo' :p

[FuXnDajenariht]

dont try throwin math equations at me. that can't save you....

[ChuanFa631987]

As a Christian and as a person, something burns inside of me when I feel misunderstood.
Such is the case now. I find it unappealing when people try to seperate faith and knowledge.
However, I would ask this, "Does not believing in evolution make a person anti-itellectual?"
I would say no as even if evolution is correct and one didn't believe in it, one would be in denial but could still be very intellectual in other aspects of life. In other words, just because someone has a different view of things, doesn't make them unintellectual or irrational. I mean, can anyone prove anything completely?
Being raised in a Christian culture, it's not like I've been taught, "You don't need education because you have God and don't ever question what you've been taught." I learn about life (Science, math, literature,etc.) and see how people view life, Christian and non-Christian, while still believing in God.
Sorry, if that seemed unorganized...
I want to end this post by saying why I believe in God. To me, Jesus Christ is the reason for who I am and what I do. For me, relationships, martial arts, animation, etc. all come out of human beings being made in the image of God and faith in Jesus Christ strengthens that. For me, Jesus Christ gives life to all things (that are good).

[FuXnDajenariht]

if your wondering, i said that because if you think about it, all a triangle is, is a word meaning a 3 sided shape. i suppose if i could get enough people to believe triangle means a 4 sided shape it would change the definition. remember the "flat earth society"? lol it doesn't have to be supernatural. ;)

if i were god i guess i could mindfu(k the rest of the world into believing a triangle is 4 sided. but it probably wouldn't really matter to me if i could create 'human' life, advanced biotechnology being a bit more interestin...

lol and on a really boring millenia when i get of tired of creating stuff i guess i could blink a knot into existence that even i had difficulty untying but finally when i get ****ed off and frustrated i could give myself the powers to unty it. sorta like a momentary power reduction... illogical omnipotence doesn't have to be logical.

[Archangel]

Chris M,


I would debate this point as well, but I'd agree that it's a different discussion.

LOL looking back I made an error, it's the Platonic world view that was being destroyed. If you have a chance check out "Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought" Lakoff and Johnson.


Regarding your math, in what way is C a mapping from pSA (powerset of SA) to SA? It seems to me like pSA is larger than SA regardless of C, which seems to me like an additional function applied to S that changes neither SA nor pSA. Can you clarify?

For every possible subset S of SA there is a unique possible action C(S)

The power set (set of all subsets) therefore has one C(S) per subset S; a 1-to-1 mapping. All C(S) must be in SA by definition; so given that there are actions other than C in the set SA, this leads to the conclusion that SA is larger than its own power set. Which is a contradictory conclusion.


Regarding Christianity, insofar as it seems to be the main object in our discussion, monotheism is at least as indebted to Hellenic philosophy as to Judaism.

Can you site me examples in Hellenistic Philosophy that affirms your statement that an omnipotent being is bound by logic. The trinity is most certainly a Hellenistic construct where God or should I I say "Gods" are breaking the law of identity.


In this case, the ideological motivation behind omnipotence is not at all as you describe, but rather because omnipotence arises as a natural property of the agent being conceived. For instance, there is no action, nor even one possible, to whose causation cannot be traced ultimately to the Unmoved Mover, by very definition.

Aristotle, Kalam, Aquinas... no one really has been able to make this argument work without contradictory propositions.


To this I would add only, that you may be enticed to argue that I am able to defend the logical consistency of the monotheistic God on my own terms, but that this is a hollow, or perhaps only narcissistic, victory insofar as it has no implications beyond my personal terms and into the tradition of monotheism as such. To this I would object most strongly, noting that the terms I describe are not at all personal to me, but rather derived from the tradition of philosophical thought which I described at the beginning of this post, and which is most central to monotheistic concepts in the Western tradition.

Okay, now you're anticipating my response and answering before I get a chance to respond. In the interest of a charitable discussion I suggest that we each refrain from this type of debate.

[Archangel]

Chuan,


"Does not believing in evolution make a person anti-itellectual?"

There is a strange irony to this statement, but I digress. Chuan believe what you like, who are any of us to tell you what to believe. My only advice is to be consistant. If you don't believe in evolution don't go and fill your car up with gasoline; they use the same old earth geology that Evolution is based on. Do not believe in nuclear Physics because radiometric dating techniques are used to verify the ages of the fossils. Do not believe in Biology because most of Biology is based on the evolutionary process. You also have to come to the grips with the fact that the 95% of scientists that do believe in the evolutionary theory are incompetent or dishonest.

[FuXnDajenariht]

daaayuum....approachin 200 posts on religion thread and no signs of flaming. you people are slippin.... :D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
LOL looking back I made an error, it's the Platonic world view that was being destroyed.

My guess was that you were making a reference to realism, so the meaning got through OK, I think.


Can you site me examples in Hellenistic Philosophy that affirms your statement that an omnipotent being is bound by logic.

I ought to have simply referenced a philosophical introduction to this issue from the beginning. Here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/) is one. It offers the examples of Aquinas and Maimonides as maintaining the view I describe, as well as characterizing it as that of "traditional Western theism."


The trinity is most certainly a Hellenistic construct where God or should I I say "Gods" are breaking the law of identity.

No: the persons of the Trinity are a unity insofar as they are cosubstantial, it is not alleged that they are identical.


Aristotle, Kalam, Aquinas... no one really has been able to make this argument work without contradictory propositions.

Well, the only contradictory proposition introduced so far is the point in dispute.


Okay, now you're anticipating my response and answering before I get a chance to respond.

No: the assertion that I am introducing definitions which are limited to my personal constructions rather than being applicable to the tradition of monotheism has already been well established in the discussion.


For every possible subset S of SA there is a unique possible action C(S)

If you have defined C as 'the A by G', isn't C(S) a category error, as opposed to C(A)?

Do you have any response to the argument I laid out in 5 points near the bottom of page 12?

[MoreMisfortune]

i once heard this sentance, i think its cool

"buncha wankers try to defend their religion
using... arguments... of logic
though...
religion is
illogic"

[Archangel]

I ought to have simply referenced a philosophical introduction to this issue from the beginning. Here is one. It offers the examples of Aquinas and Maimonides as maintaining the view I describe, as well as characterizing it as that of "traditional Western theism."

Actually... a very good argument; I may have to rethink my position.



No: the persons of the Trinity are a unity insofar as they are cosubstantial, it is not alleged that they are identical.

So then if they are 3 seperate beings than Christianity is really a polytheistic religion disguised as a monotheistic one.



Well, the only contradictory proposition introduced so far is the point in dispute.

We can look at this further, I am at work right now so I wont be able to tackle this topic till later.


If you have defined C as 'the A by G', isn't C(S) a category error, as opposed to C(A)?

Do you mean "function applied outside its domain of definition"

Well no, C is a function which is defined for all subsets of SA (= on the power set of SA), but its values are elements of SA. Cantor says that this is impossible if the function is 1-1.


Do you have any response to the argument I laid out in 5 points near the bottom of page 12?

I haven't even looked at them. I only responded to the questions that were going back and forth between us. I'll have a look at them tonight if I get a chance.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
So then if they are 3 seperate beings than Christianity is really a polytheistic religion disguised as a monotheistic one.

No: monotheism does not deny a multitude of spiritual beings, it only maintains that at the fundamental analysis there is but one essence (hypostasis, thing) and it is to that which the term 'God' applies. In Christianity, the three Persons of the Trinity are reducible to a single essence, God -- thus describing the monotheistic conception.


C is a function which is defined for all subsets of SA, but its values are elements of SA.

I think I see what you're saying. Missing punctuation from the original formulation had me confused. But I still don't see how how it's meaningful.

It seems like C merely describes a set of A's with one member in every S. There's nothing about C which has selected for omnipotence, insofar as we could just as easily have imagined C to be something uncontentious, like my considerations of A's, and we'd be left with the exact same problem. If this is true, the argument doesn't say anything about omnipotence.

[David Jamieson]

man, all these trees are getting in the way of my appreciation of the forest!

[SPJ]

A religion is a belief system that explains or encompasses universal truth about everything including life.

Jesus said that He is life, truth and the way/path/Dao.

We have to go thru him to reach God.

So a religion will include both logic and illogic.

Logic is based on some premises agreed or proven.

Anything inconsistent with the premises or not explained by them are considered illogic.

However, logics are observed and conceived by human.

There will be things not observed yet or not observable or beyond the conceptions of human current understandings of things.

[Archangel]

No: monotheism does not deny a multitude of spiritual beings, it only maintains that at the fundamental analysis there is but one essence (hypostasis, thing) and it is to that which the term 'God' applies. In Christianity, the three Persons of the Trinity are reducible to a single essence, God -- thus describing the monotheistic conception.

So, what blocks us - you, me, everyone else, from also being reducible to that same essence - in effect if you accept the trinity how can you argue against someone who claim "We are all God in that sense"? If the father, son and holy ghost all can be reduced to "God" so they are one while still being three, why not say that all the angels and you and me and everyone else and everything else is also part of the same essence? What makes the three of them so special?



It seems like C merely describes a set of A's with one member in every S. There's nothing about C which has selected for omnipotence, insofar as we could just as easily have imagined C to be something uncontentious, like my considerations of A's, and we'd be left with the exact same problem. If this is true, the argument doesn't say anything about omnipotence.

Well, the point is that C(S) is a valid action for an omnipotent being but it is not neceessarily so for a non-omnipotent being.

Therefore, unless you have omnipotency involved, the argument falls apart and so it cannot be used to show that "less than omnipotent" is logically impossible.

For example, for me, I can do a lot of actions - say the set SA. However, I cannot for any arbitary subset of SA consider the consequences of performing those actions. If I were omnipotent I could but I am not so I can't. Therefore, there is no such mapping C(S) in this case as most subsets would not have a corresponding action C(S). I would have such an action only for selected subsets and so the mapping is not 1-1 and so the contradiction does not appear.

As for your post on page 12 can you clarify point 4:

"In the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question, I have demonstrated that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to the V in question"

Which particular X and V are we talking about here?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Archangel
why not say that all the angels and you and me and everyone else and everything else is also part of the same essence?

Indeed -- why not say that?


What makes the three of them so special?

Being immediately (that is -- with no intervening steps) and independently (that is -- without requiring the presence or activity of any other agent) reducible to the ultimate essence.


Well, the point is that C(S) is a valid action for an omnipotent being but it is not neceessarily so for a non-omnipotent being.

Why do you suppose I can't consider doing an action? If you find "considering" to be a contentious action, we can formulate any number of less contentious examples which nonetheless result in the same situation. For instance, we could say let C be the action of me giving a name to the S in question.


"In the critique of the monotheistic concept of God in question, I have demonstrated that the X in question is excluded as a result of constraints implicit to the V in question"

The V is the verb in question, and the X is the object of the verb. In "Can God make a knot he cant untie?" the V is "make" and the X is "a knot he cant untie."